Stuff You Aren’t Allowed To Know: Global Greening
The next topic in the Alimonti article that your intellectual superiors have decreed you are not supposed to learn about is the riotous growth of trees, plants, grasses and all the other inhabitants of the Earth for whom rising CO2 levels are nutritious food, not poisonous “pollution”.
The authors summarize several independent studies that have used changes in atmospheric chemistry and satellite imagery, all of which conclude that the world is getting greener. Even deserts are starting to green up. And rising CO2 is behind it, at least in part, though agricultural practices have also improved. The combination means rising food production per hectare, and the authors point to evidence that a return to pre-industrial CO2 levels would entail an 18 percent drop in global agricultural productivity. We’re willing to go way out on a limb here and say such a drop would be a bad thing due to the mass starvation facing poor nations if humans overall grew a fifth less food.
The authors acknowledge that rising CO2 and the general greening effect is a complex issue, and without adaptation it is not always beneficial. For example, they cite a study that showed that more rapid plant growth in the early spring can lead to drier soils in the summer. So farmers need to adapt practises accordingly. But we know they are good at adapting and increasing productivity for the simple reason that agricultural productivity has been rising for decades. And millennia, we might add. But especially recently. The authors present the output per hectare record for maize, rice, soybean and wheat since 1961, which taken together provide 64 percent of the world’s caloric intake.
These are remarkable growth rates ranging from 2.4 to 3.8 percent per year, which translates into food growth outstripping population growth. The authors also point out that variations in extreme weather events have not had any effect on agricultural productivity growth. In sum, rising CO2 has contributed to overall global greening and improved agricultural productivity. Which is one reason why alarmists remain so silent on the subject.
https://principia-scientific.com/stuff-you-arent-allowed-to-know-global-greening/
*********************************************Siemens Energy’s faulty wind turbines become Germany’s €16 billion problem
With its biggest shareholder Siemens withdrawing support, the gas turbine and grid technology maker was forced to seek a €16 billion backstop from the government.
The history of Siemens is the history of electricity. After Werner von Siemens set up shop in a Berlin workshop in 1847, his improved design for the electric telegraph won him the contract to build Europe’s first long-distance cable. His company became an industrial behemoth, making everything from light bulbs to giant turbines for power stations.
The company has morphed many times since, and more recently spawned multiple listed businesses making chips, healthcare screening equipment — and wind turbines. Just like other parts of German industry, one of Siemens AG’s former units has hit a roadblock as the green energy transition reshapes global business.
In 2017, Siemens, already a major builder of offshore wind turbines, bought Spanish rival Gamesa SA to create the world’s biggest installer. Then-Chief Executive Officer Joe Kaeser described the move as having a “clear and compelling industrial logic.”
Six years later and the sure-fire bet on surging appetite for carbon-free electricity has turned close to catastrophic. A fault in thousands of wind turbines has left Siemens Energy AG, spun out of the mothership in 2020, on the hook for a repair bill of at least €1.6 billion ($1.7 billion) alongside an expected €4.5 billion net loss for the year.
With its biggest shareholder Siemens withdrawing support, the gas turbine and grid technology maker was forced to seek a €16 billion backstop from the government, while it’s still working on how to address the faulty turbines.
Investors responded by wiping out more than a third of the company’s value, the second such move this year.
**************************************************
Shell takes axe to its eco-friendly business as oil giant focuses on digging up fossil fuels
Shell has taken another axe to its once lofty decarbonization plans, as the U.K. oil giant’s pivot back to fossil fuels picks up steam.
The group plans to cut at least 15% of staff working in its low-carbon solutions division while scaling back its hydrogen business, Reuters first reported Wednesday.
The move will see 200 jobs go in 2024, with another 130 placed under review by the company, according to a statement from Shell.
The division specializes in solutions to decarbonize the transport and industry sector, but is separate from its renewables business. The focus of the cuts is its hydrogen light mobility unit, which develops technologies for passenger vehicles. The unit’s ambitions have been clipped as customers opt for EVs.
“We are transforming our Low Carbon Solutions (LCS) business to strengthen its delivery on our core low-carbon business areas such as transport and industry,” a representative for Shell told Fortune.
“We remain committed to investing in viable low-carbon business models and focusing on our strengths as we play our part in decarbonization of the global energy system.”
There are 1,300 people working in the LCS division, Reuters reported, but the company has said that isn’t a full reflection of the people contributing to the unit.
It’s the latest move from CEO Wael Sawan, who joined in January, that pivots Shell back to fossil fuels.
