Monday, August 22, 2022
Avoiding plastics and using a reusable coffee cup to save the environment? Maybe you've been duped
He has got it that Greenie claims are mostly a scam but he exonerates governments, Green politicians and grant-hungry adademics. Bizarrely, he blames big busines
Melbourne author Jeff Sparrow argues that, when it comes to environmental impacts, big corporations have engineered a sense of individual responsibility – to distract from their own.
"One of the reasons why we feel so despairing about the [climate] situation that we're in is that we are made to feel that we are the problem," Sparrow tells ABC RN's Big Ideas.
"We're told we consume too much, we're too greedy, we're too lazy, we surround ourselves with disposable plastics and we're spoiling the planet."
Humans can even be seen as at fault "merely by existing", he says. "Sometimes the argument extends to suggesting that humans are kind of a plague … infesting nature and bring[ing] ruination on the planet."
There are experts, such as environmental scientist Professor Ian Lowe, who argue for limiting the number of children we have, for environmental reasons.
Sparrow disagrees. "If we are the problem, then there's nothing we can do other than just make things worse," he says.
The CSIRO has put adapting to climate change at the top of what it identifies as the seven mega trends that will determine our fate. We need to be "leaner, cleaner and greener", it says.
Sparrow argues that it can't be left up to individuals to make that happen. History offers clues as to why.
"To start to think about what solutions might be available, it's really crucial that we understand where the problem came from and who was responsible," says Sparrow, who explores this topic in his latest book, Crimes Against Nature.
Take the term 'carbon footprint'. You've almost certainly used it, but do you know where it comes from?
The familiar notion, that we should consider how much carbon we are individually responsible for, was dreamt up as a marketing strategy, Sparrow says.
"This [carbon footprint concept] was actually cooked up by a PR company that was employed by BP as part of a campaign to rebadge itself once people became concerned about climate change.
"By getting people to look at their own individual responsibility for climate change, it meant that people stopped focusing on corporate responsibility. And so, rather than looking at BP's part in this horrific damage to the environment, people started thinking … 'What am I doing?'"
The world's scientists declare climate change is now a threat to human wellbeing, warning we are about to miss the window to "secure a liveable and sustainable future for all".
While corporations have such widespread impact – BP, for example, manages around 19,000 gas and oil stations worldwide – Sparrow believes than an individual approach at carbon reduction is ineffective.
He points to an MIT study that demonstrated Americans couldn't reduce their own carbon footprint as carbon pollution was embedded in American society as a whole.
The idea that we can reduce carbon emissions as individuals creates a "crippling demoralisation", Sparrow says. People seeking to reduce their personal carbon footprint "set themselves a task that they cannot possibly fulfil".
"It's good that people want to be part of the solution, but we have to think of what real solutions might look like and not just cripple ourselves with individualised guilt that doesn't make any difference."
Another example of individual responsibility gone awry is in recycling, according to Sparrow.
It was recently revealed that significant amounts of home recycling is ending up in landfill.
Yet individuals are instructed to conscientiously recycle – for example, by checking the numbers of the bottoms of containers, and taking soft plastics back to the supermarket.
Sparrow argues it's misspent energy.
"Not only are we being distracted from the real issues, but we are learning to interiorise this sense that it's our fault. It's not the government's fault. It's not the corporations' fault," he says. "I think that is incredibly destructive."
**********************************************
Experts Say Biden’s Expanded Lithium Production as Bad for Environment as Fossil Fuels
Sometimes you can't win
Increased domestic lithium production plays a crucial role in President Joe Biden’s green energy plan, as 2021 marked the largest rollout of solar, wind, and electric batteries in the history of the United States.
Nevertheless, lithium mining has quietly revealed itself to be a significant contributor to environmental pollution in the frantic rush to abandon fossil fuels.
On May 2, the Biden administration announced the investment of more than $3 billion to make more lithium batteries and their components. It’s a pivotal part of the president’s goal to have at least half of all vehicle sales in the United States be electric by 2030.
