IPCC climate report

Forums › Off topic › IPCC climate report

1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | ... | 23

1623 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2131984 22-Nov-2018 16:14

I don’t see much of a difference in having a field full of cabbages vs a field with sheep in it. Both require roughly the same equipment for getting the grass/cabbages to grow, harvest and transport to the store. And when one factors in things like people don’t make clothes out if cabbages and the amount of produce waste when it doesn’t meat quality standards, it seems to me any difference would be marginal at best.

Software Engineer
(the practice of real science, engineering and management)
A.I. (Automation rebranded)
Gender Neutral
(a person who believes in equality and who does not believe in/use stereotypes. Examples such as gender, binary, nonbinary, male/female etc.)

...they/their/them...

SaltyNZ

8225 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2132043 22-Nov-2018 17:11

Plus I’ve never had terrible farts from eating roast lamb.

Just sayin’.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

MikeAqua

7779 posts

Uber Geek

#2132379 23-Nov-2018 08:42

Rikkitic:

There is an additional factor here that should at least be looked at. I don't know what significance it has, if any. I live on a farm that is no longer farming but I am surrounded by grass paddocks used by others for grazing sheep and cows. This is exactly what you are talking about. But every year in early spring we are buried in clouds of fertiliser and weed killer that get dumped for days on end from low-flying aircraft to stimulate the grass growth and suppress unwanted vegetation. Whatever effect this may or may not have on the environment, it certainly makes a hell of a mess of anything not under cover before it all gets washed into the lifeless streams below. Does this also count as an emission?

That's illegal. Fertiliser and in particular herbicide and pesticide sprays should not be allowed to drift across property boundaries, especially onto houses etc.

There are other emissions from pastoral farming - nitrogen leaching into rivers and NOx from nitrogen in the soils. These can be minimised (careful application, pasture species and pasture management, solid management, riparian strips) on most soil types. The more intensive types of production (e.g dairy) tend to be worse. Extensive sheep and beef operations are less impactful.

From an environmental perspective, all terrestrial farming is extremely impactful, because it involves clearing the natural ecosystem and replacing with pasture or crops.

Mike

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2136061 28-Nov-2018 15:45

To return to the issue of being the first penguin, I think this example from Norway is interesting. Unlike us they are a major oil producer, but I think they are roughly comparable in terms of population and other measures. And unlike us, they are making a big commitment to electric vehicles in spite of their status as an oil producer. Being a small penguin doesn't seem to be holding them back from going first and setting an example to the rest of the world.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#2136209 28-Nov-2018 17:46

Rikkitic:
To return to the issue of being the first penguin, I think this example from Norway is interesting. Unlike us they are a major oil producer, but I think they are roughly comparable in terms of population and other measures. And unlike us, they are making a big commitment to electric vehicles in spite of their status as an oil producer. Being a small penguin doesn't seem to be holding them back from going first and setting an example to the rest of the world.

Norway knows that if they stopped producing oil, it would make practically no difference to world emissions. So they drill and sell the oil. And use the money to become more self sufficient, as well as investing it.

My understanding is that Norway's oil reserves will also reach the end of their economic life in the next few decades. So reducing domestic oil consumption also has non environmental benefits.

Unlike with the current government. Who want to stop oil drilling, and forgo the income that could be spent on environmental measures. And they haven't even Kickstarted a renewable generation building program. As we will be needing lots of extra generation. Both to replace existing fossil fuel generation. And to support EVs and other usage that is currently supplied by fossil fuels.

TwoSeven

1623 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2136210 28-Nov-2018 17:49

It might be worth mentioning that Norway is one of the richest countries in the world by capita. I would suggest that their investment capability alternatives is a lot greater than others

...they/their/them...

Hammerer

2476 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2136228 28-Nov-2018 18:38

Rikkitic:

To return to the issue of being the first penguin, I think this example from Norway is interesting. Unlike us they are a major oil producer, but I think they are roughly comparable in terms of population and other measures.

The line that NZ and Norway are "roughly comparable" gets trotted quite a lot - more so since a certain power company has been promoting it to manipulate public opinion of what they are doing.

I think of important statistics like our ability to fund first penguin activities: NZ's GDP/capita is less than USD40,000 whereas Norway's is more than USD90,000. The difference in GDP/capita between the two countries is 2.4 times in Norway's favour. That difference is greater than the difference in income between someone on the minimum wage and a top of scale state school teacher. I wouldn't say such a difference makes us "roughly comparable" particularly when we don't have the purchasing power or surplus we need to do a lot of the things Norway is.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Dingbatt

6756 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2136394 29-Nov-2018 08:06

Interesting opinion piece in yesterday's Herald (shabby little tabloid) by the mayor of Taranaki, who I concede may have a slightly biased point of view.
http://www2.nzherald.co.nz/the-country/news/article.cfm?c_id=16&objectid=12166840

Essentially a company that produces electricity from natural gas with carbon dioxide capture, which promises to be "emissions free" and they want to set up in Taranaki.
Greenpeace quoted in the piece as opposed regardless. I will be interested to see where the NZ government stands on this.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2136396 29-Nov-2018 08:18

Dingbatt: Interesting opinion piece in yesterday's Herald (Shabby little tabloid) by the mayor of Taranaki, who I concede may have a slightly biased point of view.
http://www2.nzherald.co.nz/the-country/news/article.cfm?c_id=16&objectid=12166840

Essentially a company that produces electricity from natural gas with carbon dioxide capture, which promises to be "emissions free" and they want to set up in Taranaki.
Greenpeace quoted in the piece as opposed regardless. I will be interested to see where the NZ government stands on this.

