Subscribe below to recieve updates direct to your inbox
- or -
Amazing that Aldi stepped forward. Many years ago when I was studying Germany waste policy, Aldi were very resistant to returnable containers beer bottles and the like and occasional visits to German Aldis gave the impression that hey hadn''t changed track. They conformed to packaging policy by only selling beer in aluminium cans and drinks in plastic that could be returned to store (as they were obliged to by law) and baling up the crushed containers. Presumably this saved on valuable store space as it takes much less than storing reuseable containers like bottles. However it looks like their 30 year experience of in store recycling shows that it is not too much of a burden to the business model and the roll out in Scotland is to be welcomed and very much to their credit. However reusable, standard containers will always be much much more energy and resources efficient. Low hanging fruit in the drive to net zero in my opinion.
We bought an EV, thinking that we were cutting emissions, but now realise that every extra EV we put on the roads will be effectively powered 100% by burning more gas until most of the UK''s energy need is met by renewables [or nuclear]. And that won''t happen until after 2030 because we keep adding more power demand with more EVs and heat-pumps. Then there''s the 30million tons per year of CO2 it takes to build the things. So buying EVs saves virtually no CO2 emissions and may actually be increasing them. If businesses *really* want to cut emissions, then stop providing bigger-than-essential company cars, replace them less often, stop incentivising staff to drive more, and radically cut energy use and waste to bring forward the date when renewables can cover 100% of UK energy needs.
May we have some indication of just how all the electric power needed to replace fossil fuel just the car population, is to be generated. Roughly speaking, the fossil fuel now being burned in car engines, will have to be burned in electric generating plant, there is no real alternative. Renewable energy has been suggested, but this is not a reliable constantly available energy source with the equivalence of the present system I would see nuclear energy as the real contender, but there seems to be little enthusiasm for a large network of such power. Richard Phillips
I note that Peruvian PM is professionally, a lawyer. Is the technical basis of this edict known? Richard Phillips
I believe that I have commented before about this matter, but here goes again! CO2 is emitted primarily in the generation of energy. There is only one other CO2 free energy source on the basis of availability on demand, at any time, and that is nuclear generated electricity. The general use of electricity apart from its direct application, must involve storage, and the only realistic system here involves the use of batteries. Thus if a generally CO2 free system is needed, batteries are the key. Richard Phillips
It would be great to see a full leaderboard of all the companies analysed - does this exist? I am keen to know where some smaller companies like Good Energy fall on this list.
Just a small typo correction, it''s Romain Poivet at ADEME!
It would be great to better understand some of these initiatives and campaigns. Will the submissions and ''case study'' material be available re transparency of what they''ve achieved and the impact etc?
This is just the beginning. We cannot get the materials to build ourselves out of this. Straightforward calculations should be telling us that we cannot do what we plan to without very significantly reducing demand and choosing what we do carefully. The sooner we realise that, the sooner we can control what we are doing rather than have events control us.
I hope that the nascent OEP will have a substantial percentage pf scientifically and technically qualified staff. The staffing of the upper strata of much of our governmental structure seems to politically inclined, not a lot of help when scientific and technical matters hold primacy of place in the Departments interests. But maybe I am a little sceptical, old age perhaps! Richard Phillips
It''s great that companies like these are taking climate change seriously, but they and others do know, I hope, that "1.5C-aligned targets" means truly-zero emissions, by everyone, by 2030? Warming is racing ahead of IPCC''s estimates , now +1.27C -v- IPCC trend estimate of +1.1C - http://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperature-report-for-2020/.
As usual this article omits the key piece of information. How much energy actually needs to be stored? To be able to work with wholly renewable sources - primarily wind and solar - we would need thousands of TWh of storage worldwide. As the previous poster said, we could get nowhere near that on the timescales required. Of course any consideration for the moral issues related to all that mining and extraction will be thrown out of the window, but there is still not enough of the required materials.
