Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
He was personally vilified, but Sultan Al Jaber has managed what no other Cop presidency has ever done
As temperatures broke records around the world this summer, António Guterres, the UN secretary general, warned in September: “Humanity has opened the gates of hell.”
On Wednesday, he hailed delegates at the Cop28 climate summit in Dubai, as two weeks of fraught talks ended. “For the first time, the outcome recognises the need to transition away from fossil fuels,” he said. “The era of fossil fuels must end, and it must end with justice and equity.”
More than 190 nations accepted a text on Wednesday morning that calls on the world to “transition away” from fossil fuels. But is this a historic deal that will spell the eventual end of gas, oil and coal? Or will it be one more step on the road to hell?
Why do you think the MAGA argument works so well when it is claimed that 'those greenies are coming to take away your cars, your stoves and steaks'?
It works because that's what they people are being told by large parts of the climate movement. People who live paycheck by paycheck are being told that they need to cut back, that they shouldn't consume so much, that they are the ones who ruin the planet because they own a ******* smartphone!
'Large parts of the climate movement' are not the only ones telling people they are ruining the planet because they own a smartphone (and other things).
Deloitte Global predicts that smartphones—the world’s most popular consumer electronics device, expected to have an installed base of 4.5 billion in 20221—will generate 146 million tons of CO2 or equivalent emissions (CO2e) in 2022.2 This is less than half a percent of the 34 gigatons of total CO2e emitted globally in 2021, but it is still worth trying to reduce.
The bulk of these emissions, 83% of the total, will come from the manufacture, shipping, and first-year usage of the 1.4 billion new smartphones forecast to be shipped in 2022.4 Usage-related emissions from the other 3.1 billion smartphones in use during 2022 will generate an additional 11%, and the remainder will come from refurbishing existing smartphones (4%) and end-of-life processes (1%),5 including recycling...
Several trends point to the likelihood that smartphone lifetimes will likely indeed become longer in the medium term:
- Smartphones are becoming physically tougher, reducing the need for unplanned replacement.
- Software support for smartphones is being offered for longer.
- Consumers are keeping phones for longer.
- The global market for refurbished and handed-down phones is growing.
The bottom line
Longer smartphone lifetimes could reshape how the smartphone industry generates revenues and profits.
Smartphone vendors could offer higher-priced devices to balance out a fall in the quantity of devices sold, and they may be able to charge a green premium among consumers who favor vendors that have more sustainable approaches. However, vendors should also think about how to grow revenue from sources other than device sales
The truth is that while we continue to run our economies on fossil fuels, practically everything we own has a high cost in greenhouse emissions. But none of the messaging I have found on smartphones suggests anyone is 'coming for them', only that we should keep them longer, repair rather than replace, and recycle old phones rather than toss them in the trash.
Not that this will sway the MAGA crowd. In their minds the entire 'Mainstream Media' are a bunch of commies who want to take away their freedoms - in this case their 'freedom' to treat the planet as their personal sewer. Well screw them I say. Who cares what they think?
'Large parts of the climate movement' are not the only ones telling people they are ruining the planet because they own a smartphone (and other things).
It's the perennial problem with durable products - make something that lasts and eventually you will saturate the market, limiting sales.
In the past, computer sales continued to grow rapidly because the technology was meaningfully improving. But today the improvements are so minor that people don't feel the need to upgrade and only replace their computer when it wears out. After rising exponentially for decades, global PC sales peaked in 2011 and have been gradually going down since. Software is even worse because it doesn't wear out. That's why many producers have changed to subscription models.
Cell phones may soon go the same way. Manufacturers had an ace up their sleeve with non-removable batteries, but now people are demanding the 'right to repair' so they are being forced to make the batteries replaceable. Apart from that a modern cell phone should last at least 20 years provided the current OS and network is compatible with it.
In the past people were happy to buy a new phone when the battery wore out because the new model was better. But the technology is mature now and many people would rather repair their existing phone than buy a new one. Any business that relies on new hardware sales to drive it will have to either accept that the market will saturate and contract with it, or find some other income stream to compensate.
This isn't just about reducing energy consumption. Many people are sick of having to throw away stuff when it could last a lot longer with a bit of maintenance. How would you like it if your car had to be scrapped when the battery wore out? There's a lot of angst over that right now with EVs and hybrids, where the cost to replace the traction battery (at typical spare parts and labor costs) may be more than the vehicle is worth. Manufacturers are typically offering battery warranties of 8 years, but an EV may still be mechanically sound after 20 years or more.
Gas car makers have effectively created a subscription model by providing extended warranties that are void if the specified maintenance is not carried out by an 'authorized' service agent (ie. the dealer). This is the main reason they don't want to sell EVs - lower maintenance requirements means less money for the service department.
This reminds me of back in the 80's when I was into repairing TV sets. Servicemen loved the Philips K9 because it had an excellent service manual and many faults could be fixed by replacing plug-in modules. But the sets themselves were notoriously unreliable, partly because a lot of parts were underrated and had a short lifespan, and partly because many faults were caused by bad contacts on the modules!
The Japanese made better designed sets that were much more reliable and hardly ever needed repair. Servicemen hated them because on the rare occasion they had to repair one it was unfamiliar and took longer to diagnose the fault. The takeaway was don't get advice on what brand to buy from a repairman, because the best brands were the ones they never saw!
Very poor video. I only managed to watch 30 seconds due the overly dramatic intro. Maybe he had something valid to say, but he lost my attention long before getting to the point.
So he didn't think Saudi Arabia being committed to reducing fossil fuel usage is something we should have expected. In that he is dead wrong. They want to stretch out their supply as long as possible to keep the price up and avoid running out of pumping capacity. The problem is that Saudi Arabia is almost totally reliant on oil sales to finance their country. But domestic use was skyrocketing and eating into exports. So Saudi Arabia has a big incentive go green inside its own borders.
As for the rest of the World, that's our problem. They will happily sell oil to us while we still want it - though not in quantities higher than they are happy with.
But the most annoying part is - why shouldn't an oil producing country be concerned about climate change? They will be just as affected by it as we will, and are just as much a slave to the product they are selling as we are to buying it. If Saudi Arabia turned the taps off tomorrow to show their 'true' commitment to reducing global emissions, guess what would happen? That's right, not only would they become the bad guys, but the other producers would happily pump more to make up for it - while also reaping obscene profits due to the shortfall. Result - Saudi Arabia suffers while nothing gets done about global warming.
We should be welcoming the 'surprise' of them even considering global warming mitigation, let alone promoting it. Instead some people are excoriating them for continuing to sell fossil fuels. But the World cannot go cold turkey on oil, a fact which they are in as good a position to know as anyone.
Correct. This is a time to welcome those who hesitate to fully commit because it could be very bad for them if not done right. We are all in it together and should be helping each other get it right. Doing nothing yourself because the other guy doesn't meet your purity standard is the worst kind of hypocrisy.
No, not really. The article contains a number of ways that smartphone retailers can adjust and diversify their businesses, without having to stop selling smartphones.
Smartphone vendors could offer higher-priced devices to balance out a fall in the quantity of devices sold, and they may be able to charge a green premium among consumers who favor vendors that have more sustainable approaches. However, vendors should also think about how to grow revenue from sources other than device sales, which could include:
Media services and applications stores
Online storage—demand for which will grow steadily over time as photos and videos accumulate
Sales of complementary hardware with lower emissions per unit than smartphones (such as Bluetooth headphones, whose sales are forecast to grow by 35% in 2022)24
Commissions on insurance premiums25 and financial products related to the purchase or lease of smartphones.
Very poor video. I only managed to watch 30 seconds due the overly
dramatic intro. Maybe he had something valid to say, but he lost my
attention long before getting to the point.
I skimmed the report in his video. It said we need 3.5 trillion in investments
per year in clean energy technology on page 16. And on page 24, the graph
shows the world does not nearly have enough green money to do so.
Very poor video. I only managed to watch 30 seconds due the overly dramatic intro. Maybe he had something valid to say, but he lost my attention long before getting to the point.
While I accept he is an aquired taste, his content has a lot of points that one rarely sees elsewhere.
You say you stopped watching, and yet you kept typing....
So he didn't think Saudi Arabia being committed to reducing fossil fuel usage is something we should have expected. In that he is dead wrong. They want to stretch out their supply as long as possible to keep the price up and avoid running out of pumping capacity. The problem is that Saudi Arabia is almost totally reliant on oil sales to finance their country. But domestic use was skyrocketing and eating into exports. So Saudi Arabia has a big incentive go green inside its own borders.
As for the rest of the World, that's our problem. They will happily sell oil to us while we still want it - though not in quantities higher than they are happy with.
But the most annoying part is - why shouldn't an oil producing country be concerned about climate change? They will be just as affected by it as we will, and are just as much a slave to the product they are selling as we are to buying it. If Saudi Arabia turned the taps off tomorrow to show their 'true' commitment to reducing global emissions, guess what would happen? That's right, not only would they become the bad guys, but the other producers would happily pump more to make up for it - while also reaping obscene profits due to the shortfall. Result - Saudi Arabia suffers while nothing gets done about global warming.
We should be welcoming the 'surprise' of them even considering global warming mitigation, let alone promoting it. Instead some people are excoriating them for continuing to sell fossil fuels. But the World cannot go cold turkey on oil, a fact which they are in as good a position to know as anyone.
You missed the bit where they are looking to expand markets for oil. He highlighted 3 of them, as there are too many to cover in one film. These include:
Looking to develop supersonic travel again, as it uses about 3x the fuel per person.
Push Africa to build car centric infrasturcure and get car companies to make cheap ICE cars
And then there's the heavy fuel oil..
Many in the middle east are looking to diversify (hence all the vanity projects to attract other sectrs such as finance), but expanding oil markets is not compatable with tackling climate change.
You missed the bit where they are looking to expand markets for oil. He highlighted 3 of them, as there are too many to cover in one film. These include:
Looking to develop supersonic travel again, as it uses about 3x the fuel per person.
Push Africa to build car centric infrasturcure and get car companies to make cheap ICE cars
And then there's the heavy fuel oil..
Thanks for that. I watched a bit more, but it didn't get any better so I read the article he was referring to at the Center For Climate Reporting. And yes, it would appear that Saudi Aramco is working against the goals of the country's leader. Unsurprisingly they aren't promoting this publicly.
However as I said before, this is not unexpected. None of what they are proposing actually goes against what the Crown Prince promised to do inside Saudi Arabia. The country itself is committed to becoming greener, even as they aim to continue exporting as much oil as they can to other countries. But if those other countries are also committed to reducing domestic oil consumption then they still have a problem. If everybody cuts consumption rapidly then Saudi Arabia faces economic ruin, so of course they are looking at ways to prevent that.
In his video Rollie Williams breathlessly exclaims that lobbying the government is easier when you 'are' the government, which is true. He also points out that Saudi Arabia only accounts for a small percentage of the world's oil production, 13% - a little over half that of the top producer - the US - at 21%. So even if the Saudis stopped all oil production tomorrow the other 88% would still flow, and soon be bumped back up to 100% to meet demand.
He also talks about oil companies disseminating FUD to turn people away from EVs and renewable energy. But that is hardly necessary, as you can tell from the number of so-called 'skeptics' on this forum who are acting as their useful idiots. I jokingly talked about 'Big Oil' trolls posting anti EV comments, but of course we all know that they are in fact just regular Luddites members of the public who need no prompting. They lap up anything that counters the 'assault' on their freedom to pollute, while constantly repeating the same tired old talking points.
Here's another one of those talking points knocked down - that no doubt they will ignore:-
Sigma Lithium CEO Ana Cabral-Gardner joined Steve Darling from Proactive announcing the company's final shipment for 2023 of Quintuple Zero Green Lithium concentrate... These operating rates support a monthly shipment cadence of approximately 22,000 tonnes throughout 2024, equivalent to an annual output of approximately 270,000 tonnes of Quintuple Zero Green Lithium concentrate. This achievement underscores the company's significant progress and commitment to sustainable lithium production.
'Quintuple Zero' means:-
- Zero fossil fuels used to power the mining operation
- Zero potable water use (water is recycled)
- Zero use of nasty chemicals to extract lithium from the rock
- Zero tailing dams (100% reusable dry stacked tailings)
That's right - truly 'green' lithium - just what we need to make EVs and storage batteries more sustainable. As time goes by more of the supply chain will become green. When green tech is being made solely by green tech we will have made it.
But in the mean time we still need to use fossil fuel. Saudi Arabia is banking on us using their fossil fuels. But if we show them the door they will have no choice but to transition as quickly as possible. If they don't then it's our fault as much as theirs, for consuming the oil they produce.
The year 2023 has been confirmed as the warmest on record, driven by human-caused climate change and boosted by the natural El Niño weather event.
Last year was about 1.48C warmer than the long-term average before humans started burning large amounts of fossil fuels, the EU's climate service says.
Almost every day since July has seen a new global air temperature high for the time of year, BBC analysis shows.
Sea surface temperatures have also smashed previous highs.
It might have been better had you actually read the entire article.
Some parts you appear to have missed:
The temperature of the air is only one measure of the Earth's rapidly changing climate. Also in 2023:
Antarctic sea-ice hit a "mind-blowing" low, with Arctic sea-ice also below average.
Glaciers in western North America and the European Alps experienced an extreme melt season, adding to sea-level rise.
The world's sea surface hit its highest recorded temperature amid multiple marine heatwaves, including the North Atlantic.
It raises the possibility that 2024 may even surpass the key 1.5C warming threshold across the entire calendar year for the first time, according to the UK Met Office.
This latest warning comes shortly after the COP28 climate summit, where countries agreed for the first time on the need to tackle the main cause of rising temperatures - fossil fuels.
While the language of the deal was weaker than many wanted - with no obligation for countries to act - it's hoped that it will help to build on some recent encouraging progress in areas like renewable power and electric vehicles.
This can still make a crucial difference to limit the consequences of climate change, researchers say, even though the 1.5C target looks likely to be missed.
"Even if we end up at 1.6C instead, it will be so much better than giving up and ending up close to 3C, which is where current policies would bring us," says Dr Friederike Otto, a senior lecturer in climate science at Imperial College London.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
...
