HOW GREEN IS GREEN?

What follows is a guest article on climate change written by a regular reader and contributor to this blog Walter Hamilton. I found it both fascinating and surprising. I feel I learned a lot. I am confident my readers will find it of educational and political benefit.

Global warming is a fact of life today, and many column inches of newsprint have written how we can become carbon neutral – Sadly the new Green is in the hands of big business interests rather than the interests of the planet.

Electric cars are being promoted widely as our saviour Zero Emission; electric cars sales have now surpassed 2 million globally. There is plenty of choice for the buyer, Toyota, Chevy, Tesla, Are electric cars the answer or are we simply exchanging one problem for another, are we in fact looking down the wrong end of a telescope?

BMW, VW ……. focusing on luxury, high performance, the marketing model for cars have not changed, and at the end of it all we are still not buying cars we are buying status symbols. The words “Zero Emissions” may be a good selling point, but are electric cars any more environmentally friendly than the big American gas guzzlers, once the manufacturing process for the vehicles and their batteries is taken into account?

Electric cars rely on regular charging from the local electricity network, which in today’s world is a long way from being emission-free. The big polluters, China and America, still depend heavily on generating electricity from coal-fired power stations, where power for their electric cars come.

Most people recharge their electric cars overnight, problem, the sun does not shine at night and winds do not always blow and we have not as yet the ability to store sufficient surplus electricity when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing strongly.

Greener power is on the way, solar hydrogen and wind power will reduce the need for coal and gas fired generation, so we will be Greener, right?

I read recently that America is spending billions of dollars updating an ageing highway network (mostly concrete) that is past its sell-by date. All to run those new zero-emission cars on, how do they square that circle with zero-emission driving?

The cheapest power is not the greenest power, the cheapest power at present is from hydro, and nuclear, although nuclear is a double-edged sword, when you factor in the cost of decommissioning and what to do with nuclear waste is still to be settled.

“Hydrogen is not a panacea or silver bullet but it could be necessary for decarbonisation of hard-to-electrify, sectors such as long-haul heavy trucking, international marine shipping and some parts of heavy industry.” said Mike Fowler, director of advanced energy technology research at the Clean Air Task Force.

“Blue” Hydrogen is not green.

Hydrogen-powered vehicles are now being hailed by The Hydrogen Council as a silver bullet, The Hydrogen Council, is a group that includes the oil companies BP, Total and Shell in their numbers, (is that an alarm bell I hear?) They predict that “Blue” Hydrogen will account for 18% of all energy demands by 2050. Now hydrogen has been with us for some time in fact, I have been onboard hydrogen-powered buses in Dundee.

At the coal-fired power station at Longanet, now closed, they ran an experiment for Carbon Capture and Storage, (CCS), the idea was to take the carbon from the flue gasses and pipe them out into the North Sea and down the old oil pipelines to the sea bed, and there the carbon dioxide would be captured by the pressure at that depth.

The experiment ran until the Westminster government pulled the plug on the funding. The biggest problem with the scheme was it used a lot of energy to run the system. So it did work, but who would pay for the clean air in a commercially-run coal fired run power station?

But what has this got to do with hydrogen power, I hear you cry? Well, bear with me. Some time ago I wrote about a system down at Leven (Fife) where they were producing hydrogen using electricity to crack water. The brilliant part, it used a wind power turbine to produce the electricity required. So successful has it been that they are now proceeding to put the system into practice, by offering it as an alternative to gas in and around Leven.

So what’s my gripe with hydrogen?

A large $1 trillion infrastructure bill will be passed by the US Senate and hailed by Joe Biden as a key tool to tackle the climate crisis. This bill includes $8 billions of dollars to support, a supposedly clean fuel, (“Blue” hydrogen) that has the potential to pollute even more than burning coal, whit?

The problem with, so-called, “Blue” hydrogen, being pushed by the fossil fuel industry, and falls under the definition of clean hydrogen in the Senate bill, begs the question, is Blue hydrogen really that Green?

Blue hydrogen involves spitting gas into hydrogen and carbon dioxide and then capturing and storing the CO2, a global warming gas. However during the process, methane, a potent greenhouse gas is also produced, this method also uses a huge amount of energy to separate, then store the carbon dioxide, and some will escape anyway, (all this was understood at the CCS experiments at Longanet Fife.) The production of “Blue” hydrogen actually creates 20 per cent more greenhouse gases than coal, commonly regarded as the most polluting fossil fuel. Furthermore it is 60 per cent more polluting than burning diesel, according to a new paper published in the Energy Science and Engineering journal. Help ma boab, is that right?

Robert Howarth, a scientist at Cornell University who authored the paper alongside Mark Jacobson, a Stanford University researcher, said “Blue hydrogen is a nice marketing term that the oil and gas industry is keen to push, but it’s far from carbon-free. I don’t think we should be spending our funds this way, on these sorts of false solutions.”

Dozens of gas companies have jumped on the bandwagon in the US and started producing hydrogen, filling their boots with free dollar handouts from the US Senate – or at least testing its viability in existing gas pipelines.

This is madness, according to climate campaigners, saying it is a step towards entrenching fossil fuel infrastructure at a time when the world needs to rapidly move to net-zero emissions, outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (IPCC).

“Looking at this Biden bill, you can not fail to see a big giveaway to the fossil fuel infrastructure that is incompatible with serious climate action” according to Carroll Muffett, chief executive of the Center for International Environmental Law.

“Congress went out of its way to not specify green hydrogen (hydrogen produced by renewable electricity, such as being produced at Leven Fife), and so this funding just helps prop up the fossil fuel industry. The potential of these technologies are being routinely overstated even as the impacts are being understated.”

So why despite all the evidence does the US Senate still pass such a bill? For not only is it detrimental to the US but the rest of the world too.

“He who pays the piper calls the tune.”

Now, do you hear those alarm bells more clearly?

How Green is Green?

I asked the question: are electric cars really green at the start. To try to answer that question you have to take the manufacturing costs and costs of material exploration and extraction for their manufacture, especially the batteries into consideration.

“Greenland may have said “no” to oil and gas, but its vast mineral wealth is up for grabs as the world’s biggest billionaires invest to claim metal reserves needed to manufacture batteries.” The Guardian, August 10, 2021.

The reason given for Greenland suspending offshore oil exploration was the dangers of climate change, (although after 50 dry holes drilled you may say it was because no oil was ever found there). Now Greenland has opened itself up to mineral mining, mainly those minerals used in the manufacture of batteries and other components of electric vehicles.

Bluejay Mining and KoBold Metals have formed a joint venture backed by American billionaires (Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg, Jeff Bezon and Ray Dalio, founder of the hedge fund Bridgewater Associates is the principal investor in the privately held KoBold) with an investment of $15 million to explore (and if found) exploit Greenland for nickel, copper, cobalt and platinum (Cobalt is essential in the manufacture of electric car batteries).

“Greenland’s Ministry of Mineral Resources announced on 15th July (2021) that Greenland remains committed to developing the vast mineral potential, but that it was in the process of drafting legislation to ban exploration and extraction of uranium, and that the country would also no longer issue licenses to explore for oil and gas”

In December 2020, Greenland opened three new offshore areas for applications of oil and gas exploitation licenses: Buffin Bay, Disko West and Davis Strait.

However, in April 2021, Greenland’s current government, led by the Inuit Atagatigiit party, was elected on a pledge to mitigate climate change, (now where have I heard that line before? Em, oh yes, I remember, Nicola Sturgeon, leader of the SNP, who still wishes to extract oil from the seas around Scotland). 

Greenland is the world’s largest island, home to a population of 57,000 and though semiautonomous, depends on Denmark for two-thirds of its state budget. Who would condemn a country that is dependent on other countries for handouts to keep it afloat financially, wanting to exploit any natural resources it may, or may not have, in helping close its financial black hole?