Currently, there are two main ways to obtain the sought-after element: Hard rock ore mining and brine extraction.
While much of the carbon emitted from mining depends on the rock it’s extracted from, this technique still produces at least 15 tons of CO2 for every ton of lithium harvested.
Generally speaking, mining is a dirty business. Mineral extractions like lithium and coal—a fossil fuel—both fall under this umbrella. Collectively, the mining industry generates between 1.9 and 5.1 gigatons of carbon emissions annually.
The other approach to accessing lithium involves removing the metal from brine in areas with salt flats. However, this approach requires, on average, 500,000 gallons of water to procure a single ton of lithium. While it’s a less carbon-intensive process, brine extraction still results in tens of thousands of gallons of highly toxic wastewater needing proper storage or disposal.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg of green energy manufacturing behind the scenes.
Elements like cobalt and nickel are also crucial for renewable technologies like electric car batteries, which is another pollution-heavy withdrawal.
Same Pollution, Better Marketing
Open pit hard rock mining is the method scheduled for use at Thacker Pass, the largest lithium reserve in the United States.
Wind, solar, and electric-car batteries are dependent on the world’s lightest metal to function.
In the meantime, some experts are sounding the alarm over the not so green reality of renewable energy.
“While lithium-ion batteries are light-weight and convenient for modern-day electronics, they not only emit a large amount of carbon dioxide to produce, but they also tap into precious water reserves,” chief operating officer of Greenly, Matthieu Vegreville, told The Epoch Times.
Vegreville explained the carbon footprint of lithium mining, in comparison to other fossil fuel extractions like coal and oil, typically produces more carbon emissions. That’s because lithium products such as batteries require a more material-intensive process.
“And as the demand for battery material increases, it doesn’t make the process any easier,” he added.
President of the National Mining Association, Rich Nolan, noted during a press statement that Biden’s push for ramped-up domestic lithium production will make America more energy independent as the country continues shifting away from fossil fuels.
Nolan added the United States needs to build on this green momentum and approve new hard rock mines or face the continuation of geopolitical mineral dependence that is “completely dominated by China.”
********************************************************
Journalists Hook RV Up to 3 Electric Trucks - They Accidentally Expose Total Nightmare of Driving One
“Towing a trailer with an EV is now possible but still far from practical due to drastically reduced range.” That’s a summary of Car and Driver’s test of three electric vehicles towing a 29-foot, 6,100-pound camper trailer.
It’s an improvement, actually, because a year ago Car and Driver couldn’t find an EV that could pull more than 5,000 pounds. Now they can — except EVs used for recreation are not yet ready for primetime.
Consider a person’s thoughts while driving a gasoline or diesel truck towing a camper to the great outdoors.
“I hope we get there before dark.”
“I hope we get a good campsite.”
“I hope we packed everything we need.”
And compare them with what might be the thoughts of an individual towing a trailer with an EV.
“I hope we get there before dark. I’d hate to see the truck’s lights drain the battery before we find a charging station.”
“I hope we get a good campsite. Having to stop to continually recharge the truck means we may not.”
“I hope we packed everything we need. And I hope there’s a charging station nearby.”
A major camping trip — especially with children — often can be stressful. Coaxing an electric vehicle along can add to the stress.
Because you can’t go far without having to recharge the battery, and that’s dependent upon finding a charging station that is readily accessible — unlike gas pumps, charging stations require the trailer to be unhitched to allow the truck to access the charger. “A major hassle” is how Car and Driver described that required unhitching.
But there are some positives to newer EVs, according to the publication, which tested a GMC Hummer EV, a Ford F-150 Lightning and a Rivian R1T.
“These new electric pickups are wonderful towing companions,” Car and Driver reported. They’re “aided by massive horsepower and torque that allow for easy merging with the flow of interstate traffic.”
“Their heavy curb weights (between 6855 pounds for the F-150 and 9640 pounds for the Hummer) lend an impressive stability when lugging a three-ton trailer.
“But you won’t want to be going far, as a full battery will take you a mere 100 miles in the Lightning, 110 miles in the R1T, and 140 miles in the Hummer.”
Each of those is less than half of the range of the electric trucks running at 75 mph without a load (230 miles for the Lightning, 280 miles for the R1T and 290 miles for the Hummer).
Speeds in the towing tests were limited to 70 mph.
Like EVs, when you hitch a trailer to a truck powered by an internal combustion engine, range drops by half, according to Car and Driver.
But even with a 2,000-pound trailer, a gas-powered Toyota Tundra can go an estimated 473 miles, according to a test by TheFastLaneTruck.com. In the same test, a Rivian R1T only went 153 miles using 91 percent of its charge.
And there’s another problem, Car and Driver reported — “low-battery warnings start in at roughly 50 miles to empty, when the battery pack is still nearly half full.”
So on top of all the other things on the mind of the EV driver towing a trailer to the wilderness comes this thought: “Why is that low-battery light on? I mean, we haven’t even been on the road for an hour!”
Perhaps in a year Car and Driver will be able to report more improvements to EVs. And perhaps not.
Setting aside the environmental destruction caused by mining for lithium batteries (and the sensitive geopolitics involved), the advocated wasteful scrapping of a well-functioning petroleum infrastructure, the needed development of an electric charging network (and a power grid to support it) and the high costs of electric vehicles, it may be that limitations on such cars and trucks can be traced to their inability to catch on more than a century ago.
That inability can be traced to physics.
Electricity can do a lot. But maybe not in long-haul vehicles.
*****************************************************
Australia: Clive Palmer breaks silence on coal mine refusal
Mining magnate Clive Palmer has broken his silence on the Albanese Government moving to knock back his proposed central Queensland coal mine, accusing Labor of being “irrational” and “captured by the Greens”.
Mr Palmer’s Central Queensland Coal Project, located 130km northwest of Rockhampton, was expected to create $8.2 billion in export from thermal and metallurgical coal.
Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek earlier this month issued a preliminary refusal of approval for the project due to it being just 10km from the Great Barrier Reef, with a 10 business day public comment period required before being finalised.
That period ended on Thursday evening and a spokesman for Mr Palmer confirmed his company had made a submission.
But in a statement on Sunday morning, Mr Palmer claimed it was “the first time in Australian history” a coal mine in central Queensland had been refused approval.
He said it showed the Greens were running the government.
Greens leader Adam Bandt says new coal and gas projects will not only make the “climate crisis worse,” but they can also “blow any chance” of Australia meeting the government’s “weak targets”. The Albanese government will introduce several…
“To reject $80 billion shows economic irresponsibility,’’ Mr Palmer said.
“Especially so when the entire production was destined for export markets and the alternative is the replacement in the market of inferior Indonesian coal which will result in three times greater emissions than what would have been the case with our coal.
“It’s clear the Albanese Government is irrational and is captured by Adam Bant and The Greens.”
He seemed to attempt to link the situation with former Prime Minister Scott Morrison having issued himself five secret portfolios by asking “how many secret portfolios has (Mr Albanese) given to (Greens leader) Adam Bandt”.
There is no indication Mr Albanese has issued any “secret portfolios” and he has strongly condemned the actions of Mr Morrison in doing so.
The Greens are continuing to push for a ban on new coal mines and coal-fired power stations.
Special Envoy for the Great Barrier Reef Senator Nita Green said Mr Palmer had to pass the same environmental approvals as anyone else, and refuted the billionaire’s claims that Labor was “captured by the Greens”.
“I have not seen the reasons for the proposed decision, but I am fully aware that poor water quality is an ongoing risk to the Reef and the jobs it supports. It’s up to any proponent to show how they can mitigate such risks,” Senator Green said.
***************************************
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)
*****************************************
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment