In todays news...

[Count Steer]

This is the sort of nonsense we get from current carbon accounting:

'Burning wood is the electricity sector’s second largest CO2 emitter after fossil gas.
Drax is the UK’s largest single source of CO2 emissions.
etc etc
These emissions are not counted in the UK’s emissions inventory – burning wood is treated as ‘carbon neutral’, despite evidence to the contrary.'

Because the biomass/wood is made from trees and imported (with all the associated emissions) the CO2 output, (millions of tonnes of it) aren't 'our' emissions, or even nett emissions. Surely, if you burn something, you should be responsible for the CO2. It all seems like bizarre, magical thinking, the CO2 is still being pumped into the atmosphere, but somehow, it 'doesn't count'?

It kind of makes sense, if I grow a tree in my garden and then burn it in my fireplace I've only released as much CO2 as I took out of the air. They are hiding fossil fuels used for transport and if the country exporting the trees is claiming carbon credits then they will be double counting.

Well yes, but trees grew and died and formed coal so if you burn that you're only releasing the CO2 they took out of the air. If you grew a tree and nobody burned it there's a CO2 reduction, just because the carbon used is captured carbon (which pretty much all of it is) doesn't make it ok to put it back in the atmosphere. It's all just dodgy accounting.

[Horse]

Many trees are only - relatively - short-term CO2 storage. When they die and rot (presumably leaves in autumn too), they release the CO2.

Unless we develop technology to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere, we'll need very long-lasting trees.

[Saga Lout]

...If you grew a tree and nobody burned it there's a CO2 reduction, just because the carbon used is captured carbon (which pretty much all of it is) doesn't make it ok to put it back in the atmosphere. It's all just dodgy accounting.

It is if you grow another tree to replace it and capture the CO2 you release.

[David]

If I burn a tree in the forest and no one notices ...did any one hear it fall?

[slowsider]

Well yes, but trees grew and died and formed coal so if you burn that you're only releasing the CO2 they took out of the air.

The risk is that we return to atmospheric carbon levels equal to when the coal-forming trees were growing.

More recently: "[UK] Current woodland cover has fallen to less than 12% from an estimated high of around 75% around 6,000 years ago.

[Whysub]

Biggest farce is the "trade" in carbon credits. The only reason they exist is to line the pockets of the unscrupulous.

[Whysub]

I hear Greta has said she has not received an official invitation to attend the COP26 meeting.

Why should she have had one? She has nothing to bring to the table except "what are you doing" statements.

She would be the odd one out. She'd be the only one there that's really going to have to live with the consequences. Might be a good idea to have a few more young people with some real 'skin in the game'?

Fair point, but I am sure that there are many younger enviromental experts at the conference. You know, young people with qualifications, not some young idealist with just questions and issuing demands. Does she have any answers to climate change, does she have any suggestions as to what to do to stop it?

I see it the same as protesting outside a hospital, saying doctors are not doing enough to cure cancer fast enough. I can do that because I have no medical training.

[Saga Lout]

...

More recently: "[UK] Current woodland cover has fallen to less than 12% from an estimated high of around 75% around 6,000 years ago.

Is that what caused the global warming that led to the medieval warm period?

[slowsider]

...

More recently: "[UK] Current woodland cover has fallen to less than 12% from an estimated high of around 75% around 6,000 years ago.

Is that what caused the global warming that led to the medieval warm period?

You don't remember it?

[Cousin Jack]

Unless we develop technology to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere, we'll need very long-lasting trees.

About 6 - 7 years ago I listened to the CEO of a start-up company promising to suck up CO2 from power stations and store it back under the North Sea. At scale, within 5-10 years.

That technology seems to have gone very quiet of late

[Horse]

suck up CO2 from power stations and store it back under the North Sea. At scale, within 5-10 years.

That technology seems to have gone very quiet of late

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... e-projects

BP leads energy companies preparing two major UK carbon capture projects 17m tonnes of carbon dioxide to be stored beneath the North Sea every year

[Cousin Jack]

So if we can capture and store carbon from power station exhausts, what exactly is wrong with using plentiful fossil fuel like coal ?

[JamJar]

...

More recently: "[UK] Current woodland cover has fallen to less than 12% from an estimated high of around 75% around 6,000 years ago.

Is that what caused the global warming that led to the medieval warm period?

Scientists now think it was a combination of higher than usual solar radiation, reduced volcanic activity and a shift in global sea currents that caused the warming of a bout 1 degree

[JamJar]

So if we can capture and store carbon from power station exhausts, what exactly is wrong with using plentiful fossil fuel like coal ?

Nothing, if that is carbon neutral then it is fine, it doesn’t appear to be used much yet though.

[Cousin Jack]

Perhaps Boris et al should concentrate on things like that, rather than banning stuff.

[JamJar]

Perhaps Boris et al should concentrate on things like that, rather than banning stuff.

What has been banned??

[Cousin Jack]

Petrol and diesel cars
Gas boilers
and soon
Meat (ban may be Fridays only)

Seriously, if we have the technology to bin 17m tons of carbon with a bit of effort we could be cabon neutral without major upheavel.

[slowsider]

So if we can capture and store carbon from power station exhausts, what exactly is wrong with using plentiful fossil fuel like coal ?

Is there a hint of perpetual motion machine about suggesting we could burn the coal to provide the energy to do it?

[KungFooBob]

If we built a space elevator, you could run a pipe up the side of it and just pump all the CO2 into space, innit.

[slowsider]

If we built a space elevator, you could run a pipe up the side of it and just pump all the CO2 into space, innit.

How would you stop the rest of the atmosphere from following it up?