We can fight climate change by reducing our carbon footprint.

Decreasing the energy intensity of economic activity is a starting point to fighting climate change.

Reduce emissions

energy saving

Reduce, reuse, recycle

Eat-low carbon

Afforestation

Gov. support

We can fight climate change by reducing our carbon footprint.

Two companies with an identical carbon footprint today can have completely different strategies for managing emissions in the future. While the carbon footprint helps investors understand a portfolio’s exposure to climate risk, it is a static measurement that looks backward, not forward.

A company may face significant shifts in its business opportunities and risks irrespective of its current carbon footprint.

It will be important to take a forward-looking view of a company’s potential response to environmental concerns by looking at indicators such as:

• Three-year greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions trend • Environmental targets such as GHG reduction and energy efficiency metrics • Programs and initiatives to reach targeted goals • Alignment of environmental reporting to the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) framework

I believe that the oil and gas industry or other energy fossil industries can provide solutions to address the challenges posed by climate change. Some companies have been shifting toward cleaner energy for some time; a number have invested in renewable energy and electric vehicle charging points, while others have focused on developing cleaner fuels. To achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement, these efforts will need to be complemented by technologies such as forest management and carbon capture and storage (CCS), a technology that could lead to a 14% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, according to the International Energy Agency.

CO2 reduction does nothing. "The (un) predictability of climate models. The graphs show past predictions from the IPCC based on the different climate models. The first picture is from John Christy in his testimony for the US Senate in 2016. What you see are the expectations of the different calculation models from a few years ago. Below that you can see the actual development of the temperature. Despite the wide spread, all but one of the models appear to be substantially wrong with regard to the prediction of the temperature on earth. Only the Russian INM-CM5 model appears to be reasonable. The second picture is an analysis of the IPCC in the 5th Assessment Report . What is particularly striking there is the large spread of the expectations of the various models, so that there is always a model that is right."

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=nl&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.klimaatfeiten.nl%2Fco2%2Fklimaatmodellen%2Fklimaatmodellen&sandbox=1

Use less coal; Burning coal, oil and gas produces carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide.

Plant more trees: Cutting down forests (deforestation). Trees help to regulate the climate by absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere.

Increasing livestock farming. Cows and sheep produce large amounts of methane when they digest their food.

Fertilisers containing nitrogen produce nitrous oxide emissions.

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/change/causes_en

It is indeed a fight, because the people are divided as far as the cause of climate change. Although the reason is clear, those working in the oil industry are trying to preserve their jobs by building more pipelines in North America!

Canada is split in half and no one knows which way the country is going to go.

Nothing wrong with mineral oil, Michael Issigonis . It is renewable. "fossil" oil is a lie, it is not true. When burnt well, it gives only CO2, and CO2 does nothing at all.

Colonel Fletcher Prouty explains how oil was falsely classified a "fossil fuel" in 1892 (they would have to make it appear to be scarce) and how that deception was advanced further in the 70's by Kissinger and Rockefeller. Prouty also explains that Nixon/Kissinger/Rockefeller were seeking a 'world oil price'. That effort created what many now call the "Petrodollar" and the impact of that mistake is playing out still today across the planet. Both Sadam Hussein and Libya's Ghadafi were stopped (murdered) when they attempted to sell oil in 1) Euros or 2) Dinars. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdSjyvIHVLw

Another scam is to make believe that biodiesel is excellent and better than fossile fuel. Even if that can be calculated as such, the consequence is that poorer countries would produce this under pressure of the world markets and corruption of the politicians, and neglect the production of food, creating so the enrichment of the Elite and empoverishing of the people.

Thierry De Mees are you arguing that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, or that the interaction of CO2 in the bio/atmospheres is too complex to model properly? If the former, then you're either a genius and 99% of scientists are wrong, or you're on the wrong side of agreed upon science. If the latter, it seems extremely risky to hope that a greenhouse gas that alters the radiative balance of the planet somehow doesn't kick-off a fairly extreme disruption to our planets climate over the long-run, especially given the cost-benefit of low-carbon sources up to a fairly high penetration rate.

