<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><i><font size="+1"><b>January 2, 2021</b></font></i></p>
[Ready, set, go, video]<br>
<b>Exploring If Tesla Solar Roof Is About To Go Mainstream?</b><br>
Dec 29, 2020<br>
Undecided with Matt Ferrell<br>
Tesla made a huge splash in the solar panel world when they unveiled
the latest version of the Tesla Solar Roof. But since then we
haven't seen too much about it. Is it a bargain or a bust? Or are
solar tiles about to go mainstream? I talked to Weddle & Sons
Roofing to learn more about it from an installers perspective, as
well as what it's like to go from roofs to solar panels.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi_5PqHcKNc">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi_5PqHcKNc</a><br>
- -<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.tesla.com/energy/design">https://www.tesla.com/energy/design</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.tesla.com/solarpanels">https://www.tesla.com/solarpanels</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
[More innovation!]<br>
<b>A Monster Wind Turbine Is Upending an Industry</b><br>
G.E.’s giant machine, which can light up a small town, is stoking a
renewable-energy arms race.<br>
- -<br>
The race to build bigger turbines has moved faster than many
industry figures foresaw. G.E.’s Haliade-X generates almost 30 times
more electricity than the first offshore machines installed off
Denmark in 1991.<br>
<br>
In coming years, customers are likely to demand even bigger
machines, industry executives say...<br>
- -<br>
To make a blade of such extraordinary length that doesn’t buckle
from its own weight, G.E. called on designers at LM Wind Power, a
blade maker in Denmark that the company bought in 2016 for $1.7
billion. Among their innovations: a material combining carbon fiber
and glass fiber that is lightweight yet strong and flexible...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/01/business/GE-wind-turbine.html#commentsContainer">https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/01/business/GE-wind-turbine.html#commentsContainer</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Water, water everywhere with desalinization]<br>
<b>Desalination Breakthrough Could Lead to Cheaper Water Filtration</b><br>
AUSTIN, Texas — Producing clean water at a lower cost could be on
the horizon after researchers from The University of Texas at Austin
and Penn State solved a complex problem that had baffled scientists
for decades, until now.<br>
<br>
Desalination membranes remove salt and other chemicals from water, a
process critical to the health of society, cleaning billions of
gallons of water for agriculture, energy production and drinking.
The idea seems simple — push salty water through and clean water
comes out the other side — but it contains complex intricacies that
scientists are still trying to understand.<br>
<br>
The research team, in partnership with DuPont Water Solutions,
solved an important aspect of this mystery, opening the door to
reduce costs of clean water production. The researchers determined
desalination membranes are inconsistent in density and mass
distribution, which can hold back their performance. Uniform density
at the nanoscale is the key to increasing how much clean water these
membranes can create.<br>
<br>
“Reverse osmosis membranes are widely used for cleaning water, but
there’s still a lot we don’t know about them,” said Manish Kumar, an
associate professor in the Department of Civil, Architectural and
Environmental Engineering at UT Austin, who co-led the research. “We
couldn’t really say how water moves through them, so all the
improvements over the past 40 years have essentially been done in
the dark.”<br>
<br>
The findings were published today in Science.<br>
<br>
The paper documents an increase in efficiency in the membranes
tested by 30%-40%, meaning they can clean more water while using
significantly less energy. That could lead to increased access to
clean water and lower water bills for individual homes and large
users alike.<br>
<br>
Reverse osmosis membranes work by applying pressure to the salty
feed solution on one side. The minerals stay there while the water
passes through. Although more efficient than non-membrane
desalination processes, it still takes a large amount of energy, the
researchers said, and improving the efficiency of the membranes
could reduce that burden.<br>
<br>
“Fresh water management is becoming a crucial challenge throughout
the world,” said Enrique Gomez, a professor of chemical engineering
at Penn State who co-led the research. “Shortages, droughts — with
increasing severe weather patterns, it is expected this problem will
become even more significant. It’s critically important to have
clean water availability, especially in low-resource areas.”<br>
The National Science Foundation and DuPont, which makes numerous
desalination products, funded the research. The seeds were planted
when DuPont researchers found that thicker membranes were actually
proving to be more permeable. This came as a surprise because the
conventional knowledge was that thickness reduces how much water
could flow through the membranes.<br>
<br>
The team connected with Dow Water Solutions, which is now a part of
DuPont, in 2015 at a “water summit” Kumar organized, and they were
eager to solve this mystery. The research team, which also includes
researchers from Iowa State University, developed 3D reconstructions
of the nanoscale membrane structure using state-of-the-art electron
microscopes at the Materials Characterization Lab of Penn State.
