Climate change and fossil fuels

[We Never Know]

No. Trees are only one source of removing CO2 from the atmosphere. The ocean is large and it removes CO2 in two different ways. Also trees on average used to oxidize just like other plants.

Did I say only? Read my post and reply again without trying to shift the goal post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did I say only? Read my post and reply again without trying to shift the goal post.

You did not have to. Don't blame others when you make an error in reasoning.

 

[We Never Know]

Did I say only? Read my post and reply again without trying to shift the goal post.

By the way, the oceans exited before the trees. If only left up to the oceans, we wouldn't be here.

 

[We Never Know]

You did not have to. Don't blame others when you make an error in reasoning.

Lol. Sure thing

 

[We Never Know]

No. Trees are only one source of removing CO2 from the atmosphere. The ocean is large and it removes CO2 in two different ways. Also trees on average used to oxidize just like other plants.

So lets me get this correct....

"Roughly 15 billion trees are cut down each year, the researchers estimate; since the onset of human civilization, the global number of trees has dropped by roughly 46%."

Global forest survey finds trillions of trees - Nature.

Doesn't that mean we have reduced natural CO2 removal by 46%?

Are your claiming that is false?

 

[We Never Know]

No. Trees are only one source of removing CO2 from the atmosphere. The ocean is large and it removes CO2 in two different ways. Also trees on average used to oxidize just like other plants.

Look at it like this....
Trees remove CO2. So do oceans.
-We have reduced global trees by 46%. Less CO2 is removed
-More CO2 means a warmer planet
-A warmer planet means more ice melting causing sea/ocean level rise
-Rising sea/ocean level means it will remove more CO2

Kind of like a natural solution for the 46% reduction of trees we have caused don't you think?

 

[danieldemol]

So glad that everything is all sorted out.

here I was worried that there is no where near enough lithium in the world for the billion plus cars we are trying to replace.

recycling the batteries would be handy and at 95% recovery and a 10 year life cycle it will be 50-60 years before most of it is useless.

'Lithium itself is not scarce. A June report by BNEF2 estimated that the current reserves of the metal — 21 million tonnes, according to the US Geological Survey — are enough to carry the conversion to EVs through to the mid-century.'1

This is so much more a comfort than only having 400 or so years of natural gas we can mine.

'The world has proven reserves equivalent to 52.3 times its annual consumption. This means it has about 52 years of gas left (at current consumption levels and excluding unproven reserves).' 2
But I take it that your reference to natural gas is implicit admission that other fossil fuels are not viable alternatives.

And it is not great that there no major waste problems in the mining of lithium or slave labor being used.

I think we are going to need gas usage in other areas and electric vehicles. Whilst gas is not without it's environmental side effects (especially fracking), it is used in housing, and increasing demand from the automotive industry would logically cause the cost of gas (already high due to war in ukraine) to be even higher for houses.

I would suggest you cite your sources that Lithium has slave labor being used. As far as I know it is not Lithium but cobalt which involves child labour because of the issues associated with 2/3rds of it's supply coming from the Democratic Republic of Congo. This is an issue which needs to be addressed, however it is worth noting that;

'Manthiram is among the researchers who have solved that problem — at least in the lab — by showing that cobalt can be eliminated from cathodes without compromising performance4. “The cobalt-free material we reported has the same crystal structure as lithium cobalt oxide, and therefore the same energy density,” or even better, says Manthiram. His team did this by fine-tuning the way in which cathodes are produced and adding small quantities of other metals — while retaining the cathode’s cobalt-oxide crystal structure. Manthiram says it should be straightforward to adopt this process in existing factories, and has founded a start-up firm called TexPower to try to bring it to market within the next two years. Other labs around the world are working on cobalt-free batteries: in particular, the pioneering EV maker Tesla, based in Palo Alto, California, has said it plans to eliminate the metal from its batteries in the next few years.' 3


1, 3 Electric cars and batteries: how will the world produce enough?
2 World Natural Gas Statistics - Worldometer).

In my opinion

 

[We Never Know]

'Lithium itself is not scarce. A June report by BNEF2 estimated that the current reserves of the metal — 21 million tonnes, according to the US Geological Survey — are enough to carry the conversion to EVs through to the mid-century.'1


'The world has proven reserves equivalent to 52.3 times its annual consumption. This means it has about 52 years of gas left (at current consumption levels and excluding unproven reserves).' 2
But I take it that your reference to natural gas is implicit admission that other fossil fuels are not viable alternatives.


I think we are going to need gas usage in other areas and electric vehicles. Whilst gas is not without it's environmental side effects (especially fracking), it is used in housing, and increasing demand from the automotive industry would logically cause the cost of gas (already high due to war in ukraine) to be even higher for houses.

I would suggest you cite your sources that Lithium has slave labor being used. As far as I know it is not Lithium but cobalt which involves child labour because of the issues associated with 2/3rds of it's supply coming from the Democratic Republic of Congo. This is an issue which needs to be addressed, however it is worth noting that;

'Manthiram is among the researchers who have solved that problem — at least in the lab — by showing that cobalt can be eliminated from cathodes without compromising performance4. “The cobalt-free material we reported has the same crystal structure as lithium cobalt oxide, and therefore the same energy density,” or even better, says Manthiram. His team did this by fine-tuning the way in which cathodes are produced and adding small quantities of other metals — while retaining the cathode’s cobalt-oxide crystal structure. Manthiram says it should be straightforward to adopt this process in existing factories, and has founded a start-up firm called TexPower to try to bring it to market within the next two years. Other labs around the world are working on cobalt-free batteries: in particular, the pioneering EV maker Tesla, based in Palo Alto, California, has said it plans to eliminate the metal from its batteries in the next few years.' 3


1, 3 Electric cars and batteries: how will the world produce enough?
2 World Natural Gas Statistics - Worldometer).

