How are they working out the emissions (not clear from the article) because if they are saying the Carbon burden is on the products manufactured (i.e. they are digging coal up and each kg of coal burned produces xx kg of CO2) then it would naturally follow that big fuel producers would be responsible for CO2 emissions but it is the end users who are using that fuel - hence if we cut fuel consumption or power consumption by 50% then those 71% of global emissions will by dint of the reduction fall by a similar amount. As the top CO2 emitter is listed as China / Coal I suspect it is the environmental burden imposed by the products made rather than the actual manufacturing process as I know that a whole bunch of the coal dug up in China fires up power stations which make the CO2 and other emissions (although China are world leaders in clean coal technology now) - when we declare our CO2 emissions we need to include chemicals, feed stocks, utilities, power, transport costs and wastes but a lot of the CO2 from this doesn't get releases until either out final products are burned or recycled in some manner (we make a precursor to plastic)So if 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions would it not be easier to target those focusing on the average joe?
Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says
It's a bit of a clart on though don't you think?Doesn't matter man. If we really wanted too, we could remove the salt from the water using solar power, also in abundance in the deserts.
The earth has had several mass extinction level events in its history and we’re well overdue one. The last one killed off 98% of all life. Nature has a way of cleaning house, so if it wasn’t this it would be summat else.The sad thing is that it could have been prevented
Sounds like a lot of job creation there, everyones a winner. This is where we would start, 1200 miles of coastline right beside a desert.It's a bit of a clart on though don't you think?
How would they get the water there? If you're building a huge pipeline imagine the carbon footprint that has. Also the resources used to build multiple desalination plants just to put water back into the ground. The logistics of doing that to get sea level down one inch would be mind boggling
Fair enough. Spanish Sahara probably the best bet apart from the civil war. Quite near the Canary islands for workerSounds like a lot of job creation there, everyones a winner. This is where we would start, 1200 miles of coastline right beside a desert.
In an estimate I saw once, Sunderland would be at the end of a peninsula that extended back to Durham if there was maximum melt.
No need to travel that far. Half of England could go under. Plenty of work at home. Maybe a few million sand bags would help.Fair enough. Spanish Sahara probably the best bet apart from the civil war. Quite near the Canary islands for worker
weekends. Might be some work in it for me .
Northeast England is actually rising out of the sea as a rebound effect from the last ice age. We just need a hard border to stop the southerners from getting inIn an estimate I saw once, Sunderland would be at the end of a peninsula that extended back to Durham if there was maximum melt.
Mind most of the South East would go under and the Midlands would become an archipelago of small islands. There would be a lot of people trying to squeeze onto the Sunderland peninsula though. East Durham would be a shallow sea. Lancashire would also be affected and Blackburn would become the new Blackpool.
Then again it would be full of Scousers and Mancs that had fled the flooding.
No need to travel that far. Half of England could go under. Plenty of work at home. Maybe a few million sand bags would help.
Imagine 50 million squeezed onto land half the size.
I doubt if the Scots and Welsh would welcome us with open arms.