Wiggles

I identify as 'meme'

Thanks for the responses, its interesting stuff and seems like a sensible way of trying to reduce emissions and actually capture carbon from the atmosphere.

It makes me think of research that shows that it would make more sense to try and capture carbon from the ocean rather than the atmosphere, as the concentrations are much higher than in the ocean. If we can do this using the natural process of photosynthesis via kelp farms and bio char it could be a very sustainable process.

"THE ocean is the single biggest carbon storage device on Earth,” said Chengxiang ‘CX’ Xiang, CTO and co-founder of direct ocean capture (DOC) company Captura. About 30% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions are absorbed by the ocean, where it is 150 times more concentrated volumetrically than in the air.

He said one of the challenges of removing CO2 directly from air is the “really, really, really low” concentration, prompting the need to build large machinery to filter a lot of air. “Leveraging the ocean to do CO2 drawdown for us as we remove CO2 from the ocean water is a unique process that is inherently scalable.”

This is the source I got that quote from: https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/features/co2-capture-putting-the-sea-into-ccs/

It goes on to talk about how they are working to create tech to capture the carbon, but utilising natural process to achieve the same outcome would be considerably better, though we may need to employ all reasonable methods to decarbonise as quickly as possible.

Sorry for the delayed response.

Could you give me a eli5 on biochar? I've noticed you refer to it in some other posts/comments, including the fire pits story. I'm guessing char stands for charcoal? If that is the case, how does biochar differ from other charcoals.

Also, how is the kelp related to the biochar?

I mean I guess I could google it, but you seem to have a bit of insight to the whole thing that could help one get an understanding.

“It became clear that they’re motivated by profits,” said Roberts, adding that the drive is unsurprising, since CEOs of public companies can be removed if they do not maximize profit growth.

We really need governments to force triple bottom line accounting onto corporations for the very reason stated in the above quote. While CEOs are only accountable to the shareholders of the company (single bottom line accounting) then they will only ever work for profit.

With triple bottom line accounting, CEOs would not only be accountable to the shareholders (economic accouting), but to stakeholders (social accounting) and the environment (ecological accounting).

To use fossil fuel companies as an example, a stakeholder to that company would be any person who has to breathe in the pollution that said fossil fuel company released into the atmosphere. The way in which companies would be accountable to the environment is that they could no longer ignore the externalities of their product (e.g. pollution from fossil fuel use) and the cost of those externalities would need to be included in the upfront cost of the product. Accounting for these things would then allow us to see the true upfront cost of fossil fuels, which should aid in actually getting companies to act on these issues, as it will less profitable to sell such a damaging product. It will also further demonstrate that the upfront cost of renewable is far lower than that of fossil fuels.

It still isn't a perfect solution, and we will still be living under capitalism and the idea of infinite growth, but it would at least be a step in the direction of corporate accountability.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_bottom_line

It's sucks these results weren't what was hoped. I remember reading an article from the CSIRO years ago suggesting this to be a good method to reduce emissions from cattle. I can't remember what percentage reductions of emissions they claimed though.

At this point I'm thinking this idea could be similar to carbon capture storage, in the sense that the idea was taken up as a means of greenwashing for the beef industry, so they could continue to grow while 'reducing their emissions'.

I guess 28% is still better than nothing, presuming it isn't used as an excuse for further growth.

I wish, I'm not sure how far into the past it will be able to use its retroactive powers though. The NBN debacle was at least 10 years ago now

Best place to start is the original Stargate movie as it sets up the universe and the characters for SG1. Then, one you hit season 8 of SG1, Atlantis starts and there is some timeline cross over between the two. It's not essential to switch between the two to understand what's happening, they can still be watched pretty independently of one another, but switching between the two to watch it in all in chronological order can still add a bit of extra clarity to the earth's and atlantis' interactions. Typically, the only place I could find an actual link to one of the episode lists I've seen in the past was through reddit, so I've just copied and pasted the link to the list, rather than the reddit url. The user was deleted otherwise I'd give them credit too. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1b5T6bk5bS9LDaIVXR55-agOd_FYgTN0TZcpZDfvnMg4/pub?output=html

Whoever put together that list was very in depth, so if you'd prefer to follow a more generic chronology, this one from gateworld doe the job https://www.gateworld.net/news/2009/05/stargate-recommended-viewing-order/

Yeah the laws should definitely be updated to say if you are found corrupt by icac or any other corruption body then you are no longer entitled to the pension.

Maybe some of them will reason that getting the pension is more valuable to them than accepting donations from corporate sponsors.