In my opinion

Here are the trucks used to mine lithium. They burn 1800 to 2000 gallons of fuel per day. They more lithium we need, the more of these that will have to run. That pretty green

 

[danieldemol]

Look at it like this....
Trees remove CO2. So do oceans.
-We have reduced global trees by 46%. Less CO2 is removed
-More CO2 means a warmer planet
-A warmer planet means more ice melting causing sea/ocean level rise
-Rising sea/ocean level means it will remove more CO2

Kind of like a natural solution for the 46% reduction of trees we have caused don't you think?

Are you prepared to deal with the 267 million people that lived on land less than 2m above sea level as of 11 months ago being displaced (and predicted to be 410 million people by 2100 using a remote sensing method called Lidar, which pulsates laser light across coastal areas to measure elevation on the Earth’s surface, with a 1 metre sea level rise and zero population growth?1

1 Up to 410 million people at risk from sea level rises – study.

 

[We Never Know]

Are you prepared to deal with the 267 million people that lived on land less than 2m above sea level as of 11 months ago being displaced (and predicted to be 410 million people by 2100 using a remote sensing method called Lidar, which pulsates laser light across coastal areas to measure elevation on the Earth’s surface, with a 1 metre sea level rise and zero population growth?1

1 Up to 410 million people at risk from sea level rises – study.

It doesn't matter of we are prepared or not, it will/is happening.

Look at it like this....
Trees remove CO2. So do oceans.
-We have reduced global trees by 46%. Less CO2 is removed
-More CO2 means a warmer planet
-A warmer planet means more ice melting causing sea/ocean level rise
-Rising sea/ocean level means it will remove more CO2
-We keep cutting trees and polluting the oceans.
-Both mean less CO2 removal.

 

[danieldemol]

Here are the trucks used to mine lithium. They burn 1800 to 2000 gallons of fuel per day. They more lithium we need, the more of these that will have to run. That pretty green

'The increase in lithium mining carries its own environmental concerns: current forms of extraction require copious amounts of energy (for lithium extracted from rock) or water (for extraction from brines). But more-modern techniques that extract lithium from geothermal water, using geothermal energy to drive the process, are considered more benign. And despite this environmental toll, mining lithium will help to displace destructive fossil-fuel extraction.' 1

1 Electric cars and batteries: how will the world produce enough?

In my opinion.

 

[We Never Know]

'The increase in lithium mining carries its own environmental concerns: current forms of extraction require copious amounts of energy (for lithium extracted from rock) or water (for extraction from brines). But more-modern techniques that extract lithium from geothermal water, using geothermal energy to drive the process, are considered more benign. And despite this environmental toll, mining lithium will help to displace destructive fossil-fuel extraction.' 1

1 Electric cars and batteries: how will the world produce enough?

In my opinion.

See post #70

 

[danieldemol]

It doesn't matter of we are prepared or not, it will/is happening.

It is happening, but to what extent we have to suffer the consequences depends on what we can do in time to reduce GHG emissions.
In my opinion

 

[We Never Know]

It is happening, but to what extent we have to suffer the consequences depends on what we can do in time to reduce GHG emissions.
In my opinion

We may be at or past the tipping point. Still we aren't changing cutting trees, polluting the oceans(the two largest CO2 natural removal systems.)

When more CO2 is produced, more needs to be removed. It can't be removed by us constantly destroying the two major natural removal systems.

 

[danieldemol]

We may be at or past the tipping point. Still we aren't changing cutting trees, polluting the oceans(the two largest CO2 natural removal systems.)

When more CO2 is produced, more needs to be removed. It can't be removed by us constantly destroying the two major natural removal systems.

Sadly it would never have come to this if the world hadn't been so overpopulated, but it wasn't our choice to be born on the eve of disaster, we can only mitigate it's effects and see to it that it doesn't happen again.
In my opinion

 

[We Never Know]

Sadly it would never have come to this if the world hadn't been so overpopulated, but it wasn't our choice to be born on the eve of disaster, we can only mitigate it's effects and see to it that it doesn't happen again.
In my opinion

One of the biggest problems is people don't care. As long as they make their profits today, they don't care what happens in a hundred years when they will be dead.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So lets me get this correct....

"Roughly 15 billion trees are cut down each year, the researchers estimate; since the onset of human civilization, the global number of trees has dropped by roughly 46%."

Global forest survey finds trillions of trees - Nature.

Doesn't that mean we have reduced natural CO2 removal by 46%?

Are your claiming that is false?

Yes.

Why do you keep.assuming that trees are the only things that can remove CO2 from the atmosphere?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Look at it like this....
Trees remove CO2. So do oceans.
-We have reduced global trees by 46%. Less CO2 is removed
-More CO2 means a warmer planet
-A warmer planet means more ice melting causing sea/ocean level rise
-Rising sea/ocean level means it will remove more CO2

Kind of like a natural solution for the 46% reduction of trees we have caused don't you think?

Sorry,but until you own up to your incredibly bad math there is no point in continuing.

 

[Truth in love]

That is because growing wood is not enough. We can't beat AGW with just forestation.

It’s not the only thing we need to do, but it’s environmentally friendly, renewable and yet it’s treated like a problem. Why?

 

[Truth in love]

Yes.

Why do you keep.assuming that trees are the only things that can remove CO2 from the atmosphere?

I don’t, but it is a major factor and it provides lots of jobs too so what’s not to love?