Greenpeace got themselves a bigger boat…

59 comments on “Greenpeace got themselves a bigger boat… ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Tui 1

   2 April 2017 at 9:28 am

   go greenpeace!

   ~ tui
2. Bill 2

   2 April 2017 at 10:30 am

   I guess this comment will irk some people (shrug), but as the stated mission is to continue our protest against climate-wrecking oil exploration the obvious question is – “How is the Taitu powered?”

   That’s not intended as a cheap shot, but given there are multiple non-fossil ways to power boats these days, and given that a boat will have a life expectancy of (guessing) 20 years, and given that we need to be cutting fossil use drastically right now to be fossil free in a few decades (~ 2030)…

   Anyway, I had a quick look and couldn’t see any info on how the Taitu is propelled – which leads me to suspect, that in spite of flettner rotors, hydrogen, battery cells, sails and kites and others all being proven non-fossil methods of propulsion; none of these option were explored.

   And how much better would that message have been? A Greenpeace boat.

   (Given that it took only 7 days to raise the $100 000 for the Taitu, I’m thinking a campaign to purchase a fossil free boat would not only have been do-able, but that the campaign itself would have been a massive boost to the anti-oil message they’re trying to out out there.)
   • Poission 2.1

     2 April 2017 at 10:42 am

     Ipsi testudines edite, qui cepistis
     • Bill 2.1.1

       2 April 2017 at 11:27 am

       Not quite seeing the relevance of that adage…
       • Poission 2.1.1.1

         2 April 2017 at 11:34 am

         you need to eat what you feed others
   • weka 2.2

     2 April 2017 at 11:32 am

     What makes you think options weren’t explored? Seriously, you think that one of the leading climate justice groups on the planet didn’t think about this?
     • Bill 2.2.1

       2 April 2017 at 11:46 am

       Short answer to second question – yes.

       On the first question, if they (non-fossil options) had been explored, then I’d have expected some mention of it somewhere in their literature. But there’s nothing.

       And what I suspect (only a suspicion) is that after a moment’s ‘reflection’ they punted for off-setting as though that somehow nullifies their future emissions. (It’s a common enough piece of self deception that people and organisations indulge in)
       • weka 2.2.1.1

         2 April 2017 at 12:44 pm

         Ok, so you think that the organisation that’s just built one of its main vessels as a green build (including some of the tech you suggested) didn’t think about this boat in terms of climate change? Sorry, but that’s an idiocy.

         Sorry Greenpeace aren’t jumping to your tune, but they got this boat up and running really bloody fast. I can think of a number of things that may or may not have happened in the process, but I’m not playing that game, because (a) we would be speculating on thin air, and (b) we can’t afford this kind of tear em down politics and I’m sick of it. This is an awesome thing that they’ve done, which doesn’t put them above critique but it does mean they’ve earned some support and for that critique to be based on something real rather than just some internet reckons.
         • Bill 2.2.1.1.1

           2 April 2017 at 1:20 pm

           Ok, so you think that the organisation that’s just built one of its main vessels as a green build (including some of the tech you suggested) didn’t think about this boat in terms of climate change?

           You’re making assumptions on what my knowledge is. What main vessel do they have that was a ‘green build’? If you can provide some info, I’d be appreciative. Never heard of it before.

           Like I wrote below, you’re exaggerating my initial comment (it seems, from where I sit, with a desire to shut down conversation), yet rather oddly, you’re also saying that Greenpeace aren’t above critique.

           Which is it?

           Greenpeace are above reproach – are exceptions on the GW front because they ‘do good things’, or sensible observations can be acknowledged and discussed without ‘everyone’ going all stone throwing defensive?
           • weka 2.2.1.1.1.1

             2 April 2017 at 4:17 pm

             There’s nothing wrong with well-founded critique (so please stop misrepresenting my view on that), it’s about the how. In this case, you’re speculating based on nothing as far as I can see other than your own reckons (no-one here knows what GP did or didn’t do and we don’t even have any hints about that). You also chose a framing that brings the post down.

             You’re getting plenty of feedback in this thread about what some people find problematic about your approach, if you genuinely want to understand, then maybe listen to them and talk about it, there are good people here who know you saying roughly the same thing.

             Myself, I’m not getting into an argument over it. Your original comment was negative and IMO destructive. There are good points in there, but the framing was only ever going to bring contention and derailment, and IMO that was inappropriate for this post. Given the context of the post I find that pretty disappointing and it necessitates pointing out the thing again about shitting on our allies. I know you probably don’t think that’s what you are doing, but that’s how it came across.

             I can think of ways to have brought up the issue of what Taitu runs on without slagging off Greenpeace. So it’s not about shutting down the conversation so much as calling out the approach.

             It seems a shame for this thread to have been trashed. I’m sure it wasn’t your intention 🙂
             • Bill …

               2 April 2017 at 7:00 pm

               Show me through one piece of quoted text where I’ve “slagged off Greenpeace” in this thread. Just one.
           • RRM 2.2.1.1.1.2

             4 April 2017 at 12:45 pm

             Ok, so you think that the organisation that’s just built one of its main vessels as a green build (including some of the tech you suggested) didn’t think about this boat in terms of climate change?

             LOL what???

             It’s a POS old wooden motor launch with whatever petrol or diesel engine it was built with back in the good old days.

             I spent a week in Queen Charlotte Sound on something similar once. 9 knots was achievable but the fuel level went down pretty fast, and the whole cabin top sounded like it was rattling itself to bits. 7 knots was a bit more achievable.

             Every morning we had to run the bilge pump for about 5 minutes to get rid of all the water that soaked in between (and through) the rotten old boards.

             This thing will be lucky to even make it out to where the survey ship is operating… let alone intercept it.
         • Bill 2.2.1.1.2

           2 April 2017 at 1:38 pm

           Okay, just noticed the link you provided below to their “Motor Sail yacht with helicopter landing deck.”
         • Karen 2.2.1.1.3

           2 April 2017 at 1:47 pm

           +1 Weka.
   • Andre 2.3

     2 April 2017 at 12:20 pm

     For a vessel that needs to be able to go from random place A to random place B at a reasonable speed at short notice, there simply is no current viable substitute for fossil fuels (except nukes).

     Sails, kites, Flettner rotors are all wind dependent. Without a decent wind speed in a favourable direction, you’re stuck with very slow progress if that’s your only propulsion. So they’re great for supplementary/auxiliary propulsion, but not much use for primary propulsion, unless you’re just doing it for recreation and don’t need to keep a schedule.

     Hydrogen and battery cells don’t have the energy density required, maturity of technological development, nor the infrastructure required to support a vessel that is to be used like the Taiku. Yet.

     All of that is simply a reflection of the low price of fossil fuels. There has simply been no commercial incentive to develop alternatives.
     • weka 2.3.1

       2 April 2017 at 12:49 pm

       http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/about/ships/the-rainbow-warrior/

       Then the timing, retrofitting issues etc etc, as a trade off on getting out to sea right now on the campaign that’s happening right now in response to the seismic blasting that’s happening right now. IMO it’s a bullshit argument. It could have been an interesting conversation, but the whole ‘Greenpeace fucked up’ framing, with undertones of they don’t know what they’re doing, is just bizarre and we literally don’t have time for this.
       • Andre 2.3.1.1

         2 April 2017 at 1:00 pm

         Yeah, there may be times and places where Greenpeace may choose to showcase technology alternatives. A fast response protest support vessel doesn’t look like one of those times it’s sensible to do that.
       • Bill 2.3.1.2

         2 April 2017 at 1:11 pm

         Who said “Greenpeace fucked up”? That’s your exaggerated framing from what I can see. Yes, they almost certainly missed an opportunity to execute something much better.

         The arse of it is that I don’t think it even crossed their mind. Look at their public statements on ‘off-setting’ and their take on CC and pitch your own probability of that being the case.

         Carbon put into the atmosphere right now is crucially important. It’s that which determines future warming. (Yeah, I know – wee boat.) My point is that the fossil and GW message could have been put out there and monies probably raised for a green option in the process. But hey.

         The argument (or defence) you’re putting up would essentially appear to be one of exceptionalism. That’s something we most certainly don’t have any time for. There are no exceptions. (Physics isn’t a reified something with a capacity to care)
         • weka 2.3.1.2.1

           2 April 2017 at 4:25 pm

           No, the argument I’m putting up is that this is bullshit because no-one knows why GP have taken this approach, including you. But by all means let’s keep speculating on whether GP did something wrong based on shit we made up in our heads.

           Beyond that, if they chose to not make Taitu ‘green’ at this stage because they wanted to get out there to challenge the Amazon Warrior, then that’s pragmatics not exceptionalism. Which I have no problem with.

           I listened to the speeches. Those people aren’t ignorant or cc stupid. They’re running one of the biggest cc activism organisations in NZ. I’m pretty sure they know far more about how to operate their organisation, including what’s the best use of timing and effort, than you do.

           “Look at their public statements on ‘off-setting’ and their take on CC and pitch your own probability of that being the case.”

           If you want to make that argument you can link. I’m not going to trawl and then try and mind read what you are looking at or how you’re interpreting it. I’ve already called the idea that GPNZ didn’t think about fossil fuels when setting up the Taitu and idiocy and nothing you have said changes that.
         • JC 2.3.1.2.2

           3 April 2017 at 10:37 pm

           I think you Fucked up Bill. There’s idealism and there’s action! Best you stay home where it’s warm and dry. Then you can theorise to your hearts content… and then deliberate how it could be Best done…
           Then get back in a decade or two! When it’s Too Late!

           Taitu!
         • JC 2.3.1.2.3

           3 April 2017 at 10:49 pm

           I think you Fucked up Bill. There’s idealism and there’s action! Best you stay home where it’s warm and dry. Then you can theorise to your hearts content… and then deliberate how it could be Best done…
           Then get back in a decade or two! When it’s Too Late!

           Taitu!
     • Bill 2.3.2

       2 April 2017 at 12:52 pm

       You’re a terrible one for crying ‘impossible’ Andre (and bowing down before market bullshit)

       Flettner rotors do not run on wind.
       Kites are flown at very high altitude…permanent and more or less constant wind
       Hydrogen propels ships just fine. (Just less ‘bang for buck’ for whatever volume of fuel is in the tank)
       Batteries are certainly more suited to short crossing type journeys.
       Nuclear (eek!) works too.

       Hell, Greenpeace could even use bio-fuel in the very short term.

       Wee boat. Many possible combinations for propulsion that obviate the need for fossil.
       • marty mars 2.3.2.1

         2 April 2017 at 1:11 pm

         Would ANYTHING be good enough for you Bill. Seems like most everything people try to do in these areas is judged not good enough by you.
         • Poission 2.3.2.1.1

           2 April 2017 at 1:25 pm

           look at the speakers,a bunch of urbanites ,non who have sustained a real job.
           • marty mars 2.3.2.1.1.1

             2 April 2017 at 2:07 pm

             Politicians, activists and campaigners – yeah they’re real layabouts LOLOLOLOL
             • Poission …

               3 April 2017 at 2:13 pm

               Thanks for confirming a neat statistical fact.
               • weka …

                 3 April 2017 at 3:03 pm

                 I’m still trying to figure out what a real job is.
           • timeforacupoftea 2.3.2.1.1.2

             2 April 2017 at 3:33 pm

             I would go further.
             I gave up on Greenpeace a number of years ago.
             Greenpeace has lost it ability for peaceful protests and should be just called the rainbow boat or something else.
             Greenpeace have been acting as a bunch of cowboys and cowgirls on the high seas enough to make me come to the conclusion they are close to being terrorists.
             Whenever they go out I feel this urge to yell “I hope your boat sinks”.
         • Bill 2.3.2.1.2

