GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[specinho + 467]

10 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

It appears that the time for reasonable discussion and debate is over, as leading climate agiitators have insisted on throwing down the gauntlet.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Saudi-Arabia-Resists-Renewing-Fossil-Fuel-Phase-Out-Pledge-at-COP29.html

“It is now clear that the Cop is no longer fit for purpose. We need a shift from negotiation to implementation,” they wrote."

These self-styled climate "experts" (Ban Ki-moon, Mary Robinson, Christiana Figueres, and Johan Rockström) have no patience for the slow progress of science and are insisting on radical methods and authoritarian governments forcing them through.

A reporter once wrote in his report for a paper (roughly):" As usual, not much conclusive decision made. See you again next year..." 

 

6 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

Still referencing oilprice for your analysis? Sad. 

COP will continue; just watch.

That dumb article does self-referencing.  Them writing an article is not a "sign" they can reference for anything. 

"And there were signs this might be the case...recall, just days ago we wrote that climate summits were "no longer fit for purpose"."

They do not know what to do exactly.

They just want change and trying to enforce change with

a) vague policies e.g. achieve net zero by 2025, carbon tax etc. It means " this is what we want to achieve, do anything and everything you know for it". So, they copy one another. They fail together with gaiety, when money is provided. 

b) discussion on repeated content, policy that they did not do last year, previous 4 or 10 years. It's called resolution, right? Solve it again what you did not complete last year, this year... 'o' '-'

c) create more policies that no one could keep up with.

Climate summits indeed no longer fit the purpose of solving problems. On the contrary, they might be creating more problems to be solved unconsciously.

COP may continue. But action takers, with money, might no longer be attending. They can keep their expert circle on policies and talks year in year out in vain. 

Saw a drawing on LinkedIn. It says (roughly):" Experts zoom in. They are into detail of an issue or problem. The vision gets narrower as they approach epic position of expertise.

Generalists zoom out. They have wide perspectives that experts most likely missed out."

Therefore, to solve problems with functional efficiency, experts are probably no longer the choice. It's generalists and barehand entrepreneurs or pioneers who will be more of game changers shall empowered.

[TailingsPond + 983]

46 minutes ago, specinho said:

Saw a documentary on how poor agricultural soil generally has become despite chemical fertilizer used. Yield reportedly decreased over time.

Recalling when i was young, we rented next door space to a furniture making company. Much saw dust was produced and it created blackish top soil (likely called humous soil) which was very fertile. Any seed thrown in would grow by itself and fruit without much care.

Over the decades, rain water washed away the top soil gradually. The loss is especially obvious when someone uses trick to occupy swamp next to the planting space used to belong to my grandfather. Add on houses construction affects our drainage system and also our soil.

We sometimes use remaining mixture of organic matter and ash  from burnt pile of tree braches, leaves after rain to spread around trees. 

From this observation, shall ash from coal can be mixed with water, filtered out whatever not desired that possibly there, and sprayed over agricultural soil, it can possibly replenish carbon, the basic building block of living things.

Carbon is probably overlooked by most of us as major nutrient required by soil. We spray chemical fertilizer which usually consists of trace elements nitrogen, phosphorous, sulphur. 

In addition , remnant from harvest, shall can be pulverized, mixed with nutrients shall deficient, and spray with water over soil, could probably be more helpful than chemical fertilizer alone. This would reduce problems of handling coal ash and poor agri soil. Two birds one stone?

Coal ash is full of poison you do not want on your fields / food.

[TailingsPond + 983]

5 minutes ago, specinho said:

Therefore, to solve problems with functional efficiency, experts are probably no longer the choice. It's generalists and barehand entrepreneurs or pioneers who will be more of game changers shall empowered.

Alright, tell me when some bare hand entrepreneur makes a semiconductor computer processor chip.

You need the experts. 

[TailingsPond + 983]

6 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

It appears that Tesla will benefit from some regulatory changes being brought in by the new administration.

QFT

[Ecocharger + 1,469]

3 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

You just posted the new administration will help Tesla.

"Help"? That is a broad term, perhaps help in terms of regulatory rulings on self-drive, but scrapping the tax incentives, which will hurt.

Edited 1 hour ago by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,469]

3 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

Year over year is not long enough for you?

46.9% gain over last year.

Compare that to WTI Down 0.8% over last year.

What is better +46.9% or -0.8%?

No, one year is not enough.

[Ecocharger + 1,469]

2 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

Coal ash is full of poison you do not want on your fields / food.

You have noticed a problem?

[Ecocharger + 1,469]

The oil majors are now turning away from the Green future.

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/Why-Big-Oil-Is-Scaling-Back-Renewables-Investment.html

"Big Oil’s returns in the renewables business were slim, at best, even before the 2022 energy and inflation shocks.

To shore up share prices and close that gap with the U.S. giants, BP and Shell changed tack and returned to their roots.

While the majors aren’t abandoning all the renewable projects they embarked on in 2020 and 2021, they have started to scale back investments."

Edited 1 hour ago by Ecocharger