But this is not about Greenland; this is about Global Warming and electric cars that are being promoted by manufacturing companies and governments as our saviour, Zero Emission cars. Is this really a step in the right direction? 

There is another way to produce electricity and heat without burning coal or oil and that is by burning wood, the St Andrews University spent millions (mostly EU money) building a biomass plant at Guardbridge to heat the University buildings here in town. 

But is burning wood green?

 A quarter of Estonia’s forestland is at imminent risk from a major logging increase, aided by “flexibilities” in EU rules that the Baltic state championed, Climate Home News.

 A decade ago you could not get a mortgage on a house that was not built employing traditional methods, bricks and mortar, anything other came under the definition, NSC (non-standard construction). There has been a big turnaround in that time, now the main form of house building around the world is timber-frame, many built within a factory system and transported to site as a complete package, fully fitted out with first and second fixings. The demand for construction timber has soared (as has the price) – where does this leave Global Warming?

The scars of clear-fell are plain to see across Estonia, the demand for wood is already changing the landscape. Logging in Estonia has tripled in the past decade. The European Commission expects Estonia’s forests to become a net carbon source by 2030, rather than a sink, as they are today.

 Before, when forests were managed, the pace of change was slow, trees were planted as trees were removed. But modern commercial forestry is different, you do not select trees to cut, or plant and cut on rotation, you send in a harvester, capable of cutting and stacking 1000 trees per day, seven days a week – 365 days a year. That is a lot of trees; this is clear-felling, on steroids.

 20 percent of Estonia’s great forests have already been clear felled, regardless of thickness. They say they do re-plant as they go, but replanting will never keep up with the large volumes cut down. And regeneration will be counted in decades, once Estonia’s country bristled with pine. Aspen, spruce and birch, all flourished under Soviet rule. Something is changing in Estonia’s hinterland today. As small forest owners, (mostly elderly) are selling off their forests to the big companies for 50 to 60 euros a tree. Clear felling in this way it will take 80 years to get the forest back.

Estonia has the EU’s second-most intensively farmed forests (after Belgium), with logging making up 91% of forest activity. It is also the most carbon-intensive country – dependent heavily on shale oil for its electricity.

To meet EU green targets, the Baltic state burns biomass for the vast majority of renewable energy – 96% in 2012 – and more will be needed by 2030. A billion-euro “biorefinery” is due to open in 2022, it will be churning wood into pulp for applications including power generation. This will cause a catastrophic spike in deforestation under the banner of Renewable Energy.

 UN climate science reports that the EU’s plans would increase global warming for decades to centuries, even when wood replaces coal, oil or natural gas.

 We have been here before and still, lessons go unlearned. By 1850 the use of wood for bio-energy helped drive the deforestation of Western Europe even at a time when Europeans consumed relatively little energy. (The great forests of Scotland all disappeared around that time, the wood used as fuel, pit props, the land cleared for sheep). Coal saved the forests of Europe, but is the solution to Global Warming to go back to wood burning?

 Marku Lamp, the deputy chancellor and Estonia’s environment minister said recently,

 “Of course people have problems with clear-cutting. This is something that we must address more by (explaining) what is behind those, forests management practices and why we need them…. We also have a really clear obligation for forest owners to reforest their clear-cut areas”

 When the forest has gone, along with the present owner’s cash in their pockets from the sale of the forest, what then minister?

 We are so hypercritical, calling out the people of the Amazon Rain Forests for cutting down the world’s largest carbon sink, yet turning a blind eye to what is going on in our own backyard.

 China is trying to move away from manufacturing cheap goods that they now sell to the west. And to this end have built a completely new city – a city dedicated to modern, high technology companies, in one factory, set up 10 years ago, (when the west was still wondering if global warming was a problem) they make electric vehicles, buses, lorries, cars. 

 These cars needed batteries so they went to the largest  source of the world’s Lithium – Bolivia and built a factory for the extraction and extraction of Lithium. How green will the production of Lithium batteries be?  

