New study recommends no more fossil fuel plants after 2017

mentalfloss

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
New fossil fuel plants post-2017 risk 2C warming limit

To avoid dangerous global warming, 2017 is the last year energy companies can build new coal, oil or gas-fired power plants.

That’s the unpalatable finding in a new study by Oxford researchers, killing any notion governments may have over the window of time they have left to act.

“For policy makers who think of climate change as a long-term future issue this should be a wake-up call,” said Cameron Hepburn, co-author of the study published in the journal Applied Energy.

All new energy infrastructure needs to be zero carbon from 2017, says the study, while existing power plants need to be retrofitted with technology to catch greenhouse gas emissions.

New fossil fuel plants post-2017 risk 2C warming limit | Climate Home - climate change news
 
Angstrom

Angstrom

Hall of Fame Member
May 8, 2011
10,659
0
36
I have a simple question.

What makes you think we can abstain from over polluting, when we can't even control overspending year after year after year?

I'm persuaded we have absolutely no chances of achieving any environmental goals. It's just plain for anyone to see we don't have the self control.
 
EagleSmack

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Well Floosy is going to be very salty because fossil fuel plants are most certainly going to be built all over the world after 2017 and beyond. *snicker*
 
DaSleeper

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,665
113
Northern Ontario,
mentalfloss said:
New fossil fuel plants post-2017 risk 2C warming limit
Click to expand...




About your countless global warming threads
 
Angstrom

Angstrom

Hall of Fame Member
May 8, 2011
10,659
0
36
The government won't stop polluting the same way Di Caprio won't stop flying his privet jets. :lol:
 
Jinentonix

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
10,607
5,250
113
Olympus Mons
Because Flossie naively thinks the govt cares about us. Want proof the govt doesn't really give a damn? It turns out that the stuff they've been lining food and beverage cans with is really bad for us. The govts of Canada, the US and Europe were aware of the problem and have done nothing. The industry itself says it won't be changing anything with their cans until 2017.


Seems kind of pointless getting all worked up over a natural event when govts allow us to be poisoned anyway.
 
Jinentonix

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
10,607
5,250
113
Olympus Mons
lone wolf said:
Tainted Tuna isn't new news
Click to expand...
Tainted tuna. Please. You think think it was just about tuna? It's not the food in the cans that's bad, it's what the cans are lined with that's bad. That means pop, beer, canned vegetables, soups, gravies, Chef Boyardee crap in a can. ANY food or beverage that comes in a can is slowly poisoning you when you consume it.

Tecumsehsbones said:
If you need further proof, you clearly haven't been paying attention.
Click to expand...
That's why I posted it. Clearly, many haven't been paying attention.
 
MHz

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Jinentonix said:
Because Flossie naively thinks the govt cares about us. Want proof the govt doesn't really give a damn? It turns out that the stuff they've been lining food and beverage cans with is really bad for us. The govts of Canada, the US and Europe were aware of the problem and have done nothing. The industry itself says it won't be changing anything with their cans until 2017.


Seems kind of pointless getting all worked up over a natural event when govts allow us to be poisoned anyway.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the lining is fine and the 'new and improved' is the one that will make many people sick rather quickly. The best way to infect the whole population is to get them to come in for a 'shot' that is a 'cure for an imaginary infection'.
 
lone wolf

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
Jinentonix said:
Tainted tuna. Please. You think think it was just about tuna? It's not the food in the cans that's bad, it's what the cans are lined with that's bad. That means pop, beer, canned vegetables, soups, gravies, Chef Boyardee crap in a can. ANY food or beverage that comes in a can is slowly poisoning you when you consume it.
Click to expand...

Please feel free to tell me what I think ... then tell me what I think of wannabe psychics. Tainted tuna was about the fish, just the same as tainted blood was about the blood and cans are about profit - and all were the result of lack of government body oversight and/or money driven. Obviously the point was too blunt to make the impression.

Cans? I use them a little as possible.

Fossil fuels? If the alternative is cheaper, it will sell.
 
Last edited:
Retired_Can_Soldier

Retired_Can_Soldier

The End of the Dog is Coming!
Mar 19, 2006
11,346
556
113
59
Alberta
mentalfloss said:
New fossil fuel plants post-2017 risk 2C warming limit

To avoid dangerous global warming, 2017 is the last year energy companies can build new coal, oil or gas-fired power plants.

That’s the unpalatable finding in a new study by Oxford researchers, killing any notion governments may have over the window of time they have left to act.

“For policy makers who think of climate change as a long-term future issue this should be a wake-up call,” said Cameron Hepburn, co-author of the study published in the journal Applied Energy.

All new energy infrastructure needs to be zero carbon from 2017, says the study, while existing power plants need to be retrofitted with technology to catch greenhouse gas emissions.

New fossil fuel plants post-2017 risk 2C warming limit | Climate Home - climate change news
Click to expand...

See, Bar Sinister, this is the nonsense I was talking about before you ran away and cried,
 
C

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
6
36
No doubt that there are lots of smart researchers at Oxford but clearly, practical people are probably few and far between, there. There is nothing new in the news that there is a huge gap between the musings of theoretical academe and the day-to-day requirements of the other seven billion of us.

Who gives a sh1t how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? I've gotta burn fossil fuel to keep my family from freezing in the dark!
 
Angstrom

Angstrom

Hall of Fame Member
May 8, 2011
10,659
0
36
Curious Cdn said:
No doubt that there are lots of smart researchers at Oxford but clearly, practical people are probably few and far between, there. There is nothing new in the news that there is a huge gap between the musings of theoretical academe and the day-to-day requirements of the other seven billion of us.

Who gives a sh1t how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? I've gotta burn fossil fuel to keep my family from freezing in the dark!
Click to expand...

Well liberal progressives , feel guilty about being humans, So they won't be having children.
Liberal progressives, also feel guilty of being males, and hurting the environment. They feel guilty of having advantages over others,

Wait, is there anything these twits don't feel guilty about?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom