#fossil fuel imports

[awesome-casuallyfamouscollector]

The announcement came after hourslong negotiations at an OPEC+ meeting — the grouping of the 13-member Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), headed by Saudi Arabia, and the group's 10 partners, led by Russia.

The meeting was closely watched as a tough one, with Russia seen as wanting to maintain production levels, and Saudi Arabia seeking to push prices(..)

P.S. This is another good reason to replace ICE vehicles with electric ones...

[nepalenergyforum]

Nepal's EV market attracts Indian, Chinese investors

As oil-less Nepal makes a sharp turn towards electric vehicles (EVs), neighbouring auto giants India and China have lunged forward to establish assembly plants in the Himalayan republic. Almost a dozen Indian and Chinese investors have proposed to set up factories in Nepal following a jump in sales of battery-powered automobiles, the Department of Industry said. In the last two fiscal years, two…

[politijohn]

Source

To be clear, Biden approved an oil project that will release an estimated 287 million metric tons of emissions over 30 years and likely harm local wildlife. But yay for 300 long-term jobs.

A reminder of what Biden campaigned on in 2020: “No more drilling on federal lands. No more drilling, including offshore. No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill”

[secretmellowblog]

i just dont really understand why theyd target les mis? and like. its interrupting the work of actors and crew and house staff who dont have anything to do with fossil fuel corps. people who just paid to see the show who dont have anything to do with it.

i understand les mis is a show about rebellion and humanity but to me it doesnt make any sense.

( i say this as someone whos probably very unaware and very slow to realize the deeper meaning of things so i apologize if it comes off snobby i am just confused !! /genuine )

I'm very sorry if this comes off as rude but like.... "I don't understand why people would use Les Mis as the symbolic centerpiece of an act of protest/rebellion against the government" is just a very strange thing to say, and I'm genuinely not quite sure how to begin to respond XD. Like....it's literally Les Mis. It is Do You Hear the People Sing. The original novel was written to be a political rallying cry, it was written to bind together activists, and it has been used that way thousands of times since its publication in 1862. It's Les Mis, I don't know what else to tell you XD. Also I know this next comparison isn't perfect, but:

“I don’t understand why Les Amis interrupted Lamarque’s funeral.  Obviously I agree with Les Amis’s goals, but was this really the right way to protest? Obviously the government is doing something bad— but was this symbolic event really the right place to talk about it? Why even choose to interrupt this event, and the lives of the workers leading it and everyday people attending it? It wasn’t responsible for what was happening! 

Okay, yeah, I get the funeral is ‘symbolically significant.’  I get that Lamarque has become, in popular culture, a symbol of rebellion and resistance against a government’s unfair policies.  I get Lamarque’s funeral is a pretty big public event that has a lot of symbolic significance ties to ideas of rebellion against the state.

I get that Lamarque’s words are often seen as a rebellious call to action, so illegally interrupting his funeral could be a statement about resisting tyranny. It could be a call to action playing off the popularity and symbolic role that Lamarque has in the public consciousness.

 But at the same time— shouldn’t Les Amis have just gone to the palace and attacked the king directly? Why disrupt this symbolic event instead? They’re not really going after the people responsible! 

After all, there were so many people there who just wanted a normal day. They weren’t responsible for what the government was doing and had nothing to do with it.  They wanted to see the procession, to hear Lafayette’s speech and grieve a political figure they cared for. They wanted to hear people praise ‘resistance’ in the abstract, without actually doing it.

 Weren’t Les Amis disrupting that?  

Aren’t Les Amis bad activists? Isn’t disrupting people’s everyday lives for the sake of 'activism' always inherently a bad thing? I’m not against activism, but isn’t doing that kind of disruptive activism rude? Isn’t disrupting the lives of ordinary people just doing their jobs or going out for a special event evil— no matter why you’re doing it, or what your goals are, or whether the government actually is doing something vile that we should start to stage great events rallying against?

Even if this Lamarque's funeral has special significance because of its symbolic pop cultural ties to rebellion against tyranny—shouldn’t they have just avoided rudely interrupting some regular people’s everyday lives? 

Protests shouldn’t disrupt things. they should be big parades that don’t make anyone uncomfortable, don’t interrupt anything, and don’t disrupt any aspects of ‘normal people’s daily life.’ No one should ever target symbolic events— like a funeral for a political figure or a musical about revolution—  to make a political statement. Protests should be little quiet festivals that cause absolutely no interruption in everyday life so that we can all just safely ignore them, until the climate catastrophe they’re warning us about arrives.”  

[lesboyajaceare]

hi if you live in new jersey in the bergen county area specifically please be careful. theres been wildfires and all 21 counties now have restrictions due to how bad they are. the air is dry and windy and its catching fire fast, especially with the drought and resevoir drying up.

water your yard and fences and lawns, put out water stations for birds and under animals, and if you can, wear a mask when you go outside. especially if you have breathing issues like me.

i love you. be safe.

[psychotrenny]

People who are against both fossil fuels and nuclear really need to read up on their early modern history. Even at a bare minimum subsistence level humans need energy for cooking and (in a great deal of the world) heating and if you want to support a certain level of population (I.e. a level that most of the world passed by 1900 and and the rest by 2000) in most of the world you're gonna need the products of industry to produce sufficient food (like have fun doing earthworks on heavy soil without metal tools). By 1800 much of Western Europe and Eastern Asia (especially the more densely populated parts like like England and France in the former and Shandong and the Yangzi delta in the latter) were facing severe ecological stress due to the high wood demand for both household and industrial uses(even while they imported large amounts of it from less dense areas like the Baltic coast, North America and South East Asia). This loss of forest lead to a range of issues like soil erosion, rising water tables, increased flood damage and even localised climate change (many people believe that the "European Monsoons" of the late 18/early 19th century were the result of deforestation while forest loss is used to explain north Chinese rainfall patterns to this day).

Southern China was only barely able to stabilise the situation through developments in cooking/hating fuel use efficiency and the use of a range of alternative fuels like dung and crop residues (and maintaining this level of crop and livestock production required yet more imports like beancake fertiliser from Manchuria) while the situation in the North continued to deteriorate into the 20th century. Meanwhile forest cover and soil health in Europe only began to recover when use of coal both fully displaced wood as an an energy source and allowed the development of other technologies to reduce the level of land clearance necessary to support society. That's not to say this solution was perfect of course (I'm sure we all know what effects this use of coal has had on the global climate, while part of the return to forest in Europe was the result of Europeans importing land intensive commodities from other parts of the world; essentially exporting the forest clearance) and we are in desperate need of an alternative, but when deciding on which alternative you need to reckon with this. Flat out "de-industrialisation" is not only an intensely cruel solution in human terms but simply isn't environmentally viable either. Wind, water and biofuel could barely support a planet of 1 billion people how well do you think it'll fare with almost 8 billion. And if you think modern renewable technologies can make up the difference you're gonna need the number to back that up; good vibes is no substitute for the quantity of kilojoules humans needs to survive

[yetisidelblog]

@upontheshelfreviews

@greenwingspino

@one-time-i-dreamt

@tenaflyviper

@akron-squirrel

@ifihadaworldofmyown

@justice-for-jacob-marley

@voicetalentbrendan

@thebigdeepcheatsy

@what-is-my-aesthetic

@ravenlynclemens

@writerofweird

@bogleech

[lies]

Sometimes when I'm birdwatching

[probablyasocialecologist]

At its fastest rate of deployment, mining quantities for low-carbon energy will be 500 to 1000 times less than current fossil fuel production.

But even this underestimates the differences in these quantities: the numbers for fossil fuels are the amount we need every year because they’re the ‘running’ costs.

Mining quantities for low-carbon energy is hundreds to thousands of times lower than mining for fossil fuels

[aficionadoenthusiast]

happy earth day!

[awesome-casuallyfamouscollector]

How [war criminal] Putin made Europe go green faster

DW Planet A

One year after Russia invaded Ukraine, analysts think Putin's aggression may have sped up Europe's energy transition. How's that?

[the-psudo]

[source]

We've never had a time when we've exported more crude oil than we've imported, but there are times that we've exported more petroleum products than we've imported. Petroleum products includes crude oil, gasoline, diesel fuels, jet fuel, plastics, and much more. Anything that can be made from what comes out of oil wells.

That negative net imports era began in 2020 under Trump, and he touted it as 'energy independence.' Exporting more plastics than we import doesn't really relate to energy independence, though. Real energy independence starts with exporting more crude oil than we import.

