Home | About | Donate

Ahead of COP23 Climate Talks, Tens of Thousands March to Demand End to 'Era of Fossil Fuels'


#1

Ahead of COP23 Climate Talks, Tens of Thousands March to Demand End to 'Era of Fossil Fuels'

Jake Johnson, staff writer

"We don't have time to play games of climate denial or greenwashing of dirty energy."

COP23 Germany climate talks

#2

The megawatts output of US wind farms is currently estimated at roughly 83,000. German wind farms currently generate approx, 30 million megawatts (Wikipedia). Let’s march…


#3

Well, good news guys, the air is too clean:

We can all breathe easier.


#4

We are all hostages to the goddamned fossil fuel industry and have been for too long.


#5

Too bad there is not some way to arrest the climate, criminals before their greed and denial murder millions. The fossil fuel industries are nothing less than environmental, terrorists. ISIS and other so-called evil terror groups don’t scare me but what the fossil fuel industries are doing to OUR PLANET! NOW THAT IS REALLY TERRIFYING!


#6

I couldn’t help to note from the picture that, like here in SW Pennsylvania, the leaves are changing almost freakishly late in Bonn, Germany too.

I won’t be doing any raking at my house until almost Christmas at this rate…


#7

And let’s follow this demand up with calls to boycott those nations.


#8

CO2, at the current ecocidal scale of emissions, is a chemical weapon.


#9

Good point. And what about carbon monoxide a proven deadly gas and another by product of fossil fuels. Many people have used this deadly gas to commit suicide, but our whole earth is committing slow suicide from this and other chemical weapons spawned from fossil fuels.


#10

The Dutch are 100% powering all Dutch electric trains on pure wind energy. Hey, the Dutch have mastered wind mills, and wind energy. You tube, Lucid Dreamer!


#11

Where on earth did you get your data from? 30 million MW is 30 TW, which is over 20 times net capacity for Germany.


#12

That’s interesting seeing as the Netherlands electrical generation is not 100% wind…


#13

Yeah, I was thinking that - 30 million MW would be equivalent to 30,000 large coal or nuclear power plants - or if the USA, an average of 600 in every state.


#14

This is the first week of cooler weather here in California, finally. LA had 100 degree weather just a week-and-a-half ago while I was walking around in shorts and a T-shirt last weekend at 80 some odd degrees. This is the first weekend of pants-wearing weather with a few drops of rain. Hardly any leaves are off the trees. Completely abnormal.


#15

So…someone tell me …what does it really mean to “get off fossil fuels.”… ??..because …tell me how awe get the iron ore out of the ground …to make the steel for even one electric car… Or for one wind Mill …or how to mine . The cobalt for the rare earth minerals for wind Mill production… Or for the other rare earth’s for computers…phones…what will we use for construction… What kinds of machines … what will they run on?..Now…I know someone will say …WOOO WOOO !..We r going to use batteries… “…oh…I see … we will MANUFACTURE … BILLIONS of batteries… Wow… And eventually?.. There will be billions of batteries … lying all over the place … AND …THE MOST co2 producing activities that man does… Is produce concrete… .mmmmm hope these examples… Spark a thought process … about how the"new” world we think we r creating…will be NO different than the one we have now…oh and …tell me WHERE we will mine all the lithium and rare earth’s …??mmmmm. Probably where we do it now… in indigenous peoples backyards…so we here can fly to professional foot ball games…or drive in our electric…pickup truck…


#16

We can do so much better in 2017 than brainless ongoing dependence on fossil fuel. The only thing keeping us from moving on to the future technology is the fossil fuel industry, which is a small group monopoly on the market.


#17

Some industrial processes by chemical necessity produce CO2 such as blast furnaces and lime and cement kilns, but they represent only a small amount of CO2 emissions. Almost all other materials-manufacturing processes can be electrified and the electricity can come from non-CO2 emitting sources like renewables and (brace for the flaming) nuclear power.

Nobody is saying we need an absolutely zero CO2-emitting economy. It only need to be low enough so that it is balanced by natural biological and geological uptake of CO2. This is accomplished by using only biofuels and very minimal amounts of fossil-carbon fuels.


#18

Appreciate your greeting a few days ago. Was curious, do you have any recommendation for reading? Online publication, publicly available research, etc., as to the best take on the current science on ACD with near and long term projections?


#19

Wow, well, I got what I asked for. Yes, we do need 0 emissions… Why?.. the CONCENTRATION in the atmosphere… will NEVER GO DOWN, BUT ONLY UP… it takes thousands of years for co2 to dissipate out of the atmosphere. So, that means ANY co2 we put out in emissions… ADDS to what is up there already… Humans have NEVER existed with this much co2 in the atmosphere. The IPCC already states, we are hitting 4C… Humans haven’t existed past 3.2… more later … have to play with my grandson


#20

Sorry for the tardy response. Somehow I missed your reply until now.

ACD? Do you mean Anthropogenic (Climate Disruption) Global Warming (AGW)?

Big subject, there. Spencer Weart’s The Discovery of Global Warming is the best starting point in my opinion, conveying the history of this science. RealClimate is the most authoritative site I’ve found, and RobertScribbler is an excellent online journalist. With both of those, the comment threads are usually well-modulated and informative.

The most authoritative projections are those of the IPCC - their worst-case scenarios are the most accurate, as human behavior continues being so bad. But the IPCC has yet to factor in ice-sheet dynamics or permafrost discharge, so you have to take their projections with a grain (or maybe several gigatons) of carbon.

Google Scholar is a useful search for scientific papers.