 Wind turbines are now producing vast amounts of electricity from their huge blades. And solar panels are so thin now that they can be stuck to the elevations and roofs of buildings turning them into power stations.

So what’s your grip Hamilton?

 Batteries will eventually wear out, as will solar panels, and the blades of wind turbines have only a life span of a few years. Already we see blades from the first wind turbines being stockpiled because they are too expensive to recycle, many now abandoned in fields, alongside the turbine they came from. Batteries likewise have become very expensive to recycle, and so it is with solar panels. What we are seeing is something akin to nuclear waste being produced.

 I would not be so concerned if all this was publicly owned but it is not. The companies that are producing electric vehicles, solar panels, and wind turbine blades have no responsibility for their disposal at the end of their useful life. When it becomes a problem, who will pick up the bill? Just as we see over plastic pollution today, no one is responsible for plastic pollution, in our atmosphere, our seas, our landfill, where does the bill fall?

 How much more will Mother Nature, wildlife, and people be able to absorb before they stop producing one-use plastic? Or this new pollution, from this ever so Green Economy?

It estimated that if the people of China wished to emulate the lifestyle of people in the west then we would need a further 7 planets like earth to live on. Leaving our lives in the hands of big business – whose only interest is business and making money – will be the equivalent of making a stick to break our own back. 

We have to change the way we all live our lives, not this short term business model. I walked through the shopping centre in Dundee yesterday and there were shops after shops of goods – and I wondered just how much of these consumer goods do we really need in our lives??????

MY COMMENTS

I am no expert on Green issues but I recognise how important climate change is and how vital it is to pick the right options. Walter raises many questions in this article about exactly what the right options are and the need to ensure those offering those solutions are doing so free of the motivation to squash the best solutions in order to cash in with the most profitable. As I say I am no expert but certainly Walter raises sufficient concerns for me that I will pay much more attention to what comes out of COP26 than I might have before. Given this crucial conference takes place in our country it seems to me that we should all be doing the same. Walter clearly has expertise and knowledge about these issues and it delights me that my blog can help impart that knowledge to my readers. My sincere thanks to Walter for his extensive explanation about why we shouldn’t take everything at face value.

I am, as always

Yours for Scotland

BEAT THE CENSORS

Unfortunately a number of pro Indy sites have turned out to be merely pro SNP sites and have blocked a number of bloggers, including myself. We have managed to frustrate these efforts to close us down through our readers sharing our articles and building our audience. The importance of sharing cannot be understated. Knowledge is power and great efforts are made in Scotland to deny the public that knowledge. By sharing you frustrate those efforts. In addition to this many have taken out free direct subscriptions. I very much appreciate this support.

Free Subscriptions

Are available on the Home and Blog pages of this website. By taking out a subscription you will receive notification of all future posts. You will be most welcome.

35 thoughts on “HOW GREEN IS GREEN?

  1. A thought-provoking article.

    Walter Hamilton says “I would not be so concerned if all this was publicly owned but it is not. The companies that are producing electric vehicles, solar panels, and wind turbine blades have no responsibility for their disposal at the end of their useful life. When it becomes a problem, who will pick up the bill? Just as we see over plastic pollution today, no one is responsible for plastic pollution, in our atmosphere, our seas, our landfill, where does the bill fall?”

    Big private businesses will always seek to make money – it’s in their DNA and they have little or no concern for environmental impacts as this would be a constraint on the pursuit of profit.

    Proper regulation of these companies might help but social ownership for the public interest would be better. (Just like what should have happened with North Sea oil and gas exploration/production in the lates 60s to mid 70s.

    However, the real problem is demand: As Walter Hamilton goes on to say “We have to change the way we all live our lives, not this short term business model. I walked through the shopping centre in Dundee yesterday and there were shops after shops of goods – and I wondered just how much of these consumer goods do we really need in our lives??????”

