I’ve been considering calling the platform FascX. Not sure how well it works though.

You can use gas and other fossil fuels to produce hydrogen, but you can obviously use renewables too, amongst other methods. https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2021/may/green-blue-brown-hydrogen-explained

There has been a decent greenwashing campaign to try to disguise that a lot of hydrogen in the hydrogen mix is produced using fossil fuels. This is to try and enable greater use of hydrogen technologies over other solutions, eg EVs vs hydrogen cars, and keep money flowing to the fossil fuel barons. Unfortunately, we do need to be careful when we hear the blanket phrase ‘hydrogen’, rather than ‘green hydrogen’ specifically.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmorris/2021/07/31/is-hydrogen-just-oil-and-gas-greenwashed/?sh=203dcf3fca04

This article is from 2021 but I imagine the percentage of grey hydrogen in the hydrogen production mix is still up towards what is stated in the below quote. The context for the quote is in the lead up to the Tokyo Olympics, Tokyo was using hydrogen buses.

Currently, around 95% of hydrogen production is what is called “grey”, including that being used at the Tokyo Olympics. It is made by reacting natural gas with high-temperature steam. This is the cheapest way to manufacture hydrogen but produces loads of CO2. In fact, it has been calculated that producing 1kg of hydrogen by this method will generate 9.3kg of CO2, which is actually more than the 9.1kg of CO2 produced by burning a gallon of gasoline, usually considered to have a similar energy value.

Oh no, I didn’t think it was meant that way. I just took it as hoping for catastrophic weather in the hope it will convince enough people will probably backfire. To which, you are probably correct.

Honestly, fair enough. I guess part of me sharing that thought was because I recognised it was pretty drenched in schadenfreude, and was interested to see what people thought.

The last thing I really want is more disastrous weather to occur. Bring back the 1 every 100 year disasters I say.

Yeah I’m at the point of life where a lot of my friends are having kids and I am terrified for their future, but hate the idea of having to have these kinds of conversations with them because they deserve to have hope for the future, for their kids future.

But I’m also torn because I think these discussions need to be had if we want people to get active, so we can effect the necessary change in time. And if anyone deserves to truly be angry, its parents.

Am I being crazy thinking that if Australia was reamed by extreme weather this summer it would be better than not, as all the climate change deniers will use non-extreme weather as a ‘see the climate isn’t warming’ argument. At least if this summer was fucked up, they would then have a more difficult time arguing climate change doesn’t exist, which could be good timing as extreme weather is still dependant on local and global climate patterns, so there will be a return to less extremes once La Nina returns.

At the same time, more extreme weather is the last thing I want people to have to experience, especially as those who suffer the most from the extreme weather will probably be those least likely to deny climate change.

In summary, I think I’m being a little crazy sitting here hoping shit burns to the ground to prove a point.

Haha yeah, that’s less than my yearly rent for my room in a sharehouse.

I guess maybe, a $15k fine might not be high enough if they are willing to keep doing it.

Just another example of a fines being seen as the cost of doing business.

I feel the same for politicians.

If an individual can be done for perjury when on the stand in court, then I think it is reasonable that a similar legal obligation should be placed on our politicians and journalists.

Actually, I think the consequences for a politician or journalist knowingly lying should be far greater than that placed on individuals, because both politicians and journalists have far better access to high quality sources of information than your average citizen, meaning there should be extremely limited grounds for the claim of “I didn’t know” or “I was deceived” to be accepted as a reason for them being ignorant of evidence and/or pushing baseless ideologies instead.

Is this the great Factorio Square spitter massarcre?

I identify as ‘meme’

Thanks for the responses, its interesting stuff and seems like a sensible way of trying to reduce emissions and actually capture carbon from the atmosphere.

It makes me think of research that shows that it would make more sense to try and capture carbon from the ocean rather than the atmosphere, as the concentrations are much higher than in the ocean. If we can do this using the natural process of photosynthesis via kelp farms and bio char it could be a very sustainable process.

"THE ocean is the single biggest carbon storage device on Earth,” said Chengxiang ‘CX’ Xiang, CTO and co-founder of direct ocean capture (DOC) company Captura. About 30% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions are absorbed by the ocean, where it is 150 times more concentrated volumetrically than in the air.

He said one of the challenges of removing CO2 directly from air is the “really, really, really low” concentration, prompting the need to build large machinery to filter a lot of air. “Leveraging the ocean to do CO2 drawdown for us as we remove CO2 from the ocean water is a unique process that is inherently scalable.”

This is the source I got that quote from: https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/features/co2-capture-putting-the-sea-into-ccs/

It goes on to talk about how they are working to create tech to capture the carbon, but utilising natural process to achieve the same outcome would be considerably better, though we may need to employ all reasonable methods to decarbonise as quickly as possible.

Sorry for the delayed response.

Could you give me a eli5 on biochar? I’ve noticed you refer to it in some other posts/comments, including the fire pits story. I’m guessing char stands for charcoal? If that is the case, how does biochar differ from other charcoals.

Also, how is the kelp related to the biochar?

I mean I guess I could google it, but you seem to have a bit of insight to the whole thing that could help one get an understanding.

It’s sucks these results weren’t what was hoped. I remember reading an article from the CSIRO years ago suggesting this to be a good method to reduce emissions from cattle. I can’t remember what percentage reductions of emissions they claimed though.

At this point I’m thinking this idea could be similar to carbon capture storage, in the sense that the idea was taken up as a means of greenwashing for the beef industry, so they could continue to grow while ‘reducing their emissions’.

I guess 28% is still better than nothing, presuming it isn’t used as an excuse for further growth.