           2 April 2017 at 1:32 pm

           Nah Marty. You can frame what I’ve written as negative if you like. But just mind, that’s your framing and not mine.
           • marty mars 2.3.2.1.2.1

             2 April 2017 at 2:05 pm

             Sure Bill no judgement from you at all jusl all my framing – good you held onto that ‘ get out of jail free’ card innit
             • Bill …

               2 April 2017 at 2:17 pm

               Marty, where did I opine that Greenpeace (or anyone else) opposing seismic testing was a bad thing?

               edit. Go back to my original comment (and some others). I said an opportunity was missed in terms of putting a solid GW message out there.

               I suggested that they may have been able to do that as part and parcel of fundraising for a boat.

               And here’s the thing. Even if that fundraising had fallen short or even if technical barriers had killed off any idea of a fossil free boat, the message – one they are very keen to get out there – would have gotten out there.

               And if they’d managed to get a Greenpeace boat, then…think about it for a second. The never ending public messaging!

               But did they even try? That’s my criticism. They didn’t even try.
               • marty mars …

                 2 April 2017 at 3:56 pm

                 You don’t know what they considered or tried. You are not basing your opinion on fact and you aren’t seeing what HAS happened and how that continues the movement to what we want to go to. Sure call it constructive criticism if you want it is still criticism and unwarranted in the big scheme of things imo.
                 • weka …

                   2 April 2017 at 4:27 pm

                   I wouldn’t call it constructive criticism, it’s destructive criticism, and I completely agree that it’s got no factual basis.

                   The problem now is that Bill and I are equally stubborn 😈
                   • Bill …

                     2 April 2017 at 4:49 pm

                     In what way is pointing to missed opportunities destructive criticism?
                   • weka …

                     2 April 2017 at 5:11 pm

                     It’s in how you did it.
                 • Bill …

                   2 April 2017 at 4:37 pm

                   Correct. I don’t know for a fact that they didn’t run a campaign on the back of securing a green boat that had the added and not inconsequential bonus of getting a basic and necessary message about GW out into the public arena.

                   I might have missed it. Oh, hang on – wouldn’t someone here have alerted me to it if that was the case? Or wouldn’t I have found traces of it with some pretty basic google searching?

                   As for what they considered, as I said previously, I’m basing my opinion on reasonable assumptions given lack of mention of any such consideration in their literature, and given their known take on off-setting alongside their publicly available documents on GW.

                   Ie, – build our way out, price carbon and be ‘renewable’ (bio-energy) in the energy sector – ie, not zero carbon … by 2050 on what is essentially a BAU trajectory..

                   You say in your comment they are continuing “the movement to what we want to go”. Well, I don’t want a world of >+2 degrees C. And unfortunately, that’s where Greenpeace’s ideas would take us.

                   Meanwhile. Do I support their opposition to oil drilling etc? Yes. Do I welcome their rejection of promises being made around carbon capture and storage tech? Yes.
                   • weka …

                     2 April 2017 at 4:41 pm

                     Yes, that’s what it looks like to me. You disapprove of GP in general and have trashed this thread by focussing on something that has no real basis in fact and can’t be argued with because of that. I’ll just keep saying it, it’s not the content of what you argue it’s the approach and framing. Trashing allies is a losing strategy.
                   • Bill …

                     2 April 2017 at 5:05 pm

                     I see. So you’ve concluded that I simply ‘whole sale’ disapprove of Greenpeace and so on that basis, any idea or thought from me about what ‘might have been’ had they gone about their public relations slightly differently (and that could always be borne in mind for similar future scenarios) cannot be discussed or debated and anyway ‘trashing allies’.

                     Wow.
                   • weka …

                     2 April 2017 at 5:13 pm

                     No, I don’t think any of that.
         • Karen 2.3.2.1.3

           2 April 2017 at 1:49 pm

           It is always much easier to criticise from the sidelines than get involved and do the work.
           • Bill 2.3.2.1.3.1

             2 April 2017 at 2:15 pm

             You’ve no idea what I do or do not do with regards ‘sidelines’ and ‘involvement’ Karen.