    Advertising is used to create an artificial need – it informs would be consumers that they cannot get by without this or that good or service. People need to ask themselves for example do they really need 3 holidays abroad every year? (Obviously not, as COVID has demonstrated in the last couple of years). Or a a car journey for the school run? (Can’t kids walk or take a bus as in the past?). And so on.

    Control demand and the supply problems disappear.

    Liked by 6 people

    1. Your final sentence contains the solution to the problem i.e.control consumer demand! Having the solution whilst lacking the power to implement it is, of course, the problem. You don’t need to be Karl Marx to realise that Capitalism, unreformed, has the very real potential to destroy the “world” it has created.

      Liked by 6 people

  2. We, ‘the world’, are or is taking this approach to the climate change problem:
    “We will have to adapt to the intended reduction in the emission of CO2. Let us pour thought, money, ingenuity, policy, planning in to how to adapt to this reduction, because then the emission of CO2 will fall, and the problem will be solved”.
    This aproach unfortunately gets ’cause’ and ‘effect’ the wrong way round. If you put them the right way round you get:
    “When the emission of CO2 is limited to the necessary extent — in effect, rationed by price or government decree —
    the billions of people in the world will each find individually or collectively the best-for-them way of adapting to these limits”

    Liked by 5 people

  3. Excellent article. The big boys are trying to con us once again by sleight of hand. The Green label will be used to trick people into seeing the end use without studying the full process. A point well made in your article.

    May I add a couple of points.

    a) significant health issues ( illness pockets) are now being identified around sites of hydrogen production plants in America and Canada. The byproduct of much heavier than air particles being discharged (e.g. Chlorine). I don’t know enough about it but reports of a “yellow low hanging fog” around these plants should concern people.

    b) expand on the definitions.
    1. Brown hydrogen is created through coal gasification.
    2. Grey hydrogen produced from natural gas throws off carbon waste.
    3. Blue hydrogen uses carbon capture and storage for the greenhouse gases produced in the creation of grey hydrogen.
    4. Green hydrogen production – the ultimate clean hydrogen resource – uses renewable energy to create hydrogen fuel. For example, water electrolysis used to produce long-duration hydrogen energy storage requires a lot of energy. That energy could come from renewables.

    Green hydrogen is the real answer but requires large amounts of renewable energy and the ability to store it. Few places have the potential to generate the clean renewable energy and store it. A Nation would require (hydro electric, tidal etc on a large scale…a Nation like Scotland for example. Yes we are about to be raped once again. Shut your eyes and think of England.

    c) Safety – The experience with hydrogen refuelling stations is mixed. At least three stations have had significant incidents (in Norway, the Republic of Korea and the US state of California). In the most recent case, in Norway in early 2019, the cause of an explosion in a hydrogen fuelling station was a faulty installation, and in the Republic of Korea a storage tank became contaminated with oxygen. Remember the Hindenburg? A great fuel but it is also high risk as wider use increases. Remember what you will be sitting on in a crash. What controls will be in place. What legislation will back it up.

    Liked by 6 people

  4. “Who would condemn a country that is dependent on other countries for handouts to keep it afloat financially, wanting to exploit any natural resources it may, or may not have, in helping close its financial black hole?”

    That would depend on who says there is a real financial black hole.

    Liked by 4 people

  5. Though I’ve not looked at the science of sustainability in roughly thirty years, I’m reasonably confident that what the Scottish government is offering is a neo-liberal sham. As you’ll not achieve sustainability without first securing Scotland’s “Right to Development”. Which will require Scottish independence and gender equality.

    Integrating gender and social equality into sustainable development research
    A guidance note
    https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/181105a-gill-segnestam-gender-guidance-1808h(dot)pdf

    Liked by 1 person

  6. I’m under the impression that hydrogen is produced either from wood or from fossil fuels, such as natural gas and oil, and that solar panels are made in blast furnaces using quartz, as for bio-mass fuel which is being passed off as greener, isn’t that chopped up trees that are then burned, trees that help capture CFCs and GHGs being removed in their millions and burned.

    I think the only real clean technologies for renewable power are wind and water.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. Remember the experiment in school with the 2 columns. Electricity passed through the water beneath them was split it into hydrogen and oxygen (H2O) you got twice as much hydrogen in one column than oxygen in the other. It is a clean fuel using this method – Green Hydrogen.
      It needs a lot of electricity so to be really “green” it must be from renewables

      When tankers start unloading in the Moray Firth shortly will it be Green Hydrogen from Norway or other “dirty shades” from America. Beware those who only use the word Hydrogen.

      The real questions – why are we not producing it (lack of investment again)
      If we did wher would the profits go?

      Liked by 4 people

  7. This is an interesting documentary on renewables and not so renewables, the industry has been overtaken by by business with the intent of making big money out of using the “Greener” label to fool the public into believing that they are helping to save the planet.

    Its worth a look at.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Climate change aka AGW is far from a ‘fact of life’. The literature is clear: the models used for this hoax are not fit for purpose. Why do you make statements like this when you clearly haven’t checked what you’re saying?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. David we know the planet heats up and cools down in cycles and has done so for millennia, however, I’m sure there’s enough evidence to suggest that we (humans) are speeding up this process due to industrialisation.

      The thing is David, we who believe in global warming if we are proved wrong one day, will have done nothing more than help create a cleaner (fuel wise, and recycling wise) way of life. You on the other hand if you and those who believe it all to be nonsense are proved wrong, a fair majority of Earth’s flora and fauna will become extinct and humans will suffer greatly as well.

      I know what side I’d rather be on.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. I don’t think that is fair. David is not saying we must do nothing what he is arguing is that we must make sure we concentrate on the best measures, the most effective solutions, which are not always the most prominent because they are often heavily promoted for reasons of profit, not effectiveness.

        Liked by 3 people

      2. Well said! An outstanding class comment. It doesn’t matter if the contribution by us to damaging the planet is 10% or 90%.

        “if we are proved wrong one day, will have done nothing more than help create a cleaner (fuel wise, and recycling wise) way of life”.

        Liked by 3 people

      3. Iain @12.13pm.

        ” I don’t think that is fair. David is not saying we must do nothing what he is arguing is that we must make sure we concentrate on the best measures,”

        Iain, where do you see that in David’s 10.38am comment which I’ve copied here.

        “Climate change aka AGW is far from a ‘fact of life’. The literature is clear: the models used for this hoax are not fit for purpose. Why do you make statements like this when you clearly haven’t checked what you’re saying?”

        What hoax is David referring to?

        Liked by 1 person

      4. I apologise I misread your comment I thought you were referring to the author of the article rather than this comment. I have taken a note to read more carefully in future.

        Like

  9. I don’t know as much as Walter but he’s right. Though climate change is a clear and present danger the solutions punted by big business are all about making a fast buck whilst claiming virtue signalling points. We have to stop exploiting the planet’s natural resources so intensively if we want life on Earth to continue. NB we don’t need to save the planet, the planet was fine when it was a lifeless mass of poisonous gases and volcanic activity and it will be fine if it happens again. The issue is the continued survival of complex and indeed even simple life if we carry on as we are.

    There are far too many people on the planet and we are making too many demands on nature. It’s as simple and therefore as complex as that.

    I’m probably a natural Green party supporter but unlike them I support all science not just the bits that suit!!!

    As for Sturgeon supporting oil extraction well it’s got hee haw to do with her given it’s reserved to Westminster, of course it is.

    Thanks Walter, a very useful piece!

    Liked by 6 people

  10. A big help in the fight would be to cut down on over consumption, but that aint ever going to happen as once again too many vested interests want us to spend, spend, spend.

    Liked by 3 people

  11. OT I have had a ‘it wisnae me ‘ reply to my e-mail objecting to Craig Murrays imprisonment – I did suggest that all involved should hang their heads in abject shame but I don’t think that is happening. Arrogance can be incurable I hear.

    I do hope they were inundated with objections.

    As for this article I think humanity is doomed.

    Liked by 4 people

  12. It seems that my article has provoked some thoughts on the subject of climate change and that was its purpose, however just look at how the UK government have dealt with Brexit, with coronavirus, transport, schools, poverty, housing……………………… How convinced are you that they will do any better over climate change, will it be Cop 26 or the 26th cop-out. I fear the latter.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. “How convinced are you that they will do any better over climate change”

      The only things I’m convince about the Tories are that they will enrich themselves and their cronies at our expense and that they will bleed Scotland dry. Otherwise I have no expectations at all on any subject…

      Prior to today I wasn’t aware of the distinctions of the hydrogen types but bless me did I not see another msm article on the same things today!

      Hopefully this non paywalled link to a Telegraph article will work!

      https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/hydrogen-boiler-revolution-pretty-much-impossible-says-minister/ar-AAPaTAc?ocid=winp1taskbar

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Interesting article – Describing himself as a “little bit of a hydrogen sceptic”, Lord Callanan said: “If I’m being honest the idea that we could produce enough hydrogen at reasonable cost to displace mains gas is pretty much impossible. Lord Callanan knows that Blue Hydrogen is a none starter, but that is what the oil companies want to push, how does he please those that bankroll the Tory Pary but go with the science of Green Hydrogen? If your home is on fire, you do not ask “What cost the water” to put out the flames.

        I remember when North Sea gas came on stream, the government was quick to spend millions to change the jets in every gas cooker and gas appliance in the country ‘The Dash to Gas’ because there were money to be made for the now (after Thatcher sold off the family silver) government’s palls, and the public would pay the bill. what Lord Callanan is worried about is that it will be private companies this time having to pick up the tab, unless Boris, like Boldrick, comes up with a cunning plan, and why I have no faith in climate change happening outside the marketplace, it will be all about profit before the planet.

        I do not know if anyone listened to any of the speeches by Boris today. The best the political commentators could say about it was – there was a lot of good jokes in his speech. – it is Boris that is the joke. We need independence and we need it now.

        Liked by 2 people

  13. The Scottish government’s approach to biological sex-differences certainly indicates we’re dealing with a bunch of science denying authoritarians. So for the first time ever, I’m hoping the SNP get buried in the next election. Though the dross that may replace them is no better an option. So Scotland may well be doomed, unless the SNP can restore their credentials as a democratic party that actually capable of supporting democracy.

    Human Rights and Development: a Comment on Challenges and Opportunities from a Legal Perspective
    https://academic.oup.com/jhrp/article/1/1/51/2188613

    Liked by 1 person

  14. A few thoughts:
    Instead of just pumping the exhaust gases from petrol and diesel engines to the atmosphere, why not pump the exhaust gases into a vehicle-installed centrifuge to extract the unwelcome particles from the hot exhaust gas? the particles are held in the centrifuge, the cleansed gases vent to atmosphere. The centrifuge driven by the car engine, as is the alternator.There would be decrease in fuel economy due to driving the centrifuge. And a tiresome task, to remove the particles from the centrifuge.The gain would be cleaner air.

    Internal combustion engines can run on hydrogen, so rather than scrap thousands of cars and trucks by 2030 to make way for battery-powered vehicles that will rely on a finite resource of minerals for batteries,drop this E-car game, and generate Green hydrogen for vehicles.

    And finally., no1- One car per household. If a second car is essential then a substantial tax fee applies for the second car.

    And finally no2 – traffic congestion in towns, if you cannot park your car off-road at your home, you must park in the local community car park – bus service provided.

    If I were President!

    Liked by 2 people

  15. @ alextoneseznamcz: welcome information. A spinning rotor is a more elegant engineering design that reciprocating parts, just as a 2 stroke engine is a more elegant design than a 4 stroke engine – but for the fuel efficiency.

    Like

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: