this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2024
25 points (100.0% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5394 readers
143 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world. About 1C of total warming. Second chart: about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability. Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases. About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
25
Why no one wanted to buy the Green Shipping Fuel (industrydecarbonization.com)
submitted 4 months ago by hanno@lemmy.world to c/climate@slrpnk.net
2 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Steve@communick.news 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Is it because it wasn't cheaper?
I bet it's because it wasn't cheaper.

[โ€“] nous@programming.dev 6 points 4 months ago

Basically yes:

In the forseeable future, renewable e-methanol will be substantially more expensive than conventional oil-based shipping fuels like marine diesel or LSFO.

But lets not forget the lobbying against any sort of regulation on it like forcing a quota on renewable fuel sources.

Even lobbying organizations from the shipping industry appeared positive towards such a quota. In a statement by the European Community Shipowners' Associations, they write that they support the EU Parliament's proposal for a 2030 quota in principle but want similar requirements for fuel suppliers.

they support it in principle... what the hell does that mean? They like the idea of it but cannot actually support it? Or just they want to sound like they support it when really they don't. Either way the proposals were watered down and delayed:

If any of these proposals had been passed, the fate of FlagshipONE might have been different. However, the EU eventually agreed to much weaker requirements. A quota of 2 percent RFNBOs would only start in 2034, and even that comes with some caveats. Under the final FuelEU Maritime regulation, shipping companies would not have any requirement to purchase relatively expensive e-fuels for another decade and can likely fulfill the modest emission reduction requirements while still primarily relying on fossil fuels.