             It’s fairly lazy to throw ad homs because a level of ‘cognitive dissonance’ within an organisation has observed and remarked on…much harder to engage in discussion and explore the ramifications of that disconnect though – or to seek ways to bridge the gaps between thoughts and actions, aye?

             But fuck it, you’re right. Far better and much more comfortable to just stand by and unconditionally cheer on our team regardless. Because life’s much easier when we reduce our individual critical faculties to the level of those three senseless wee monkeys and then just revel in a simplified world of black and white.
             • Karen …

               2 April 2017 at 2:43 pm

               You are right Bill, I don’t know what you do. It is just an impression I get from your contributions here, which seem to me to be overwhelmingly critical.

               Of course I don’t think you (or anyone else) should be just a cheerleader – but I often don’t even read your posts or comments because they usually are so negative. I get the frustration and the despair – I feel often it myself – but it isn’t productive I find. Maybe it works for you.
               • Bill …

                 2 April 2017 at 3:19 pm

                 Frustration and realism, not despair.

                 As for ‘negative’ posts, well the last one was on not allowing the theft of water from the S. Island. Is that negative?

                 “Trumping Idiocy” was seeing the opportunity that Trump presents with regards GW.

                 “Mosul and Aleppo” was highlighting the hypocrisy of msm.

                 “CIA Hacking Tools” – again, highlighting msm bullshit

                 “Encouraging Signs” – on TOPs attempt at better democratic representation

                 “Heroes” – self explanatory.

                 But hey. You find it all that negative? That’s okay, no-one’s going to make you read the stuff and there are plenty of other, and more prolific, posters around.
       • Andre 2.3.2.2

         2 April 2017 at 1:13 pm

         Flettner rotors do not require wind to usefully propel a boat? Please explain to me how that works.

         Keep in mind I’m an engineer that’s had reason to do Magnus effect calculations.
         • Bill 2.3.2.2.1

           2 April 2017 at 1:29 pm

           Begging your pardon. Yes, in the doldrums, flettner rotors would not be able to create the pressure differential.
   • Nick Young 2.4

     3 April 2017 at 7:56 am

     Hi Bill –

     Yes Taitu runs on diesel. We explored all options, but in the time that we had, within the budget we had, and to do the job at hand, this was the best option.

     Some say this is hypocritical but if you think about it, there is no hypocrisy in working towards a society that’s free of oil while you live in an oil-dependent society. In fact, it’s all we can do. A precondition for hypocrisy is choice – and it is choice we are fighting for.

     If we are to transition away from oil, we must fight for, and enact policies to end oil dependency even while we are hooked on oil.

     The allegation that we are hypocrites for opposing oil implies that we have no right to do anything towards being oil free until we are actually oil free and that is clearly ridiculous.

     If we fall for this so-called hypocrisy argument, it guarantees that we can never do anything towards being free of our oil dependency. It’s no wonder that the oil industry, oil drilling advocates and their trolls love the hypocrisy argument.

     People once wore clothes made of cotton picked by slaves. But that did not make them hypocrites when they joined the abolition movement. It just meant that they were also part of the slave economy, and they knew it. That is why they acted to change the system, not just their clothes.

     We all do what we can do to lessen our environmental footprint but that alone is not enough. We have to challenge the system that locks us into oil dependency.

     (We’ll also convert Taitu to run on waste vegetable oil.)
     • Bill 2.4.1

       3 April 2017 at 9:21 am

       HI Nick – thanks for the response.

       If you care to read my initial comment, you’ll see that I wasn’t accusing Greenpeace of hypocrisy, but lamenting the fact that a more penetrative and broader fund raising campaign wasn’t engaged in – one that would have put a forceful GW message right into the public arena.

       As I commented by way of follow-up, even if that campaign had failed to secure a non-fossil vessel, it would have succeeded in terms of messaging.

       You may also notice from other comments that I support anti-oil initiatives.

       So yeah – your response is a bit of a straw man really, but hey.

       By way of your bracketed end note – do you (ie – Greenpeace) acknowledge that bio-fuels (from a western or Annex 1 perspective) can only be used in the very, very short term and essentially have no part to play in a world that’s serious about seeking to avoid 2 degrees C?
     • Poission 2.4.2

       3 April 2017 at 2:13 pm

       (We’ll also convert Taitu to run on waste vegetable oil.)

       Palm or GMO canola?
     • weka 2.4.3

       3 April 2017 at 3:10 pm

       Nice one Nick. It’d be great to hear more about the vegetables oil conversion at some point.
   • Steve Abel 2.5

     3 April 2017 at 10:45 am

     Hi Bill,
     Taitu is powered by bio diesel and after this mission we’ll refit for biofuel (needs some time as it cleans out the engine).

     The boat is 81 years old and the cost of buying a relatively cheap second hand boat and re-purposing it is orders of magnitude less costly than building from scratch. And much quicker. You also save on the embedded carbon cost of new materials. Re-purposing is a good thing.

     We have built from scratch once with the third Rainbow Warrior – the only purpose built boat in the GP fleet – a sailboat with a hybrid electric and diesel engine. But it cost literally millions. It is a much bigger boat and will last decades of course so a good investment but one that required the global organisation.

     We need whole-of-society action on fossil fuels and even if Greenpeace itself was 100% fossil free it wouldn’t save us. If we focused on being pure ourselves we might succeed but to what end? We believe our purpose is to compel system change and a rapid transition of the whole of society to clean energy systems by campaigning and movement building.

     We get accused of hypocrisy (usually a cheap shot – though i don’t think in this instance) but we’re doing what we believe is the most effective use of our time and relatively limited resources (by comparison with governments or the oil industry) to get the widespread urgent action on climate change that we all need if we are to avoid a hellish existence.

     Thanks,
     Steve Abel (Greenpeace NZ)
     • Bill 2.5.1

       3 April 2017 at 11:30 am

       Hi Steve –

       I appreciate buying second hand is much, much cheaper than building from scratch and all the rest of it. And I’m fully aware that radical systemic changes across the whole of society is necessary with regards any prospect of a sub 2 degree C future: that merely transitioning to clean energy systems will fail due to time constraints. (ie – the time available between now and 2 degrees C, as calculated from IPCC carbon budgets and present emissions, just isn’t long enough to allow us to build those clean energy systems).

       My point (again) was I thought and think it a shame that Greenpeace missed the opportunity to run a public campaign that secured a boat while also getting a fundamental and quite powerful message about GW into the public arena.

       If I can expand just briefly.

       Lets go back in time a little way and imagine Greenpeace says it wants a truly green boat and explains the GW reasoning behind that. Going on the ‘less than optimal’ result of that campaign, the fund raising falls short and a boat like the Taitu is purchased.

       Well, public awareness has been raised substantially. Greenpeace has demonstrated its commitment to being fossil free (and can wear a certain badge of pride even though it falls short). And afterwards, when the oil industry and others turn around (as they will) and throw those cheap shots about how Greenpeace are hypocrites, Greenpeace’s arse is covered. They don’t have to fall back on defensive arguments (like Nick above), but can point to their genuine effort to be ‘squeaky clean’ – essentially getting another bite at the cherry every time that cheap shot is made.

       Ie – just solid messaging and good propaganda.

       And as a postscript, if you’d care to respond to the question asked of Nick (above) about Greenpeace’s take on the place for bio-fuel in any scenario aiming for sub 2 degrees, I’d appreciate it.
       • Poission 2.5.1.1

         3 April 2017 at 2:15 pm

         Meanwhile in the real world.

         http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1704/S00017/maori-waka-intercepts-worlds-largest-seismic-testing-ship.htm
       • Steve Abel 2.5.1.2

         3 April 2017 at 9:51 pm

         Yeah i think biofuels are a useful transition (among a suite of other strategies) which allows us to do the sort of thing we are with Taitu – keep an old diesel engine going for a little longer rather than just scrap the whole thing or do an expensive re-fit.