************************************************
Climate change hurts the poor: but not the way you think it does
Moves to “fight climate change” are precisely what is hurting the poor most. It is not “climate change” but the policies adopted in response to it that are the problem afflicting the poor the most.
“Climate impacts hit the world's poor the hardest”. By sheer dint of repetition in countless “expert” reports and mass media articles, this line in the climate change narrative has become a truism. According to the International Monetary Fund, “by hitting the poorest hardest, climate change risks both increasing existing economic inequalities and causing people to fall into poverty.” The World Economic Forum states that “the lowest income countries produce one-tenth of emissions, but are the most heavily impacted by climate change.”
It would seem straightforward that resolving the “climate change” problem would serve the poor the most, given that they are the hardest hit. But, by a tragic turn of irony, moves to “fight climate change” are precisely what is hurting the poor most. It is not “climate change” but the policies adopted in response to it that are the problem afflicting the poor the most.
“Fighting climate change” — which for most Western politicians and policy makers means achieving the “net-zero [carbon emissions] by 2050” policy target of the UN Paris Agreement — has thus also become a fight for the world’s most poor and vulnerable. That the climate industrial complex claims the interests of the world’s poor within its ‘net zero’ agenda is a powerful lever in public relations.
The call to “save the planet” includes, by definition, ensuring the welfare of the world’s poor. But making the fight even more so about helping “the most vulnerable” gives the narrative of “fighting climate change” a philanthropic edge. Philanthropy is universally admired, like Mother Theresa. It is a particularly attractive hobby for the rich who have made their fortune and want to “give back” to society. Thus, Bill Gates’ or Michael Bloomberg’s self-proclaimed philanthropic interests in the global poor, public health and climate change.
When discussions of climate change issues turn to helping the poor and the vulnerable, Africa quickly becomes the center of attention. Africa is the world's second largest and second-most populous continent, both after Asia. The share of the sub-Sahara African population living in extreme poverty, defined as those living on less than $2.15 per day (in international dollars adjusted for cost-of-living differences among countries), was 35% in 2021. This compared to the world average of 8.4%.
In 2019, out of the world total of almost 760 million people without access to electricity, sub-Saharan Africa accounted for almost 590 million or approximately 78%. Without electricity or clean fuels such as natural gas, keeping warm (or cool), getting drinking water, cooking food cleanly, and getting enough light to read after the sun sets is not possible.
Most of us who take affordable electricity ‘24/7’ supply for granted are unaware of the existential constraint on people’s daily lives that a lack of electricity implies. This was brought home brilliantly by Geoff Hill at a talk in House of Lords in Westminster on Monday. Geoff is Africa correspondent for The Washington Times, the first non-American John Steinbeck Award winner and has published with the Mail & Guardian (Johannesburg), The East African (Nairobi) and across the African continent.
With electricity unavailable or too expensive for 600-million people in Africa, vast areas of forest are being denuded for fuelwood or charcoal to cook and to warm homes by those who have no other fuel. Faced with buying logs from a plantation or cutting them for free in the wild, people who don’t have enough money for food choose the latter. With deforestation, the land degrades and soon enough there’s a desert where the jungle once stood.
As Geoff points out, “Africa is losing its forest. Not just a few trees here and there: an area the size of Switzerland is cleared every year… A staggering 90% of the timber is used as firewood, commonly turned into charcoal, and sold in markets across the continent.” There is a need for reliable energy, and at a price local people can afford. Without this, Geoff observes, the forest will continue to decline and, ultimately, vanish.
The impact of indoor pollution due to cooking with dirty solid fuels like charcoal and firewood on respiratory health and mortality on Africans is severe. The death rate in Africa from indoor pollution in 2019 was three times that of the global average. While 69% of the world's population had access to clean fuels for cooking (such as LPG or electricity), only 19% of Africa’s population did so in 2020. Conversely, the percentage of Africa’s population using dirty solid fuels (such as dung, firewood, or charcoal) for cooking was 77% in 2010; the world average was 41%. Mr. Hill cites a global study which puts the mortality rate in Africa as higher than AIDS, malaria and TB combined.
Africa — home to giant river systems including the Nile, Congo, Zambezi and Volta — has abundant water. Dams and lakes are plentiful. But the challenge lies in getting water to where it is needed. Urbanization in Africa has been very rapid over the past 50 years, creating some of the world’s largest cities. Urban demand for water is huge and supply is often pitiful. “Without water, hospitals can’t function, schools close, factories often must shut for hours at a time, food can’t be washed and diseases such as typhoid and cholera begin to spread.” As Mr. Hill shows, the chronic water problems of African cities – either poor or undrinkable supply – mostly come down to a shortage of electricity required to pump water to where it is needed.
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment