“The threat to the climate is teeming with catch-22”
“When diesel becomes more expensive than gasoline, or you eat organic food, it is bad for the human struggle to reduce global warming.”
“the climate threat is full of catch-22. “
“The climate conference in Katowice, which ends today, the world’s countries agree on rules of how emissions of carbon dioxide will decrease so much that the heating does not reach over 1.5 degrees to the turn of the century. No easy task to begin with, and it will not be easier that what a first glance seems to be a good idea shown to increase carbon emissions rather than reduce them.”
“Diesel for a number of years ago by the politicians was presented as the salvation for the climate is the one year re-placed in the corner. The day buying a diesel car is considered as the environmental villain. The reason is that diesel emits toxic oxides of nitrogen, something the German car manufacturers tried dark by cheating with utsläppsmätningarna. Since then, diesel taboo.”
“But if the greatest threat to humanity today is carbon dioxide emissions, so ought to be the fuel that emits the least rewarded. A diesel engine uses considerably less fuel than a gasoline engine. Thus, release of the also a smaller carbon footprint.”
“So when the environmentalists cheering when the price of diesel over the past six months has risen sharply and become more than a crown more expensive than gasoline, at least at Swedish pumps, so cheers get stuck in your throat.”
“Best would be if everyone drove an electric car. The problem is that the production is far below demand and that the electric cars are far too expensive for ordinary consumers. It will take decades before today’s fossil fleet is replaced with electric cars. As long as it is not made enormous progress in battery technology.”
“Since quite a long time now, biofuels have been seen as a way to reduce the fossil fuels harmful effects. Therefore, it is now law on to mix biofuels in petrol and diesel. 2030 is the goal that the intervention should be 50 per cent.”
“Biofuels questioned”
“I am certainly no expert on the subject but still a little amazed when I was in an op-ed published in Today’s News reading the claim that biofuels increase carbon dioxide emissions. According to these researchers, whose scientific article published in the journal Nature, it is better to grow a forest on the land where we grow canola, palm or other raw material which is transformed into biofuels. The forest binds more carbon dioxide than biofuels reduces emissions. Deforestation greatly increases the carbon emissions.”
“Yet another catch-22 that makes the given truths, to see a little less clear-cut.”
“We, as consumers become increasingly aware of what we eat. Less meat consumption reduces the klimatavtrycket. Many people also choose organic products for environmental reasons. But then it becomes immediately more complicated. Organic farming requires more land area and thus contributes to increased emissions of greenhouse gases.”
“Stefan Wirsenius, associate professor at Chalmers university of technology and co-author of a recent study published in the journal Nature, said in an interview with Swedish Radio that there are many good things about organic farming.”
“– But when it comes to climate, so is the idea wrong that organic is better. As we come up to is organic, much worse for the climate.”
“Still, Sweden has a target to increase the share of organic land to 30 per cent. A goal that runs directly counter to perhaps the most important goal of all, to reduce carbon emissions.”
“We know that the most effective way to reduce carbon emissions is to get rid of the dirty coal as an energy source. The problem is that the world is full of coal-fired power plants in the western world. Coal power can not quickly replace with solar or other renewable energy sources. The only thing that can make the transition is nuclear power.”
“In Germany decided Angela Merkel immediately after the nuclear accident in Japan in 2011 to phase out all nuclear power. It was considered simply too dangerous. Instead prolongs the Germany the life of coal power.”
“the Same dilemma can be found all around the world. Should you bet on the potentially dangerous nuclear power to try to keep the planet’s warming below two degrees until the turn of the century?”
“It is, perhaps, not a typical catch-22 but still a choice between two evils. What is worse, the risk that some of the world’s population wiped out because of the radioactive cloud after the wrecked nuclear power plant or due to climate change, which is a part of the planet obebolig?”
“Or should we, as a nobel Laureate of economics, William Nordhaus mean to accept a warming of 3.5 degrees, therefore, that the economic growth would otherwise take such damage it runs directly counter to our possibilities to invest in new klimatteknologi.”
“Who said that it should be easy to save the world?”
