thank you. additional info here is that it is a plastic-based substance, which should be cheaper and easier to work with than metal structures.
Not sure about calling renewable energy projects “junk offsets” on the basis of “the energy is already cheap enough”. Forest based offsets are also subject to private ownership, logging rights, and going up in flames. The auditing for those is suspect as well. Both forests and renewables would exist without a carbon offset market, and so perhaps they are all “junk”.
The right price for a carbon tax is $300/ton ($3/gallon gasoline/diesel). Tax revenue paid as dividend to residents. By far, the cheapest way to avoid paying taxes on energy is cheap renewables. But if costs of capture/sequestration are lower than $300/ton, then FF companies investing in these, lowers their taxes, and does not prevent more renewables in addition to this. They are independent industries with independent skills.
CO2 levels are likely to overshoot even with 100% energy transition by 2040.
As they should be. US/NATO expansion is an existential threat to Russia. CIA even more brazenly embraced would divide and conquer Russia through splitting it into warring provinces. US has no intention of improving humanity/world if it reduces subjugation to the empire.
one of the largest offset projects in Kariba, Zimbabwe, suggested that the amount reaching communities was 6%, at most.
and by “communities”, they mean the “forest owner”. Perhaps that is more capital to buy harvesting machinery. But in general this is an extra monetization/financialization scheme that doesn’t affect actual carbon reduction. This is not money that goes towards transitioning energy systems and reducing emissions.
A carbon tax and dividend scheme can properly compensate maintained forests that don’t burn. Instead of financializing corporate PR schemes.
And in 20 years, the climate change migration period will start in full.
It already has. Syrian instability started with droughts. The worse of it, is that war will always be a higher priority to oil interests and their captured governments than cooperating on human sustainability.
Seems credible that there is no threat to ROK. OP is suggesting a tiny role for ROK being discussed anyway.
NK has a bigger army, and sure to receive support from neighbours. US has logistical issues in providing support. DPRK blowing up bridges does mean not seeking to use them for their own invasion, so on that point, you are right.
After WW2, the US were Japan’s proxies in the “temporary” division of South Korea, and then against the Democratic result that elected a North Korean as leader of all Korea. Colonized ever since.
While every comment here seems to scream “end patents”, arm has less patent bs than other tech (rounded corners) meant to sue/prevent use. Arm works hard on developing and improving architecture and designs to offer licenses at a compelling price. Qualcomm paying as much as other licensees should be preferable to Qualcomm than bankruptcy.
Their justification for tariffs on Chinese cars was that they were uncompetitively cheap due to subsidies.
This is mostly a lie. EU placed smaller/fairer tariffs based on those subsidy allegations, but in US, all politicians are devoted to oil oligarchy profits. 100% EV tariffs and 50% solar tariffs, 25% battery and ebike tariffs are all about protecting oil, instead of small domestic solar industry. Global warming is a lower priority than war, or making sure existing and new oligarchs have plenty of profits to fund politicians with.
the cheapest battery chemistry, used in most affordable EVs, uses no nickel or cobalt. “Race”/premium EVs still want to use that type of battery, though
China’s ultra cheap EVs are subcompacts that are extremely well suited to small batteries to keep them cheap, while having good range/mileage. Small batteries can work for EVs if there is good charging infrastructure. Europe, being densely populated, is suited to having good charging infrastructure on heavily used highways, and “drive through small towns” which have cafes and restaurants suited to recharging at EU life pace.
EU/French car history is ultra well suited to small cars, where cities have narrow streets, and affordability has always been popular.
EVs with small batteries, even in EU/US, can be built cheaper than ICE vehicles by domestic brands. Battery costs are falling everywhere, but licensing/importing Chinese tech to bringing battery costs down, is path to domestic EV industry success/growth. EU is especially vulnerable to geopolitical oil extortion, from both friends and foes.
I think the concern is more about brine that have heavy metals in them. Carbonated water is safe to drink, even if not safe for fish.
The leaks can lead to heavy metal contamination and potentially lower pH levels, all of which can make drinking water undrinkable
Brine contamination, I know very little about, but if it stayed near bottom of lake, may not pose a fish or water source risk. Salt may dilute to rest of water, but heavy metals would not? Water becoming Perrier, or otherwise high co2 levels, may affect fish, if they don’t move, but not a human drinking hazard.
What I do know about is CCS projects. The most successful CO2 capture project from a 100mw coal turbine cost $1B, and captured 65% of CO2. In Saskatchewan. These costs ($10/watt above the fossil plant) are comparable to power costs of on budget nuclear (not a cost/time effective climate solution). The CC process involves a giant building that replaces a chimney, and passes the flue through a liquid that will capture the CO2. Coal interests are avoiding all CCS projects because they are completely uneconomical. Other FF electricity use a similar process, though coal emits H2S (acid rain and smog problem) that needs to also be captured. Blue H2, has a problem of while the process gasses can be separated, the heat needed from the process is usually NG powered, and needs a chimney like electricity production.
A far cheaper way of reducing coal or other FF emissions by 65%, is to replace them with solar+4 hours batteries, and keep the FF plants as a backup peaker that will run far less than 35% of the year. Because land around a coal plant is extremely undesirable for any other purpose, it is often sufficient to produce the same energy as the coal plant from solar.
They have no qualms about taunting a nuclear powered Russia. The return of a CIA puppet like Yeltsin is not likely, but just as Ukraine, there is not the slightest US concern for the welfare/benefit of people. Just destruction, hike price of oil, sell a lot of weapons, and buy the ruins for cheap.