They modeled the path water takes through these membranes to predict
how efficiently water could be cleaned based on structure. Greg Foss
of the Texas Advanced Computing Center helped visualize these
simulations, and most of the calculations were performed on
Stampede2, TACC’s supercomputer.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://news.utexas.edu/2020/12/31/desalination-breakthrough-could-lead-to-cheaper-water-filtration/">https://news.utexas.edu/2020/12/31/desalination-breakthrough-could-lead-to-cheaper-water-filtration/</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
[Coal to China now blocked]<br>
<b>Sailors Stranded for Months as China Refuses to Let Ships Unload
Australian Coal</b><br>
China is vague about why vessels that carried Australian coal to its
ports can’t unload their cargo. “We’re all depressed; our mental
health is deteriorating,” one sailor said...<br>
- -<br>
Crews on an estimated 70 ships loaded with seven million to 10
million tons of Australian coal have not been allowed to disembark
in China, according to commercial tracking data. China has cited
various factors like the coronavirus and environmental issues. But
Beijing has effectively banned Australian coal as tensions between
the two countries intensify...<br>
- -<br>
Last year, according to government statistics, Australia exported
nearly $10.4 billion worth of coal to China. Though that coal helps
fuel China’s voracious economic needs, deteriorating political ties
have choked off one conduit.<br>
<br>
In April, Australia called for an investigation into the origins of
the coronavirus. A furious China followed over several months with
informal bans on a host of Australian goods, including barley, wine
and timber. In June, ships hauling Australian coal across the ocean
began to be stranded at several Chinese ports, according to analysis
from Bloomberg...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/26/business/coal-ships-china-australia.html/">https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/26/business/coal-ships-china-australia.html/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p> </p>
[MIT says]<br>
<b>The pandemic taught us how not to deal with climate change</b><br>
We must transform the economy, not halt it, to prevent runaway
warming. And we're doing it far, far too slowly today.<br>
<br>
by James Temple - January 1, 2021<br>
There’s a case to be made that 2020, for all the sacrifices it
demanded and tragedies it inflicted, could at least mark a turning
point on climate change.<br>
<br>
It's now possible that global oil demand and greenhouse-gas
emissions may have already peaked in 2019, since the pandemic could
slow economic growth for years, accelerate the demise of coal, and
bring about long-lasting declines in energy demand through things
like continued remote working.<br>
<br>
On top of that, a growing number of major companies and nations,
including China, have committed to zero out their emissions by
around midcentury. The election of Joe Biden will put a president in
the White House who has committed to take bold action on climate
change. Clean technologies like solar, wind, batteries, and electric
vehicles are getting cheaper and gaining ground in the marketplace.<br>
<br>
And in the final days of the year, the US Congress managed to
authorize (though not yet appropriate) tens of billions of dollars
for clean power projects within a sweeping coronavirus relief bill.
The package also enacted tightening limits on
hydrofluorocarbons—highly potent greenhouse gases used in
refrigerators and air conditioners. (After criticizing the bill as a
"disgrace," President Trump nonetheless signed it into law on Dec.
27.)<br>
<br>
But finally reaching a turning point, decades after scientists began
warning us of the dangers, matters less than how rapidly and
consistently we cut emissions on the other side of it. And that’s
where some of the darker signs in 2020 have me worried.<br>
<br>
Far too slowly<br>
Even if we have achieved peak emissions, that only means we’re no
longer making the problem worse at an increasing rate year after
year. But we’re still making it worse. Carbon dioxide lasts hundreds
of years in the atmosphere, so every additional ton we emit further
exacerbates climate change, promising more or worse heat waves,
droughts, wildfires, famines, and flooding.<br>
<br>
We don’t need to flatten emissions—we need to eliminate them as
rapidly as possible. Even then, we’ll be left to deal with the
effectively permanent damage we’ve caused.<br>
<br>
Some argue that the radical changes in behavior and practices that
went into effect as the coronavirus spread around the planet are a
promising sign for our collective ability to address climate change.
This is, frankly, nonsense.<br>
<br>
Huge portions of the population stopped driving to work; going to
bars, restaurants, and theaters; and flying around the globe.
Economic growth plummeted. Hundreds of millions of people lost their
jobs. Hundreds of thousands of businesses have closed for good.
People are going hungry. And the world is becoming much poorer.<br>
<br>
None of this is a viable or acceptable way of slowing climate
change. Moreover, all this devastation only shaved about 6% off US
greenhouse-gas emissions this year, according to BloombergNEF
estimates. Global estimates are about the same. The pollution
reductions came at a massive economic cost, at somewhere between
$3,200 to $5,400 per ton of carbon, according to earlier estimates
by the Rhodium Group.<br>
<br>
We would need sustained cuts on that level, year after year for
decades, to prevent far more dangerous levels of warming than we’re
already seeing. Instead, emissions are likely to bounce back close
to 2019 levels as soon as the economy recovers.<br>
<br>
It’s hard to point to a clearer example of how deeply embedded
climate pollution is into an even basic level functioning of our
society—and how drastically we need to overhaul every part of our
economy to begin substantially and sustainably cutting emissions.<br>
<br>
We need to transform the economy, not shut it down. And that
transformation is happening far too slowly.<br>
<br>
Polarized politics<br>
It is fantastic news that clean technologies are getting cheaper and
more competitive. The problem is they still represent a fraction of
the market today: Electric vehicles account for about 3% of new car
sales worldwide, while renewables generated a little more than 10%
of global electricity last year.<br>
<br>
Meanwhile, we’ve barely begun to transition industries that are far
harder to clean up, like cement, steel, shipping, agriculture, and
aviation. And the “net” part of national and corporate
zero-emissions plans rely on huge levels of carbon removal and
offsets efforts that we haven’t remotely shown we can do reliably,
affordably, permanently, and at scale.<br>
<br>
We can’t wait for free markets to nudge along nonpolluting products.
And the lofty midcentury emissions targets that nations have set
mean little on their own. We need aggressive government policies and
trade pacts to push or pull clean technologies into the marketplace
and support the development of the tools we don’t yet have or are
far too expensive today.<br>
<br>
Getting just the US on track to zero out emissions across its
economy will require massive investments, and they need to start
now, according to a study by Princeton researchers released last
month. In the next decade alone, the US will need to invest $2.5
trillion, put 50 million electric vehicles on the road, quadruple
solar and wind resources, and increase the capacity of high voltage
transmission lines by 60%, among much else.<br>
<br>
The analysis found the nation also needs to dedicate far more money
to research and development right away if we hope to begin scaling
up an array of emerging technologies beyond 2030, like carbon
capture and removal, carbon-neutral fuels, and cleaner industrial
processes.<br>
<br>
Certainly, the election of Biden is good news for climate change,
following the Trump administration's four-year blitz to unravel
every climate and environmental regulation it could. Biden's White
House can make some progress through executive orders, bipartisan
infrastructure bills, and additional economic stimulus measures that
free up funding for the areas above. But it’s hard to imagine, given
the mixed results of Congressional elections and our highly
polarized political climate, how he’ll be able to push through the
sorts of strict climate policies necessary to get things moving at
anywhere close to the necessary speed, like a hefty price on carbon
or rules that mandate swift emissions reductions.<br>
<br>
The good news is that, unlike what happened in the downturn that
began in 2008, people’s concerns about climate change have persisted
into the pandemic and downturn, according to polling. But coming out
of a year of angst and loss and isolation, I have to wonder how
readily voters around the world will embrace any measures that ask
more of them in the next few years, whether it’s a tax on gas,
higher airline fees, or being told to upgrade to cleaner electric
appliances in their homes.<br>
<br>
Remember, the world—and many of its citizens—will emerge from the
pandemic far poorer. <br>
<br>
Sowing division<br>
But here is what frightens me the most about what happened in 2020.<br>
<br>
Researchers and advocates have long assumed, or hoped, that people
would start taking climate change seriously as it began to inflict
real harms. After all, how could they continue to deny it and refuse
to take action once the dangers were upon them and their families?<br>
<br>
But what we’ve seen in the pandemic doesn’t bear that out. Even
after more than 300,000 Americans have died of covid-19, huge
portions of the population continue to deny the threat and refuse to
abide by basic public health measures, like wearing masks and
canceling holiday travel. Despite waves of infections tied to
Thanksgiving gatherings, millions packed the airports the weekend
before Christmas.<br>
<br>
That’s terrifying in itself, but it’s particularly ominous for
climate change.<br>
<br>
In an essay in August, when global covid-19 deaths stood at around
600,000, Bill Gates pointed out that climate change fatalities could
reach that level by 2060—but as an annual occurrence. By the end of
the century, the death toll could be five times that figure.<br>
<br>
If the pandemic offers any clear lessons, it’s that even all that
loss may not persuade many of the reality of climate change or the
necessity to act—particularly since those deaths will tick up
gradually. Politicians can still find ways to downplay the dangers
and exploit the issue to sow division, rather than seeking common
cause. And we may simply learn to live with the elevated risks,
particularly since they’ll disproportionately harm those in the
poorest, hottest parts of the world who had the least to do with
causing climate change.<br>
<br>
I have every confidence that we have the technical and economic
capacity to address most of the risks of climate change. I’m pretty
sure we will begin to move faster than we have in the past. I think
we’ll make a lot of progress on cutting emissions. I bet we’re going
to rebuild big parts of our infrastructure to address some of the
increased dangers. I’m certain that some areas, particularly in the
global North, will continue to thrive, and some will even grow
richer.<br>
<br>
But I fear we still don’t fully recognize that we’re on the cusp of
failing in very tragic ways. Given where our emissions are and where
they need to be, it’s nearly impossible to see how we’re going to
move fast enough at this point to prevent 2 ˚C of warming. And that
will mean staggering levels of otherwise preventable death,
suffering, and ecological destruction.<br>
<br>
It should be a call to arms. But it’s hard to look at 2020 and come
away feeling optimistic about our collective ability to grapple with
complex problems in rational or humane ways—even, or perhaps
especially, in the midst of multiple unfolding calamities.<br>
<br>
Instead, overlapping climate disasters could poison our politics
even further, making all of us more selfish, more focused on our own
comfort and safety, and less willing to sacrifice for or invest in a
better common future.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/01/01/1015533/covid-lessons-for-climate-change-emissions-renewables/">https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/01/01/1015533/covid-lessons-for-climate-change-emissions-renewables/</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
[recent audio - adaptation advice - from Marketplace]<br>
<b>How We Survive: A changing mindset</b><br>
Molly Wood Dec 5, 2020<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.marketplace.org/collection/using-tech-to-adapt-to-climate-change/">https://www.marketplace.org/collection/using-tech-to-adapt-to-climate-change/</a>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Video press release - conference next week]<br>
<b>National Security Significance of a Changing Climate: Risk and
Resilience</b><br>
Dec 2, 2020<br>
U.S. Naval War College<br>
<b>The National Security Significance of a Changing Climate: Risk
and Resilience in the 21st Century. </b><br>
<br>
This conference explores the national security and economic
implications of climate change on the current and future security
landscape. Strategically and operationally, this affects both our
ally’s and adversary’s behavior leading to the open-ended
question—what does it mean if the Department of Defense (DoD) adopts
a posture that focuses on the strategic implications of climate
change? Not only does this impact where, when, and why the United
States gets involved around the world, the economic implications are
cross-cutting at home. This includes the increased use of military
forces for domestic response, building resilience of defense
infrastructure, and the corresponding impacts on training and
readiness.<br>
<br>
The changing climate also affects national security and economic
interests in the oceans. Advancing U.S. economic, technological,
environmental, security and defense interests in this
internationally competitive environment requires a deeper
understanding of the “blue” or ocean economy and how that connects
to the U.S. naval and national security concerns.<br>
<br>
Our defense, and the defense of countries around the world, is built
within the context of a stable climate. From now on a stable climate
is no longer a valid planning consideration. In fact, the changing
climate can be seen as a high-probability, high-impact security
threat presenting new risks around the world. We are proud to be the
first DoD academic institution to host an open event exploring the
national security significance of a changing climate.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15fCuu9KoQg&feature=youtu.be">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15fCuu9KoQg&feature=youtu.be</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
[Digging back into the internet news archive]<br>
<font size="+1"><b>On this day in the history of global warming -
January 2, 2013 </b></font><br>
<p>Former Vice President Al Gore sells the cable network<br>
Current to Al Jazeera. (In the two years prior to the sale,
Current<br>
had increased its coverage of the climate-change issue on such<br>
programs as "The Young Turks" and "The War Room with Jennifer<br>
Granholm"; however, in 2012, Current management rejected a
proposal to<br>
air a regular weeknight program specifically addressing the risks
of<br>
climate change and the steps necessary to combat carbon
pollution.)<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/01/02/al-jazeera-current-tv-al-gore/1805685/">http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/01/02/al-jazeera-current-tv-al-gore/1805685/</a><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/<br>
<br>
/Archive of Daily Global Warming News <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html"><https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html></a>
/<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote">https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote</a><br>
<br>
/To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:subscribe@theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request"><mailto:subscribe@theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request></a>
to news digest./<br>
<br>
*** Privacy and Security:*This mailing is text-only. It does not
carry images or attachments which may originate from remote
servers. A text-only message can provide greater privacy to the
receiver and sender.<br>
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain must be used for
democratic and election purposes and cannot be used for commercial
purposes. Messages have no tracking software.<br>
To subscribe, email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:contact@theclimate.vote">contact@theclimate.vote</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:contact@theclimate.vote"><mailto:contact@theclimate.vote></a>
with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe, subject: unsubscribe<br>
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote">https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote</a><br>
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://TheClimate.Vote">http://TheClimate.Vote</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://TheClimate.Vote/"><http://TheClimate.Vote/></a>
delivering succinct information for citizens and responsible
governments of all levels. List membership is confidential and
records are scrupulously restricted to this mailing list.<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>