You know, it’s funny. Those look like words. But I, as an entitled speaker of the English, cannot be bothered to click the link to find out if they are.
Trying to learn Indonesian now, but it’s basically the “travel period” we think of for Christmas or the the US Thanksgiving. It’s just that they have a phrase for it (I’m thankful there’s no future or past tense…)
Indonesia’s population is predominantly Muslim, and while I don’t know the ins and outs, some holidays like Ramadan, family (I’m told) is expected to be home. Also, Indonesia is as long as the US, and many airports inside the country still haven’t opened up air travel to the same extent it was before the pandemic, so that means boats, trains and buses. There’s a lot of people to move.
Not really no, some nordinc countries with geothermal and tidal options on top of wind and solar maybe, anything larger than an island nation, cannot reach net zero without some form of carbon capture, even if electricity is fully renewable we will still need steel, cement, we’ll still have to refine metals for electronics and batters all of which emit GHG, so everyone has to use offset carbon somehow.
One way Iceland claims carbon neutrality is because they don’t produce a lot of steel, but if you look from a consumption point of view, how much steel Iceland consumes, I guarantee you, it will look worse.
Why would proximity to the equator master for carbon neutrality? Indonesia is able to have both tidal and geothermal energy. They are also a much better spot for solar.
They could reverse deforestation considering forests used to cover 84% of land and now cover about 50%. That would probably go a long way toward a net zero target.
Or they could buy into oil companies’ bullshit and give them billions to work on something that consistently fails to be an option.
Maybe USA should also do it, USA had close to 50% of lands covered with forests in late 1600s which is now only close to 20% it increased by 0.03%in the last decade. That would go a long way toward a net zero target.
Or they can buy into big agri and big pharma’s bullshit and keep giving them billions in subsidy to work on something that clearly is failing now as an option…
Your second one does not make sense in this context though. Oil companies are the ones pushing carbon capture and sequestration. The US did buy into that bullshit and gave the oil companies billions to work on it. Out of the dozen projects, not one of them was workable. I think only one of them even got past the planning stage because the cost and the amount of carbon sequestered was so bad most of them gave up.
You’re right oil and gas companies have more funding for CCS but it’s not like agri has 0 funding, they have also gotten single digit billions so far. UCS ucsusa.org/…/agricultural-practices-and-carbon-se…
Anyway if you go down this road, you’d realise some projects talk sense, but some funding has gone to non sense projects that effectively just say like “oh farming is growing plants, plants absorb CO2, we are naturally a carbon sink, daddy give me money”
thejakartapost.com
Hot