Very much so. Glad Norman isn't still the leader of the Green Party. If Shaw bagged this, the Green Party needs to be publicaly shamed by all of us, as they are not a Green party at all, if they do not support green energy. They can go back and plant native trees and remove nascella tussock instead of being involved in a Government.

Shaw needs to make a stand that he supports emission free energy to reduce emission energy use, and he also supports improving an economy

Dingbatt

6756 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2136400 29-Nov-2018 08:34

tdgeek:
Dingbatt: Interesting opinion piece in yesterday's Herald (Shabby little tabloid) by the mayor of Taranaki, who I concede may have a slightly biased point of view.
http://www2.nzherald.co.nz/the-country/news/article.cfm?c_id=16&objectid=12166840

Essentially a company that produces electricity from natural gas with carbon dioxide capture, which promises to be "emissions free" and they want to set up in Taranaki.
Greenpeace quoted in the piece as opposed regardless. I will be interested to see where the NZ government stands on this.

Very much so. Glad Norman isn't still the leader of the Green Party. If Shaw bagged this, the Green Party needs to be publicaly shamed by all of us, as they are not a Green party at all, if they do not support green energy. They can go back and plant native trees and remove nascella tussock instead of being involved in a Government.

Shaw needs to make a stand that he supports emission free energy to reduce emission energy use, and he also supports improving an economy

And if the technology can be refined to the point where coal could be used in the same way, then that too would be a win environmentally and economically. Or even burning timber, which would be even better. Capture the current CO2 in trees, burn them sequestering the CO2 produced, use the electricity. Better because it is using current carbon rather than historic.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2136403 29-Nov-2018 08:40

Yes. There is nothing wrong with burning fossil fuels, the problem is emissions. If you can burn FF and have no emissions, that's a huge bonus. Employment, supplementing green hydro, which would give a buffer as we move people to electricity, and many so ons.

The Stuff article did mention that we are a soft touch for this, give support, then the company flags it and leaves, with the IP they gathered for free. The Govt needs to be in this as a partner I feel.

SaltyNZ

8225 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2136408 29-Nov-2018 08:48

I would still be hesitant about it as the science of carbon capture and sequestration is not settled. Assuming we won't be using the CO2 for fracking like the Americans in the article, then we're going to be pumping high pressure CO2 into the ground and hoping it stays there forever. But forever is a long time, and nobody is really sure we can stop it from leaking, or from dissolving into ground water, on long enough time scales, or even what a 'long enough' time scale is.

But there are other reasons to stop drilling for oil that don't involve the consequences of burning it. Everyone is familiar with the names Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon, I'm sure.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2136412 29-Nov-2018 08:51

With the reserves of natural gas NZ has investment into new power generation from NG would not seem prudent. Maybe the investment would be better spent on wind or solar production.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#2136414 29-Nov-2018 08:52

No point in taking any notice of anything that Greenpeace say. As they called the NZ power system "sick" in relation to the so called solar tax (that is not a tax) which was introduced in Hawkes Bay. So in other words they think that having over 80% of NZ electricity being generated from renewable sources is a bad thing. Despite lots of countries having less than 50% of their electricity coming from renewable sources.

Easiest way to reduce carbon emissions is to just build more hydro generation. As unlike most other countries, there are a lot more options to build more large scale hydro generation in NZ. And lots of options to build more geothermal also. And we have the unique opportunity to build an awesome tidal power generation system by linking the Waitemata and Manukau harbours together.

Sure, solar and wind generation have their place. But it is extremely difficult to generate a large percentage of total generation from solar and wind. And also since large scale hydro and geothermal generation are also the cheapest power sources, when viewed from the aspect of operating the whole grid.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2136415 29-Nov-2018 08:57

Aredwood: No point in taking any notice of anything that Greenpeace say. As they called the NZ power system "sick" in relation to the so called solar tax (that is not a tax) which was introduced in Hawkes Bay. So in other words they think that having over 80% of NZ electricity being generated from renewable sources is a bad thing. Despite lots of countries having less than 50% of their electricity coming from renewable sources.

Easiest way to reduce carbon emissions is to just build more hydro generation. As unlike most other countries, there are a lot more options to build more large scale hydro generation in NZ. And lots of options to build more geothermal also. And we have the unique opportunity to build an awesome tidal power generation system by linking the Waitemata and Manukau harbours together.

Sure, solar and wind generation have their place. But it is extremely difficult to generate a large percentage of total generation from solar and wind. And also since large scale hydro and geothermal generation are also the cheapest power sources, when viewed from the aspect of operating the whole grid.

Hydro power is not with out risk and enviromental impact.

1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | ... | 23