But the net exports of petroleum products that Trump celebrated as an accomplishment are greater now than they ever were then.

[politijohn]

Source

Democracy, baby!

[notwiselybuttoowell]

This year’s UN climate summit, being held in Azerbaijan, is focused on finance, and specifically the new collective quantified goal (NCQG) for climate finance, required under the 2015 Paris agreement. Rich countries are bound under the agreement to provide climate finance to help developing nations cut their greenhouse gas emissions and cope with the impacts of the climate crisis. The current finance goal, of providing $100bn a year to poor countries, is widely acknowledged to be inadequate, and most rich countries agree the figure needs to be several times higher.

The NCQG

Poor countries are asking for finance of about $1tn a year by 2035, based on widely accepted estimates of their needs. Rich countries are likely to agree to a considerably smaller sum, perhaps about half that amount, to be paid from their exchequers and through multilateral institutions such as the World Bank.

The gap could be met from a variety of means, including new taxes on fossil fuels or the diversion of existing subsidies to cleaner ends. These “innovative sources of finance” will not be fully articulated or agreed at Cop29 and will need further work.

Rich countries are demanding that the contributor base be expanded. Currently, only countries defined as developed under the 1992 UN framework convention on climate change contribute to official climate finance. But many countries’ economies – and greenhouse gas emissions – have expanded considerably in the last 30 years, including China, which is now the world’s second biggest economy, behind the US, and the biggest emitter by a long way. Petrostates such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, with their vast oil wealth, are also classed as developing economies.

Many countries are resistant to expanding the contributor base, but the EU’s position is that it will not accept a climate finance goal higher than the current $100bn unless more contributors are included. There could be a compromise by which some developing countries contribute on a voluntary basis or are allowed to be both contributors and recipients of climate aid.

If countries can overcome their differences, what could emerge from the fortnight of talks is a “layered” NCQG that includes an overall goal measured in trillions, plus a public finance goal measured in hundreds of billions, and a narrative committing countries to work on filling the gaps, including through innovative sources of finance (see below).

Loss and damage

One key strand of climate finance is the vexed issue of “loss and damage”, the term that describes the most extreme damages of the climate crisis, so severe that no amount of adaptation could have prevented them. Examples include the devastating floods in Pakistan two years ago, or hurricanes that have wiped out towns and villages, and large chunks of afflicted countries’ infrastructure and economies.

Loss and damage funds are intended for the rescue and rehabilitation of countries and communities afflicted by these extreme events. For years, developing countries’ pleas for loss and damage funding went unheard, but last year there was a breakthrough at the Cop28 summit when plans for a loss and damage fund were finalised. The fund is to be set up under the aegis of the World Bank, despite some misgivings among developing countries over the bureaucracy this involves.

The fund still needs to be filled with cash from donors, and it is still unclear when it will start to disburse money, so countries will be hoping for progress towards “operationalising” it at Cop29.

NDCs

Rapid and deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions will be crucial if the world is to stave off the worst ravages of climate breakdown and have any chance of staying within the vital threshold of 1.5C of heating above preindustrial levels. Cuts need to reach net zero emissions by 2050, but current national plans by governments – called nationally determined contributions, or NDCs, in the UN jargon – are nowhere near that.

Cop29 is mainly about climate finance but the need for new NDCs cannot be ignored. Governments are supposed to submit their updated plans next February, well ahead of the Cop30 conference in Brazil next November, where they will be assessed.

The election of Donald Trump in the US is likely to cast a pall over efforts to get countries to submit stringent new NDCs. Many recalcitrant countries are likely to use his climate denial as cover for their own inaction. Cop29 will be judged a success if the hosts can persuade countries to agree to submit new NDCs next year despite that.

Transition away from fossil fuels

One of the biggest achievements of the Cop28 conference in Dubai last year was a commitment to “transition away from fossil fuels”, contained in paragraph 28 of the Cop decision and a core part of the “UAE consensus” that was the main outcome of that meeting.

Since then, however, some countries, including Saudi Arabia and other members of its loose collection of allies, known as the “like-minded developing countries” grouping, have tried to unpick the commitment. Behind closed doors during the negotiations leading up to Cop29, they have variously argued that the commitment is optional rather than binding and that countries were strong-armed into it without being allowed to consider it properly.

Azerbaijan is also a major fossil fuel producer, though it has a target of generating a third of its energy from green sources by 2030. As host, it will be responsible for ensuring there is no unpicking or backsliding from previous commitments.

Article 6

Carbon trading has been a vexed issue at climate talks since their earliest days, and article 6 of the Paris agreement has been like a serial killer in a horror film, constantly coming back from the seeming dead.

Article 6 was supposed to have been solved in the immediate aftermath of the Paris summit in 2015, but by 2019 it was still an outstanding issue, left over when the rest of the “Paris rulebook” was finalised. It was discussed again at Cop26, where it was again supposed to be finalised, only to re-emerge at Cop27 and Cop28. Some delegates are saying it will finally be sorted out this year; others heave a weary sigh.

At root, the problem is there are fundamental misgivings among many countries over whether and how a carbon offsetting system can work. Widespread examples of fraud and misdealing have plagued the carbon markets for two decades, some of them recently uncovered by the Guardian. The concept of paying countries to keep their forests standing is an attractive one, because the fundamental problem is that without such payments people can make more money from chopping down trees in their territories and converting the land to plantation or ranching.

Awarding landowners carbon credits for their forests raises problems of moral hazard – were the forests really at risk from loggers, or have the owners confected or exaggerated the risk to gain cash? Governments and private sector companies want to create a market for credits that have integrity, accountability, transparency and that achieve the aim of contributing to net zero targets, but the steps towards doing so have been painfully slow.

Carbon trading has assumed a new importance this year as it could provide a source of cash for the NCQG. But this is unlikely to amount to much more than a few tens of billions, a sliver of the trillions needed. It is possible that the Azerbaijani presidency will achieve what no other Cop host has done and resolve the conflicts over article 6, but it will not be a high priority.

Innovative forms of finance

Poor countries require at least $1tn a year in finance to help them cut greenhouse gas emissions, shift to a low-carbon economy and adapt to the impacts of extreme weather. Developed countries are currently willing to ensure about half of that is provided from public sources. That leaves a large gap, which countries are hoping to fill with other sources of cash, known as innovative forms of finance.

These can take the form of levies on high-carbon activities, from flying private jets to oil and gas extraction, or taxes on wealth, the idea of which is gaining traction as global inequality grows rapidly. But all of these innovative forms of finance have winners and losers, and some are likely to be difficult to implement.

No firm decisions will be made on these issues at Cop29, but countries should agree to carry on discussing them and send a clear signal that these options are on the table.

[priteshwemarketresearch]

Green Ammonia Market Statistics, Segment, Trends and Forecast to  2033

The Green Ammonia Market: A Sustainable Future for Agriculture and Energy

As the world pivots toward sustainable practices, the green ammonia market is gaining momentum as a crucial player in the transition to a low-carbon economy. But what exactly is green ammonia, and why is it so important? In this blog, we'll explore the green ammonia market, its applications, benefits, and the factors driving its growth.

Request Sample PDF Copy:https://wemarketresearch.com/reports/request-free-sample-pdf/green-ammonia-market/1359

What is Green Ammonia?

Green ammonia is ammonia produced using renewable energy sources, primarily through the electrolysis of water to generate hydrogen, which is then combined with nitrogen from the air. This process eliminates carbon emissions, setting green ammonia apart from traditional ammonia production, which relies heavily on fossil fuels.

Applications of Green Ammonia

Agriculture

One of the most significant applications of green ammonia is in agriculture. Ammonia is a key ingredient in fertilizers, and its sustainable production can help reduce the carbon footprint of farming. By using green ammonia, farmers can produce food more sustainably, supporting global food security while minimizing environmental impact.

Energy Storage

Green ammonia can also serve as an effective energy carrier. It can be synthesized when there is surplus renewable energy and later converted back into hydrogen or directly used in fuel cells. This capability makes it an attractive option for balancing supply and demand in renewable energy systems.

Shipping Fuel

The maritime industry is under increasing pressure to reduce emissions. Green ammonia has emerged as a potential zero-emission fuel for ships, helping to decarbonize one of the most challenging sectors in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

Benefits of Green Ammonia

Environmental Impact

By eliminating carbon emissions during production, green ammonia significantly reduces the environmental impact associated with traditional ammonia. This aligns with global efforts to combat climate change and achieve sustainability goals.