"Lithium-ion-phosphate is forecast to be the most popular option through to at least 2030" says Bloomberg! This year, lithium demand cannot be supplied by lithium supply. The annual, exponential increase in demand is 40%. Lithium prices have quadrupled and continue to rise every day. (https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/lithium ). Supply, despite breaking any civilised, environmental and social rules about lithium extraction and refining lags far behind. Battery manufacturers are announcing their first and very substantial price increases after ten years. Check that out on Google
What don''t politicians understand about the words climate crisis?
Great coverage over COP26. Thank you. Just picking up on the lack of agreement regarding the loss and damage facility for developing and emerging economies. Do you think the lack of support for this is, in part, due to the conflict regarding China''s current status as a developing nation (and therefore eligible for funding) despite the fact that it is the worlds second largest economy? I.. the likes of USA and Europe do not feel they should be providing funds to China.
First question, who is prepared to reduce, substantially, their energy requirement??? Second, who is prepared to pay substantially more for non carbon energy?? Volunteers, step forward. Richard Phillips
Don''t lie to us - there is no such thing as Sustainable Aviation Fuel until we get to hydrogen. The atmosphere doesn''t care what hydrocarbons we burn! UK flights put out 30m tons equal to 3 big volcanic eruptions every year.
A coat of Starlite will make all buildings passive temperature controlled, this is the cheapest way of doing the job.
Why is there a shortage of chemicals to treat sewage? Ah yes Brexit - another of this government''s failures.
There are two books that inform us what will happen to the planet for every 1 degree temperature rise we cause, The Uninhabitable Earth, and Our Final Warning. You would not vote for it!
I have said it before, and I will say it again, "the only non carbon source of energy that is totally on demand and under our control" is nuclear. But it does need to be under strict control; which does not present insuperable difficulty. It cannot be a business dominated industry, strict control means just that. The enormous variation, totally outside our control, of wind and solar, does, in reality, relegate it to a minor role in energy generation. Harsh but true. The weeks ending 16.08.20 and 23.08.20 saw a variation out of wind of 13.6% to 41.9%. And it is not cheap. Richard Phillips
Totally untrue " ... the first week at COP26 has created a strong foundation for nations to deliver agreements and frameworks that finally put the world on course for 1.5C ..." 1.5C is nowhere near attainable, even if every ''pledge'' is actually met. And since most of those pledges have no action plans to achieve them, we can confidently expect +1.5C by 2030 and +2C by 2040. Please, please stop misleading your audience into thinking anything less than huge responses will be adequate, such as the speech Boris *should* have given - http://bit.ly/BorisClimateSpeech1
The first thing the other 4 could do is follow Co-Op''s lead and install doors on all their refrigerators. Not only would this save energy but it also prevents us freezing in the store. Never understood the open front fridges and chilled units, trying to cool the whole store meaning the heating is running more which means more cooling ad infinitum. Then they could all take back all the packaging they produce. And I mean every single item. Soon have it streamlined so it''s easier to recycle or reuse (nothing stopping the 1L plastic fruit juice bottles Morrisons use being collected, sterilised and refilled for instance). And they can all install massive solar arrays on their rooftops. They have a huge acreage of under utilised space up there that could provide electricity either for the store, for electric vehicle charging or even help the local community.
Two points need to be made. ONE Renewable energy is not under our control, it is available or not at the whim of nature. TWO The only non-carbonaceous and fully controllable energy source lies in the nuclear field. Reactors of many designs are available; but they require a lot of money at their inception. Just fact. Richard Phillips
As the UK presently imports huge amounts of fossil oil and gas, it is logical that over the next 29 years we will need to replace them with green energy such as green hydrogen and its bulk transportable form ammonia (NH3). Saudi Arabia has already understood that they have to convert their economy to produce and export green hydrogen from solar capture, produced at their new settlement NEOM. North Africa is likely to become another source of green hydrogen, and Australia has this ambition although the long distance may make it less competitive.