I left Reddit much too late. I guess some habits can be hard to break. Then I spent some time on kbin/mbin/fedia, and I’ll be staying here.
Btw I’m a non-binary trans person [they/she/he].
Archived link of the article
From the link you provided, it looks like in 2021 it was 4.2 not 7.5. Apart from that, this approach sounds too speculative to me, since the production comes from 2021 and the CO2 emissions quota from 2023. In the Drax chart it shows a decline in TWh produced from 2017 to 2021 (btw 2021 is also the year they retired coal). Still, assuming from this trend that their production few years latter continues to decline is something I would consider too risky to do.
The Ratcliffe chart has so many fluctuations till 2021 that I couldn’t dare guess what their 2023 production was.
If I find the 2023 numbers, I’ll add a comment or edit this one.
Even tho Drax uses only biomass and its CO2 emissions are 4 times higher than Ractcliffe’s which uses coal, I think it is also important to mention that Drax can produce twice as much electricity in comparison to Ratcliffe. Still terrible news from the 2023 report, just saying.
Its generating capacity of 3,906 megawatts (MW),
Ratcliffe-on-Soar Power Station
the station has a capacity of 2,000 MW
The problem is in the system that allows these people to be in power. Even if this one is out of the picture there is a list of others waiting to take their turn.
Turkey has used Embargo & water shortage: Water as weapon:
In 2015, Turkey started to use water as a weapon against Rojava by holding back the water on the rivers which flow from Turkey to Syria through the dams it has been building over the last twenty years.
See also:
On 20 September 2017, the district parliament (BVV) of Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg endorsed the proposal to enter into a town twinning with Dêrik in northern Syria. At the time, this was unique in Germany.
How do you treat PTSD - Post Traumatic Stress Disorder- when there is no “post”. When you’re in a place like Palestine, where the trauma is ongoing and inter-generational.
Of course US colonialism in the form of military basis has many commonalities all around the world. Still each place has it’s own version. Personally, I didn’t know the specifics for Guam before reading this article.
Good point. It looks like
Its generating capacity of 3,906 megawatts (MW),
Ratcliffe-on-Soar Power Station
the station has a capacity of 2,000 MW
This is typical whataboutism. It’s a way of deflecting the conversation to something else, instead of engaging with the argument you provided and reflect on it in good faith.
The only thing I could say is: don’t take the bait, or don’t fall in this trap (sometimes it’s not a tactic, it can be just a question that came to their mind)
More info on the cloud formed behind the aircraft or contrail are in the study itself (see link above). If I got it right it is observable from satellite 30 min behind the aircraft, for less than an hour.
In relation to your question on if it has been peer reviewed, I could say that to my understanding this is a standard policy of IOP Science (details here).
Sure the title is not the best, and what you reference is what this 2018 study says.
What I got from the article itself, which is based on a new study published today (7 August 2024), could be summed up, perhaps, by the following:
The new study also found that private jets produce more contrails than previously thought, potentially leading to outsized impacts on climate warming.
This means these higher-flying aircraft create less carbon emissions per passenger. However, it also means they create contrails that take longer to dissipate—creating a warming effect for longer and a complicated trade-off for the aviation industry.
“This doesn’t mean that more efficient aircraft are a bad thing—far from it, as they have lower carbon emissions per passenger-mile. However, our finding reflects the challenges the aviation industry faces when reducing its climate impact.”
The study did confirm a simple step that can be taken to shorten the lifetime of contrails: (…)
According to your sayings, you appreciate personal attacks.
The way I see things, pseudo-rational arguments don’t make a position justifiable.
Each well is different, but capping most abandoned wells requires pouring thousands of pounds of cement down the hole to keep the gas down. While the average cost is around $75,000, the worst well, a “super-emitter,” as Shuck put it, cost him more than $375,000 because he first had to clean out the failing old infrastructure before he could start capping.
That sounds like a very doable fix. The understanding I got from the article is that even for relevant state laws,
“There’s been a tremendous amount of industry pushback against these reforms because their business model for decades has been to avoid plugging these wells, and the huge cost is currently being externalized to the public,”
And also it looks like
Exxon makes $40 billion a year in profit,” Peltz points out. “Exxon alone could plug half the wells in the United States with its profits if it wanted.
I find this to be such an important article, that I’m cross-posting it.
Hi @Tiresia, I have to admitt what I get from your response is a lot of anger over something basically quite simple:
Please don’t make this a personal attack.
It doesn’t seem to me like a matter of rules or whatever, and it looks like a good suggestion as well. Don’t you think?
scientists saying it releases CO2
Oxygene actually, and somehow without photosynthesis ;)
Great link, I totally saved it.
Thank you so much!!
Great article, I didn’t know about this effort. I have to admit, at first it did not make any sense to me, since it took me almost half the article before remembering that gas in the US, is what is called petrol in other english speaking places, and is definitely not related to natural gas.