         Biofuels are inherently risky too in terms of how and where they are produced. using arable land for growing fuel instead of food is not something Greenpeace supports. NZ is in an unusual position of having some options in terms of wood waste from plantation forestry for producing liquid fuel alternatives to fossil fuels and we could have a substantial domestic industry substituting middle east oil for local biofuel and reduce our multi-billion dollar oil deficit in the bargain.

         Steve
         • Bill 2.5.1.2.1

           4 April 2017 at 10:56 am

           I’ll try to keep this very brief.

           Through Agreements signed up to at Paris and Copenhagen etc, we’ve committed to keeping average surface temperatures to below 2 degrees C, basing action to achieve that on science and equity, yes?

           That’s means (using IPCC carbon budgets and current CO2 emissions) that countries viewed as being of the west or annex 1 or OECD need to fully decarbonise all energy by around 2035 for the world to have just a 1 in 3 chance of avoiding 2 degrees C.

           Bio-fuels produce CO2 and the physics of AGW doesn’t differentiate between CO2 sources – CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere has the same effect no matter the source.

           And it is not technically feasible to build or construct a renewable energy supply, even for current levels of energy use before 2035.

           In other words, there’s a forced disconnect rather than the possibility of a transition.

           We need to reduce emissions now (the calculation is in the order of 15% per year) down to zero by 2035 and be laying in that renewable supply.

           Bio-fuels (even if all the logistical and ethical issues involved were resolved) essentially have no role to play. (Yes, we could ‘swap out’ fossil for bio in the context of reducing our over all emissions, but we can’t substitute fossil for bio on the back on some notion that bio-fuels have no impact or only a benign impact on levels of atmospheric CO2 )

           Maybe I should do a fully referenced post on this…
           • weka 2.5.1.2.1.1

             4 April 2017 at 11:22 am

             A post would be good.

             At first glance I’d say there’s some interim use from using biofuels from existing waste streams, and probably from certain kinds of intentionally grown material that also sequesters carbon.

             (which leads me at least into the debate about burning firewood sustainably, and that thing about how reaching for zero on its own is not enough, we need to design systems that are truly sustainable as part of that).
             • Bill …

               4 April 2017 at 1:23 pm

               At first glance I’d say there’s some interim use from using biofuels from existing waste streams…

               Well yes, and I said that in the preceding comment (swapping out some fossil for bio in the context of over-all reductions)

               and probably from certain kinds of intentionally grown material that also sequesters carbon.

               Which then releases its sequestrated CO2 into the atmosphere when combusted thereby adding to the accumulated levels of atmospheric CO2. The theoretical way around that is BECCS (Bio Energy Carbon Capture and Storage) which is fraught to say the least and which Greenpeace (to their credit) rejects as an option.

               I’ve personally never claimed or suggested that zero carbon from energy is sufficient, merely that it’s necessary. No scientific paper, nor scientist, nor other person speaking on AGW who has the ability to spell “IQ” has, to my knowledge, claimed that getting emissions to zero is sufficient either.
     • weka 2.5.2

       3 April 2017 at 3:06 pm

       Thanks for clarifying Steve. I especially liked the bit about embedded carbon costs of new materials, something not looked at nearly enough.
3. JC 3

   3 April 2017 at 10:52 pm

   I think you Fucked up Bill. There’s idealism and there’s action! Best you stay ashore where it’s warm and dry. Then you can theorise to your hearts content… and then deliberate how it could be Best done…

   https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#search/greenpeace/15abaf196b056e01

   Then get back in a decade or two! When it’s weigh Too Late!

   Taitu!
4. David Millar 4

   10 April 2017 at 7:57 pm

   Ask yourself, if the world was cooling would “big oil” be the hero not the villain?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS