The management of perception, i.e. the licence for climate fraud

krytykapolityczna.pl 10 months ago

Let's talk about perception programs. These are technologies whose main task is to make the impression that something is happening. Whether a given action will always work on a larger scale is little important, and in any cases it does not matter. If, as a consequence of specified a procedure, the public is calmed down and authorities are persuaded not to regulate any harmful industry, the mission can be considered fulfilled.

Perception management is an costly party. On illusory solutions real money is spent, in peculiar public money. Take carbon sequestration, for example, the capture and retention of carbon dioxide produced by power plants, oil and gas fields, steel factories and cement plants.

This process has suffered a spectacular failure in reducing greenhouse gas emissions for 20 years. What's more, his only clear success is to increase oil extraction, as carbon dioxide is utilized to extract oil from geological formations where deposits are peculiarly hard to operate. any of the more audacious petrochemical companies boasted that the climate would benefit from their actions due to these residual amounts of CO2which, after use, remained trapped in the rocks. And although this effect compared to the amount of extra oil extracted is negligible, as a consequence it has brought billions of budget subsidies to these companies.

The erstwhile British government has committed to £20 billion to make carbon sequestration: the technology that has been "developed" for 50 years. It's hard to believe, but the Labourers, though they cut what they can, expressed their will in their programming declaration continuation of this investment.

Another example is the extraction of algae fuel, about which refinery companies honked 15 years ago. Millions have been spent to advance this “fuel of the future”. Meanwhile, investigation programs in this substance quietly faded into oblivion. A erstwhile employee Sections of investigation on algae in Exxon said with regret, completely in my opinion, failing to see the point: "It is simply a pity that, alternatively of spending so much money on advertising, they did not increase our investigation budget."

This is simply a very characteristic feature of perception programs: advertising technology before the benefits can be felt. ExxonMobil is simply a actual champion here: he tells British drivers, for example, that through carbon sequestration in the Hampshire refinery, they can “fuel more, harming less”. Meanwhile, it turns out Exxon nor did he receive a concession for the sequestration, nor invested any money in this program (the contractor claims that the plan will be implemented, either way,).

However, perceptive programs in the purest form are back-to-back for 25 years on green aircraft. For the last 4th of a century oil companies and airlines have presented prototypes of green aircraft and green fuel for jets, but no of them has importantly reduced emissions in any way, and most of these visions have not been realised at all. These actions had the sole nonsubjective of helping businesses to avoid lawsuits.

In July the fresh British government published details of its ‘green aviation fuel plan’. It will support 3 types of aviation fuel: biofuels, waste fuel and synthetic oil.

I'm all for fresh environmental technologies. And I am wholeheartedly against utilizing them as a substitute for effective political solutions. The erstwhile government that started the program was like itself very sincereWhen he put it this way: “This plan fits into our efforts to make limitation of air transport did not take place by controlling demand.’ Rishi Sunak rejected by the government fresh aviation taxes, and the Ministry of Transport stated that "the aviation manufacture can accomplish zero-emission by improving efficiency and utilizing cleaner fuels and fresh technologies": it is simply a heroic, even for tories, attack on the truth.

But what the hell, the Labourers are now utilizing precisely the same perceptional procedures. Failure is calculated in price. Even in the case of reducing the types of acceptable refining inputs, the usage of biofuels in aviation on a larger scale will increase overall demand, which means that either part of the agricultural yields for humans will should be taken over, which will increase food prices and increase hunger in the world, or chaotic ecosystems will be destroyed in order to increase agricultural areas. It's a simple calculation that governments don't want to realize at any price.

As far as waste is concerned, this is simply a promise regularly drawn from the hat to justify disastrous political actions. Biodiesel was expected to be made. of food oil, however, fresh palm oil began to be utilized for this intent as production grew. The biomass furnaces were to consume forest waste, but in a short time they began to devour full trees and sometimes even forests. Biogas was to be produced from sewage and food waste, nevertheless operators rapidly discoveredthat they are able to produce more utilizing circumstantial crops specified as corn or potatoes.

Why? In general, waste provides small energy, is variable and costly to use. We are already seeing fierce competition in the fight for this tiny part of waste that could possibly be utilized commercially, and businesses are doing everything to get coal subsidies – to the point that fresh palm oil sold as utilized oil'Cause that's how you get a bigger margin.

Synthetic kerosene from the combination of green hydrogen and carbon dioxide is simply a better option. However, this is simply a very costly technology. Although it has been in existence for 25 years, it is inactive in its infancy (it is most likely the longest increasing manufacture in history). That's why the government predicts that by 2040 Only 3.5 percent of aviation fuel will be in the United Kingdom produced by this method. Meanwhile, the contamination caused by the aircraft that fell during the first wave of covid, Most likely this year will return to pre-pandemic levels of 8% of British emissions.

But that's not the worst part. Carbon dioxide is only 1 of the sins of the aviation industry, contributing to the increase in greenhouse effect. The release of pollutants and water vapour advanced above the Earth's surface leads to about three times higher heating than carbon dioxide alone. Given even CO alone2, the government's climate change committee estimates that without real restrictions aviation will absorb 36 percent by 2050. the UK coal budget, becoming the main origin of greenhouse gases in this country. The reason is the projected continuous increase in the number of aircraft passengers (government data suggests that it will be up to 70% more between 2018 and 2050), while the remainder of the economy is undergoing decarbonisation.

The government could rapidly reduce the negative impact of aviation by reducing request itself, using, for example, fair solutions specified as 'anti-mile', i.e. charges imposed on frequent travellers – and that is what the immediate effects are here. However, the government prefers to trust on its perceptive programs.

A survey article was published in discipline magazine in fresh months. 1.5 000 pro-climate policy solutions From different corners of the world, which shows that only 63 of them have brought crucial benefits. This was, among others, a fuel tax, a ban on the usage of harmful technologies, regulations governing RES, regulations forcing greater energy efficiency, robust building regulations and higher performance standards for industry. This article should service as a prescription for action. However, the solutions mentioned there, precisely due to the fact that they lead to real changes, are in conflict with the interests of the powerful of this world. And if I were to point out 1 thing in which Keira Starmer's office achieved actual virtuosoity, it was in avoiding tension with those who have money and influence.

Yeah, I know, it's just the beginning of the term. Man inactive hopes for a more enlightened policy. However, if the fresh British government truly wants to show that it takes the request to prevent environmental disaster seriously, it should follow 63 proven ways and forget about costly excuses.

**

Article published on the author's blog. From English she translated Dorota Blabolil-Obrębska.

Read Entire Article