There are a few misunderstandings in what you wrote, David Birge .

1) CO2 concentrations are 4 molecules out of 10000 molecules of air. Doubling that amount will only give 0.5°C difference, as studied by many scientists.

When looking at "100+ Papers Find Extremely Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity", you will find for some of the papers with something like next to the title: (2X CO2 = 0.4ºC) (2X AnthroCO2 = 0.02ºC). This means that in the above case, the human-made CO2 impact is 5% of the total impact. So, 10 times more man-made CO2 will do almost nothing.

https://notrickszone.com/50-papers-low-sensitivity/

2) The alleged 97% "consensus" is a farce. In fact, it is a statistical survey of papers, nothing to do with content. There is only a few % of serious studies, (not alarmist partisan & activist propaganda) that really believe that the temperature rises are man-made.

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' - The Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/joseph-bast-and-roy-spencer-the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97-1401145980

See also the annexed pdf file.

3) There is no cost benefit of windmills. See the lower graph annexed: End of October: The Northwest is in its fifth day with virtually no wind power. This shows why energy becomes expensive, and the landscape full of ugly windmills.

We must consider that windmills can stop working in a very large region during a week or so. Hence, there is always a full backup needed for windmills if you want industry to run and your fridge as well. So, prices double without benefit!

Approximately 28,000 wind turbines in Germany with a capacity of 57,000 megawatts (MW) and 46,000 MW of solar energy, together account for only 2.5% of all generated and required energy.

Moreover, I have the remark that all the planets are heating up due to the Sun since a few decades now.

Interplanetary Climate Change. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqOkMaaYaAs

So, there is a big difference between the propaganda from some sources, and the reality.

I appreciate the thorough answer. I will review these papers when I get a chance. I hope you are right, it would be easier to use oil/gas for longer as we phase into a mix of solar/wind/nuclear or whatever else is affordable and robust. Still, it would be a pretty big conspiracy for the IPCC, and what appears to be most governments at this point, to be going down a transitional path based on falsifiable science. If the science is clear, why is there not a broader pushback?

I quick search shows that Nature, perhaps the most respected journal, published a paper in 2015 showing that 3/4 of observed climate change is human-induced. https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2896

Either science is totally broken (i.e. the general public can no longer trust anything any of you say and we can just send papers back and forth to each other), CO2 isn't the factor but other human activities are (e.g. deforestation), or you're wrong. Thoughts?

Interesting, what you say, David Birge , very honest and balanced. (Never believe anyone without being convinced after double and tripple checking from different sides/angles).

I have a few other suggestions to think about:

1) Excerpt of the open letter to governments on climate change and climate policy.

"when climate change and global warming are concerned, the media refuse to engage in in-depth journalism.

They almost exclusively rely on so–called climate experts, who pretend to represent the entire scientific community.

There are several examples of extreme pronouncements about climate change that are uncritically parroted by the media, or that journalists use the media as a platform for climate campaigning and activism.

For example, when a debate moderator categorically rejected a serious counter–argument to ‘Climate realism is shirking responsibility’ (in Kristeligt Dagblads Ethisk set, 4 February, 2019).

In doing so, the rules for good media ethics were violated.

Media attention is almost exclusively focused on those who support the claims of UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)."

Johannes Krüger

– – –

Johannes Krüger is dr. and Professor Emeritus at the Department of Geosciences and Nature Management, University of Copenhagen. Fields of research: landscape, glaciers and climate. He is author of the book: Climate myths – a critical assessment of today’s CO2–panic [Klimamyten – et opgør med tidens CO2–panik] (People’s Press 2016).

2) Another open letter to: Statsminister Lars Løkke Rasmussen,

The media are awash with reports about failure of the health system, abuse of social funds and other similar reports. They have often come to light because journalists were determined to ask the right questions. Most recently, three journalists received the Cavling Prize for the disclosure of the involvement of the Danish Bank in a € 200 bn money laundering scandal.

But when climate change and global warming are concerned, the media refuse to engage in in-depth journalism. They almost exclusively rely on so–called climate experts, who pretend to represent the entire scientific community. There are several examples of extreme pronouncements about climate change that are uncritically parroted by the media, or that journalists use the media as a platform for climate campaigning and activism. For example, when a debate moderator categorically rejected a serious counter–argument to ‘Climate realism is shirking responsibility’ (in Kristeligt Dagblads Ethisk set, 4 February, 2019). In doing so, the rules for good media ethics were violated. Media attention is almost exclusively focused on those who support the claims of UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

The issue of the cause of today’s climate change and its many implications, is much more controversial than is being represented by the IPCC and the news media. Because the scientific measurements and observations show something which is quite different from the outcome of the inadequate computer–generated climate models. But politicians are incapable to understand this information and to use it as basis for rational decision–making, because they ignore relevant insights. This is due to the fact that the political environment, like the media world, is strongly biased by groupthink and self–censorship.

I was shocked when a 9th grade student told me that he had chosen to write a composition on the severely limited freedom of speech in the climate debate (everyone else in the class wrote about the ‘harmful’ impact of CO2). The gifted student had an interview with one of the climate spokesmen at Christiansborg (Danish Parliament) about global warming, and he had been appalled by the fact that the politician in question could only portray the emission of CO2 as pure evil.

It continues here:

https://www.climategate.nl/2019/04/open-letter-to-governments-on-climate-change-and-climate-policy/

3) Another one: An IPCC member/expert/scientist (Madhav Khandekar): "if you go back to IPCC 2007 they keep saying that warming will reduce grain production in the world. They were totally wrong well it may be on the other side. I think there are now numerous studies showing by direct measurements and observations that the planet is going through an increased greening in recent decades and many people are saying we cannot ignore the fact that co2 is going to have a positive impact on plant growth. That's so very true! In fact satellite imagery shows again and again enrichment of world forestry. World forestry is becoming greener. We are making the planet greener by more CO2" “Talking about sea level rise lots of people are now showing that the glaciers are melting and sea level is rising but that is not true. I have written a paper in which I have estimated that by 2100 the sea level rise will be between about 15 to 25 centimeters and I have not changed this forecast. In fact I have seen papers particularly by the world authority on sea level rise professor Niklas Smyrna of Stockholm University. He has written paper suggesting that future sea level rise will be at best 10 centimetres in next hundred years. There are a lot of variations or uncertainties so the error bars are plus minus 15 centimeters that depends upon if the climate warms extremely or if the climate cools down. Geophysicist and solar scientists are telling us that the Sun is entering a grand solar minima in next decade. If that happens most solar scientists and other climate scientists feel that the Earth's climate will enter into a long cold phase that could be upon us for several decades.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNjaY5adLXo

An extra remark: The name "fossil" oil/fuel has been invented by Rockefeller and his clique. Well documented by a former CIA colonel Fletcher Prouty ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdSjyvIHVLw ) who wasn't asked for a secrecy oath due to circumstances. There is oil found way below the lowest appearance of any fossils, which are at a few miles dept.

Mineral oil is typically produced by compressed hydrogen and carbon at 100 km depth, and can very well we reproduced in a laboratory.

Prof.Vladimir Kutcherov. https://youtu.be/GuoxLggqI_g?t=4795

About the trustworthiness of scientific papers and journals: when we look at the papers on Special Relativity (with the alleged Lorentz invariance for Electromagnetism), General Relativity, alleged "Dark Matter", alleged "Dark Energy", alleged "Expanding Universe", and when we look at the suppressed theory and technology from Nikola Tesla, and many other issues, I come to the realization that we know maybe 1% of what is true, and where the remaining 99% is only known by a very small minority. It is time to awaken.

Decarbonizing to net zero emissions by 2050 across the economy, managing regulatory changes, adopting rapid technology innovation, and adapting to shifting demand for products

If so, Jules, you will have to pay massive amounts of new taxes until the Sun decides to stop warming up all the planets, and you will have to give away a lot of freedom, depending from the unknown outcome of the business lobbies' actions wrt government officials...

Hi Thierry, we cannot be a fan of "Laisser Faire" in the face of climate change with it's impact on future generations. We have the right to dream of a reversal of trend.....