Energy Security

Investing in green ammonia can enhance energy security. As countries strive to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels, green ammonia offers a renewable alternative that can be produced locally, minimizing reliance on imported fuels.

Economic Opportunities

The growth of the green ammonia market presents numerous economic opportunities, including job creation in renewable energy sectors, research and development, and new supply chain dynamics. As demand increases, investments in infrastructure and technology will drive innovation.

Factors Driving the Growth of the Green Ammonia Market

Regulatory Support

Governments worldwide are implementing policies and incentives to promote the adoption of green technologies. These regulations often include subsidies for renewable energy production and carbon pricing mechanisms, making green ammonia more competitive.

Rising Demand for Sustainable Solutions

With consumers and businesses becoming increasingly aware of their environmental impact, the demand for sustainable solutions is on the rise. Green ammonia aligns with this trend, providing an eco-friendly alternative to traditional ammonia.

Advancements in Technology

Ongoing advancements in electrolysis and ammonia synthesis technologies are making the production of green ammonia more efficient and cost-effective. As these technologies mature, they will further enhance the viability of green ammonia in various applications.

Conclusion

The green ammonia market represents a promising avenue for sustainable development across agriculture, energy, and transportation sectors. As technology advances and regulatory support strengthens, green ammonia is poised to become a cornerstone of the global transition to a greener economy. Investing in this market not only contributes to environmental preservation but also opens up new economic opportunities for innovation and growth.

[headspace-hotel]

USAmericans

Read the Project 2025 manifesto RIGHT NOW

It's MUCH worse than y'all have been hearing

There is so much here you'll have to look at it for yourself, but the climate policy alone is nightmare fuel.

The republican coalition wants to essentially end funding for green energy, dramatically promote and expand fossil fuel industries, and eliminate funding and regulations in all sectors promoting climate change mitigation. Task forces and offices related to clean energy and lowering carbon emissions will be eliminated and replaced with offices for promoting fossil fuels.

They want to LOG NATIONAL FORESTS TO "THIN" THE TREES TO STOP WILDFIRES.

THEY WANT TO FORCE OREGON AND CALIFORNIA TO LOG THEIR NATIONAL FORESTS AND TREAT THEM AS FOR TIMBER PRODUCTION

There are specific provisions in Project 2025 to essentially destroy the Endangered Species Act, causing it to defer to the rights of "economic development" and "private property." The plan includes delisting gray wolves, cutting the budget so that a "triage" system is used to determine which species will get protection, removing funding for research, removing experts and specialists from the decision-making process, and preventing "experimental" populations of animals from being established.

This is so much worse than I expected it to be and there's much more past that: They want to deregulate pesticides and remove much of the EPA's ability to regulate pollutants as well.

Also included in the manifesto is that we should

withdraw from nuclear weapons nonproliferation agreements, build more nuclear weapons, and resume nuclear weapons testing

The manifesto comprehensively outlines the scorched-earth elimination of abortion access, down to ensuring doctors aren't even trained to perform abortions. There are plans in here to disrupt abortion access GLOBALLY, not just domestically.

Not only that,the Republicans plan on reframing family planning programs around "fertility awareness" and "holistic family planning."

I can't even describe it all. I'm trying to give screenshots of the most important things but there's so much.

The foreign policy is a nightmare. They plan to push fossil fuels onto the Global South and promote the development of fossil fuel industry in the "developing world."

It is aggressive and antagonistic towards other nations, strongly pro-military, proposing that we INCREASE (!!!!!) defense spending, improve public opinion of the military and military recruitment, and increase the power to fund new weapons technology.

Just read the Department of Defense section. It's about greatly increasing and strengthening the military-industrial complex, collaborating more closely with weapons manufacturers, removing regulatory barriers to arming our allies and to inventing new military weapons, and recruiting more people into the military. They include provisions to develop AI technology for surveillance. And of course, continuing to support Israel is in there.

Elsewhere it proposes interfering in foreign countries with creepy pro-USA propaganda campaigns, even establishing international educational programs where faculty have to pledge to promote USA interests.

There's a line in here about getting rid of PBS because SESAME STREET is LEFTIST for God's sake.

HOW are people claiming democrats have the same policies. I feel like i'm losing my mind.