Okay I will go around asking my neighbourhood and everywhere else. But why did Exxon Mobil have all the evidence about the dangers of the CO2 Emissions but kept it under wraps??
European Gas Prices Hit Record High As Germany Blocks Nord Stream 2
- Thread starter danmand
- Start date
In Norway, 98 percent of all electricity production come from renewable sources. This puts us in a unique position in both a European and global perspective. Electricity production in Norway is for the most part based on flexible hydropower, but both wind and thermal energy contributes to the Norwegian electricity production. In 2013, Norway produced 134 terawatt hours (TWh) electricity. One TWh equals one billion kilowatt hours (kWh). By comparison, the Norwegian capital, Oslo, consumes around nine TWh each year.
| Source | Amount (TWh) |
| Hydropower | 129 TWh |
| Wind power | 1,9 TWh |
| Thermal power | 3,3 TWh |
| Total | 134 TWh |
Denmark imported 14,976,000 MWh of electricity in 2016 (covering 45% of its annual consumption needs).
Denmark exported 9,919,000 MWh of electricity in 2016.
Denmark exported 9,919,000 MWh of electricity in 2016.
| ELECTRIC consumption | 33,017,760 | |
| ELECTRIC GENERATION | 29,840,760 | |
| Nuclear | None | |
| Renewables | 19,168,000 | 64% |
| Hydroelectricity | 19,000 | 0% |
| Non-Hydroelectric Renewables | 19,149,000 | 64% |
| Geothermal | 0 | 0.00% |
| Wind | 12,782,000 | 42.83% |
| Solar, Tide, Wave, Fuel Cell | 744,000 | 2.49% |
| Tide and Wave | 0 | 0.00% |
| Solar | 744,000 | 2.49% |
| Biomass and Waste | 5,623,000 | 18.84% |
| Fossil Fuels | 10,672,760 | 35.77% |
| Hydroelectric Pumped Storage | 0 | 0.00% |
| Net Imports | 5,057,000 | 16.95% |
Germany electricity generation
- Nuclear: 60.9 TWh (12.6%)
- Brown coal: 81.94 TWh (16.9%)
- Hard coal: 35.56 TWh (7.4%)
- Natural gas: 59.08 TWh (12.2%)
- Wind: 131.69 TWh (27.2%)
- Solar: 50.7 TWh (10.5%)
- Biomass: 45.45 TWh (9.4%)
- Hydro: 18.27 TWh (3.8%)
So even progressives are "stupid" when they don't say the things you want to hear. I imagine you would say the same thing about Steven Koonin, who was one of the top officials in Obama's energy department.
But since you claim to be such an authority on the facts, please enrich our discussion with some facts.
It's been estimated it will cost $125 trillion over the next almost 30 years to get to net zero.
What's the cost of net zero? - Climate Champions
Commissioned by the UN High-Level Climate Action Champions, new research with support from Vivid Economics breaks down the numbers behind the where, who and how of the trillions of investments required to meet the net zero goal.
racetozero.unfccc.int
My questions:
- What impact will that spending have on the global economy?
- What impact will that have on emissions?
- What impact will that have on global temperatures?
- What are the economic benefits of getting to net zero?
- What would the cost and benefits be if governments focused on mitigation rather than net zero?
And perhaps the most important question of all: Why didn't John Kerry and the thousands of his fellow virtue signallers have the answers to these questions before they burned all those fossil fuels travelling to Glasgow for COP26?
That is a good start
Electricity has a tremendous positive impact both in keeping hundreds of millions out of abject poverty and greatly improving quality of life
Here in Ontario the gas burnt in your car is more likely produced by
Saudi Aramco than Exxon. Whose fault is it for not reminding you at
the pump the greenhouse effect of burning gasoline?
The US is a model on how fossil fuels screws you over.
So many wars for oil, so much pollution from fracking, messing with the Gulf of Mexico....
The rest of the world is passing the US by on this one and most issues now.
Total end of empire thinking, moviefan.
The more I think about it, this is a fascinating question for a whole variety of reasons.
To begin with, it's remarkable to think that Frankfooter believes we all would have been much happier if life was more like what existed in the late 19th century. Well, we sure wouldn't have to worry about lining up to get vaccinated.
But let's consider the numbers. Frankfooter says "climate disasters" cost $210 billion last year. Putting aside his ridiculous belief that eliminating fossil fuels will mean the end of tornadoes, etc., let's pretend his number is accurate.
Let's even go completely wild and assume that cost will double in the coming years to $400 billion a year.
By contrast, environmental economists at Vivid Economics say it will cost more than $4 trillion a year to get to net zero.
What's the cost of net zero? - Climate Champions
Commissioned by the UN High-Level Climate Action Champions, new research with support from Vivid Economics breaks down the numbers behind the where, who and how of the trillions of investments required to meet the net zero goal.
racetozero.unfccc.int
So, governments would be spending $4 trillion a year to save as much as $400 billion a year (and, in reality, significantly less than that).
That looks like some pretty questionable spending, if you ask me.
Stop lying about what I post.The more I think about it, this is a fascinating question for a whole variety of reasons.
To begin with, it's remarkable to think that Frankfooter believes we all would have been much happier if life was more like what existed in the late 19th century. Well, we sure wouldn't have to worry about lining up to get vaccinated.
I have never said such a thing.
That can get you banned.
Stop lying about what I post.
I have never said such a thing.
That can get you banned.
From your source:
Today, developing countries lose some $390 billion a year when disasters knock out power and water and disrupt transport. But with better data and governance, infrastructure services could become more reliable. Building resilience into new infrastructure assets would increase upfront costs by only around 3 per cent, whereas each dollar invested would avert $4 in losses on average.
You think investing a dollar to avert $4 in losses is bad business?
Or do you not trust the sources you quote now?
This is1 reason the Dutch commute on bikes and they adopt electric cars. The network of bike infrastructure is the best in the world and they have many charging stations for EVs.
Are You not listening to what I stated? Once again the gasoline has to be phased out over time when the New Technology kicks in. Electric cars are just the start.
Sooner or later the manufacture of gasoline / diesel cars and trucks are set to be phased out. They cannot do it overnight. Maybe now you get it!!
What did Steven Kooning actually achieve when he was hired by Trump to create a "A Presidential Committee on Climate Security'??
Practice what you preach!! Come up with real facts yourself
So how much is it costing to fix the damage caused by Climate Change? We saw the recent tornadoes touch base an the numerous lives lost in December, yes December and not around May. There is another one around the corner. Do these loss of lives globally matter to You?? We saw the unprecedented flooding in BC. Take all those damages into account globally and one day that $125 trillion will pale into comparison. Money can be printed, not lives!!It's been estimated it will cost $125 trillion over the next almost 30 years to get to net zero.
What's the cost of net zero? - Climate Champions
Commissioned by the UN High-Level Climate Action Champions, new research with support from Vivid Economics breaks down the numbers behind the where, who and how of the trillions of investments required to meet the net zero goal.
Answered your questions above. ^^^^^My questions:
- What impact will that spending have on the global economy? it will create JOBS, and help in the Long run!!
- What impact will that have on emissions? Not right away as the damage has been done. But it will curtail the rise in global temperatures once fossil fuel is fully eliminated.
- What impact will that have on global temperatures? Just answered it up there
- What are the economic benefits of getting to net zero? Lives matter as well. Hence there will benefit when there is less damage to homes and infrastructure!!
- What would the cost and benefits be if governments focused on mitigation rather than net zero? Let us not speculate for now!!
And perhaps the most important question of all: Why didn't John Kerry and the thousands of his fellow virtue signallers have the answers to these questions before they burned all those fossil fuels travelling to Glasgow for COP26?
Once again stop cherry picking with the COP26. There have been International Conferences globally, requiring the delegates to attend. This is nothing new. But if it helps overall in anyway to address the Climate Change then it is worth it. Blame Trump for pulling out of it and doing absolutely nothing to address this Climate Change. Hope you answer my questions now!!
People will complain about gas prices but its food prices that are really hitting them already.
theconversation.com
How climate change and extreme weather may lead to food shortages and escalating prices
Adverse weather is likely to reduce the amount of food the world can grow.
theconversation.com
The more I think about it, this is a fascinating question for a whole variety of reasons.
To begin with, it's remarkable to think that Frankfooter believes we all would have been much happier if life was more like what existed in the late 19th century. Well, we sure wouldn't have to worry about lining up to get vaccinated.
But let's consider the numbers. Frankfooter says "climate disasters" cost $210 billion last year. Putting aside his ridiculous belief that eliminating fossil fuels will mean the end of tornadoes, etc., let's pretend his number is accurate.
Let's even go completely wild and assume that cost will double in the coming years to $400 billion a year.
By contrast, environmental economists at Vivid Economics say it will cost more than $4 trillion a year to get to net zero.
What's the cost of net zero? - Climate Champions
Commissioned by the UN High-Level Climate Action Champions, new research with support from Vivid Economics breaks down the numbers behind the where, who and how of the trillions of investments required to meet the net zero goal.
So, governments would be spending $4 trillion a year to save as much as $400 billion a year (and, in reality, significantly less than that).
That looks like some pretty questionable spending, if you ask me.
"climate disasters cost $210 billion last year."
Can you say bovine scatology?
Hurricanes, tornados, floods and draughts have been with us since word go
They have not increased in intensity or frequency
Cost related to disasters have increased as construction costs run double normal inflation
No doubt Frankfooter has sourced this value from some lunatic eco warrior mis-information site
You know the same sources which claimed the polar bears were dying off, and that the south pole was melting and every town and city was warming at double the rate of the planet
You know the same sources which claimed the developing countries will experience excessive economic growth while simultaneously becoming uninhabitable wastelands
attributing the cost of "climate disasters" to AGW / Co2 is wrong and intentionally misleading
Gas in most of Europe has always been more expensive. They've been adjusting for decades by switching to smaller and smaller engines and perfecting the diesel technologies. Also the driving distances are shorter and the public transportation infrastructure is well developed. How high is too high has never really been answered over there.
