Extinction Rebellion

[Brian Peacock]

My impression was that the ER wanted zero emissions in 5 or 6 years, earlier if possible. That I consider unrealistic...

Why?

... but the 10 - 12 years should be achievable with some hard work, and the election of governments who are serious about it. So, put me a fair way up the side of the horseshoe opposite the deniers, but not at the very tip, if that's where ER lives......

So when do we start and what's the first, say, five items that need new policies?

[JimC]

1. Because it would be impossible to construct the vast array of wind and solar required the world over, even if we are talking only the replacement of coal-fired power stations in 5 years. 10 - 12 years, maybe...

2. The low hanging fruit is replacing electricity from coal with electricity from renewables, plus extra to account for the rise of electric vehicles (which will make a dint in emissions from liquid fuel for transport). This should be accompanied by a concerted push for energy efficient appliances and better home insulation.

3. Replacing the fuel burnt in ships and planes is harder to achieve technically, but can be worked on.

4. Large scale re-forestation, both as a carbon sink and to regenerate ecosystems, plus more forests grown for permanent wood products, such as wood for construction, which locks away more carbon, and reduces concrete use.

5. A hard, rational look at the newer types of nuclear power stations, such as Thorium reactors.

6. Better recycling of all materials, particularly plastics, but also reducing food wastage (for a variety of reasons), and making sure that organic waste of all forms is composted rather than going to land-fill, where it generates methane, a potent Greenhouse gas.

There are other actions as well, of course, possibly even looking at technical solutions to removing CO2 from the atmosphere, or at least from the flues of fossil fuel power stations, before they are phased out.

[JimC]

This is depressing reading, from an Australian point of view: https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/201 ... e/11420654

When we think of big fossil-fuel-producing nations, it's usually Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and maybe Venezuela that spring to mind — but a new report places Australia near the very top of that list.

The analysis, released on Monday by public policy think tank the Australia Institute, measures fossil fuel exports according to their carbon dioxide-emissions potential.

It ranks Australia as the world's third-biggest exporter behind only Russia and Saudi Arabia.

In other words, when Australian fossil fuels — primarily coal — are burned overseas, the amount of carbon dioxide they produce is higher than the exported emissions of nearly all the world's biggest oil- and gas-producing nations, like Iraq and Kuwait.

Australia mines about 57 tonnes of CO2 potential per person each year, about 10 times the global average, and exports 7 per cent of the world's fossil fuel CO2 potential, the report found.

Of all the coal produced in Australia, about 75% is exported, mostly to east Asian countries. Most of the remaining 25% is used in domestic electricity production, with some used as coking coal in steel production. Some progress is being made in replacing coal burnt for local power by renewables (mostly via action from the states, and market forces - the current Federal Government is a climate change dinosaur), but unless the export of coal slows, we will continue to be one of the world's biggest enablers of greenhouse gas emissions.

One can simply hope that overseas demand for coal will slacken, as current governments are not interested in reducing coal exports. Part of the reason that the Coalition won the last election, surprising the pundits, was opposition to any slow down in coal mining in several key rural electorates, particularly in Queensland (the fear was that an Labour government might move in that direction, however tentatively). Jobs, local jobs, was the myopic catch cry...

[Brian Peacock]

[pErvinalia]

I see some terrrrsts there..

[Brian Peacock]

1. Because it would be impossible to construct the vast array of wind and solar required the world over, even if we are talking only the replacement of coal-fired power stations in 5 years. 10 - 12 years, maybe...

2. The low hanging fruit is replacing electricity from coal with electricity from renewables, plus extra to account for the rise of electric vehicles (which will make a dint in emissions from liquid fuel for transport). This should be accompanied by a concerted push for energy efficient appliances and better home insulation.

3. Replacing the fuel burnt in ships and planes is harder to achieve technically, but can be worked on.

4. Large scale re-forestation, both as a carbon sink and to regenerate ecosystems, plus more forests grown for permanent wood products, such as wood for construction, which locks away more carbon, and reduces concrete use.

5. A hard, rational look at the newer types of nuclear power stations, such as Thorium reactors.

6. Better recycling of all materials, particularly plastics, but also reducing food wastage (for a variety of reasons), and making sure that organic waste of all forms is composted rather than going to land-fill, where it generates methane, a potent Greenhouse gas.

There are other actions as well, of course, possibly even looking at technical solutions to removing CO2 from the atmosphere, or at least from the flues of fossil fuel power stations, before they are phased out.

First off, we've had 30+ years of aspirations on climate change and the environment, and CO2 emissions are at their highest levels ever and increasing. We're aware of the thermodynamic properties of CO2 and understand that its capacity to store heat in a volume rises exponentially along with parts per million. It's estimated that 100 companies account for 80% of CO2 emissions, and we know the kinds of climate and environmental impacts that will occur if this situation continues. CO2 is one among a number of greenhouse gases.

That said let's just take the first item on your list above as an example...

1. Aim for five years, settle for 10. If we can agree on that then its purely a matter of how to shift an economy away from fossil fuels.

People have been working on that, and solutions generally combine progressively taxing fossils out of existence while subsidising the material costs of new infrastructure - disinvestment of fossils becomes reinvestment in renewables. There's a Carbon hump in the gearing up process but after that it's a falling curve. The smart money will jump the fossil ship so states will have to subsidise a declining fossil energy sector to limit disruption (because we need to maintain the energy supply to renew the infrastructure), but do so according to a tight decommissioning timetable.

Again that's only an aspiration unless it's implemented, so what we real need is action towards that end now. This is why XR are seeking to galvanise the public to demand action from government, and an important part of their demands is that the government should acknowledge and promote the unvarnished facts about the state we're in and what science tells us about the consequences of inaction. So I would only add that we need governments to honour their public safety and public information obligation, as they would during an epidemic for example, and then program legislation. There's no reason why that couldn't be in place within a month ,and we can address the other point on your list in a similar manner.

[JimC]

Brian Peacock wrote:

So I would only add that we need governments to honour their public safety and public information obligation, as they would during an epidemic for example, and then program legislation. There's no reason why that couldn't be in place within a month ,and we can address the other point on your list in a similar manner.

And I wish I could wave a magic wand, and make current governments do just that. But they won't, and that's why we need a groundswell of popular support to elect new governments. Galvanising by groups such as ER could play a part, unless they unnecessarily antagonise people.

[Brian Peacock]

Which is why we need the unvarnished facts out among the general public, acknowledged and promote by governments. Imagine a disease that if contracted today would result in a 70% mortality rate in 20 years time, and the government sat on its hands - we'd soon have rather a lot to say about it wouldn't we(?). One doesn't have to invoke magic here, it's a matter of public and political will. Again, you don't dispute the science do you, so doesn't action now seem obligatory? And if so, then the question becomes what can you or I do to make that happen?

[JimC]

I rather hope, Brian, that you have seen that all my posts have stated quite clearly that action is needed, in terms of accelerating the current slow pace of change to renewables. My two, rather minor cavils with ER is firstly to do with setting impossible timelines (technically impossible, not just politically), and secondly, that their public protests (which of course is generally a good thing) do not antagonise the general public. Bolting themselves to the office doors of coal companies will be dramatic, and achieve good publicity, as opposed to shutting down city centres, affecting all...

[Brian Peacock]

For me XR have highlighted that what I've known about in the abstract - climate change - is no longer something I can ignore, or if not strictly ignore it's at least something I can no longer do nothing about. If people like us, people who respect the scientific method and are quite well informed on the issues, people who still remember a time before global warming became an existential crisis, if people like us choose to nothing to change things for the better then aren't we failing to meet our responsibilities to the next generation - to our own kids and grand kids and their generation? The problem, I fear, is not that we are unable to act collectively to reverse the effects of the industrialisation of our societies, but that we lack the ability to imagine how that might be achieved. If the science is to be believed we need to get the ball rolling now, which is why I've lent my shoulder to XR's cause in the hope that the small amount of energy I can contribute can help that ball pick up momentum that little bit quicker.

I'm encouraging everyone to find an XR group in their area and just go along once and see what they make of it. Talk to the people, find out who they are and what they're about, share ideas.

https://ausrebellion.earth/

[JimC]

Well, my two lads have jobs where they can at least make some contribution. David is a sustainability manager at a council, and is pushing them to adopt a zero carbon approach, involving their own solar panels, plus sourcing the slightly more expensive electricity that comes from renewable sources, as well as lots of tree planting. Nick's job in planning includes making sure that bike lanes and public transport routes, for example, are always planned in advance for any new development - he always rides to work in the city himself...

So, it's not just political action, but personal action.

[Brian Peacock]

In our current corporate-financed political landscape that looks like political action to me.

[JimC]

I've joined Climate Rebellion Australia!

I might join in some of their protests in Melbourne, although I still have doubts about whether the tactic of blocking commuter traffic for long periods is counter-productive or not. However, I would chain myself to the door of a coal company's offices!

[Brian Peacock]

I've joined Climate Rebellion Australia!

I might join in some of their protests in Melbourne, although I still have doubts about whether the tactic of blocking commuter traffic for long periods is counter-productive or not. However, I would chain myself to the door of a coal company's offices!

Huzzah! Another scientifically literate rationalist for the cause. I'm positive you have a range of useful skills and experience to add into the mix - it's not all about gluing your arse to the road or chaining yourself to the railings.

[pErvinalia]

Good stuff, Jim!