Net zero efforts to destroy forests and coral reefs – is it worth it?

This issue:

• Net-zero efforts to destroy forests and coral reefs
• Met Office data shows storm intensity and wind gusts weakening
• Great Barrier Reef emerges and expands amid rising temperatures and rapid sea level rise

Net-zero efforts to destroy forests and coral reefs

Many of our readers are probably aware that electric vehicle (EV) batteries and other so-called green technologies require large amounts of lithium and cobalt. Climate Change Week has previously discussed the environmental damage and human rights abuses inherent in the production of these elements. Many people may not realize that electric cars require a lot of nickel, a fact I haven't written about before.

Nickel is rarely needed and used in conventional fossil fuel-powered vehicles, but it is the third most important mineral/element critical to the production and functionality of electric vehicles.

It turns out that nickel mining, like cobalt and lithium mining, is mostly done in developing countries with few, if any, environmental regulations and is causing huge environmental damage.

telegraph Reporting…

Indonesia is currently the world's largest nickel producer, with 15% of the world's laterite nickel resources – low-grade deposits typically found near the surface.

But demand is still soaring with the rise of electric vehicles, whose batteries rely on it. The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that global demand for nickel will grow by at least 65% by 2030, and by 2040, electric vehicles and battery storage will replace stainless steel as the largest end user of nickel.

Multibillion-dollar Chinese companies dominate Indonesia's nickel market, but their cheap ore often comes from hundreds of smaller, mostly locally owned mines scattered across the rainforest.

Artisanal mining and industrial smelting are taking a multi-faceted toll on Indonesia’s rainforests, wildlife, coral reefs and people. Slash-and-burn activities to clear forested areas for mining destroy forest habitats, destroy wildlife habitats, and generate air and water pollution from mining runoff that contaminates streams and ultimately the bays where coral colonies are located. . In cities, smelting and refining plants adjacent to booming shantytowns are spewing toxins into the air and oceans, with wastewater discharged directly into the bay.

In addition to land destruction and area conversion – forests turned into strip mines, beaches abandoned by pollution and mining, fishing villages replaced by seaside smelting facilities and factories – a series of photos graphically illustrate telegraph The article stated that these factories were built next to schools and homes, emitting large amounts of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and coal ash into the air. Water pollution from mining runoff and factory wastewater discharged directly into the bay is damaging offshore fisheries, forcing fishermen to hunt fish farther and farther offshore in small boats, while the country's coral reefs are also being damaged.

Commenting on the pervasive green hypocrisy of Indonesia’s nickel mining boom, The Daily Skeptic wrote:

Of course, modern civilization is based on industry, so we cannot cherish the natural world too much. But such widespread mining and industrial activity linked to net-zero emissions debunks the oft-repeated claim that battery and power technology is “green” and “good for the planet”.

The severe environmental damage also highlights the double standards of those who make a fuss about the degradation of rainforests and coral reefs, believing they can blame “greenhouse gases”. [or agriculture, I would add] But when “green” technology is criticized, keep quiet.

Of course, the Daily Skeptic is right that there is nothing wrong with development. In fact, this is generally positive, albeit often dirty in the initial stages, but part of the point is that politicians and activists in industrialized countries need offshore mining to acquire the technology they need to combat climate change. This brings us to the second hypocritical double standard. Residents of developed countries do not allow mining and smelting in their own countries, but are happy to see poor people in developing countries suffering from such activities – all in an effort to satisfy the concerns of most Western countries about climate change.

The German government allowed electric car maker Tesla to cut down around 500,000 trees while building its Gigafactory near Berlin, adding to the green insult of net zero harm, an analysis of satellite data and photos shows.

this daily mail According to the report, analysis of satellite data by environmental intelligence company Kayrros found that “between March 2020 and May 2023, approximately 813 acres of dense woodland in southeast Berlin were felled, equivalent to approximately 500,000 trees.”

Without analysis of the age and type of trees felled, Kayrros chief analyst Antoine Halff's best estimate is that the equivalent of 13,000 tons of carbon dioxide was removed and stored annually during the plant's construction.

Environmentalists have protested Tesla's factory construction from the start, including regular protests since the plant's expansion was announced in May, expanding its footprint on land.

Complaints about tree felling are not the first environmental concerns over Tesla's Gigafactory. In fact, the local water authority warned the company that it faced legal action over water pollution because “the wastewater it discharged into the nearby Spree River contained phosphorus and nitrogen levels six times higher than permitted values.”

Even when reporting on the plant's destruction of trees, Harf tried to downplay the harm caused, saying the electric cars the Gigafactory would help produce would have a greater impact on net carbon dioxide emissions than the disappearing trees. This may or may not be true, but one wonders if Tesla and the German authorities were unable to find a less environmentally damaging site, such as an abandoned industrial park or vacant lot, when planning the factory. This would avoid clearing forests that absorb carbon dioxide, provide shade and provide wildlife habitat.

At Tesla's gigawatt factory, you don't have to worry about missing the forest for the trees, because the forest and the trees that made it up are gone.

Source: The Telegraph; Daily Skeptic; Daily Mail

Met Office data shows storm intensity and wind gusts weakening

While there have been reports of unusually powerful and even record-breaking storms hitting the UK in recent years, the Met Office's State of the UK's Climate 2023 report paints a very different picture.

The report found that during the past colder decades, storms/wind speeds were stronger and more destructive than in recent years. The Met Office measures storm intensity by the number of days each year when 20 or more weather stations record wind gusts exceeding 40/50/60 knots (46/58/69 mph). By this standard, the report found:

• Overall, storm levels in 2023 were comparable to other years in recent decades, with the number of occurrences of maximum wind gusts exceeding 40/50/60 Kt.
• Maximum gust speeds exceeding 40/50/60 Kt have occurred less frequently over the past two decades than in the 1980s and 1990s.
• The annual average wind speed in the UK in 2023 is slightly lower than the 1991-2020 average.
• The annual mean wind speed in the UK shows a decreasing trend from 1969 to 2023, consistent with global observations.

It turns out that it's not just the number of high-wind days that has declined over time. In fact, average peak wind speeds have also declined (see data reported in 2023 below).

Source: Not many people know this; International Journal of Climatology

Great Barrier Reef emerges and expands amid rising temperatures and rapid sea level rise

climate realism Many reports have been published discussing the condition of coral reefs in general and the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in particular. Our review of the data clearly shows that whatever threats coral reefs face, climate change does not figure prominently among them. As far as the Great Barrier Reef is concerned, it has set records every year for its extent and coral coverage over the past few years.

New research confirms that neither rising sea levels nor moderate ocean warming pose a threat to the persistence and prosperity of the Great Barrier Reef. In fact, according to a publication in quaternary science reviewthe Great Barrier Reef in its current form first emerged in deeper, turbid water and expanded during a period when sea levels were rising at a very rapid rate (much faster than today) and the oceans were much warmer.

Research shows that between 8,000 and 6,000 years ago, the modern version of the Great Barrier Reef developed on a shelf in deeper water (about 2 meters deep) than today, evolving and expanding as sea levels rose. 6 to 7 meters per year, which is equivalent to 6 to 7 millimeters per year, or more than 2 feet per century.

Additionally, the researchers calculated that ocean temperatures were about 4 degrees Celsius warmer than the recent average (although this was not specified, it can be speculated).

“Modern scientists (and popularized by their recent penchant for alarmist narratives) believe that coral reefs are not well equipped to withstand these environmental conditions and cannot withstand such rapid changes,” No Tricks Zone wrote in reporting on the study. “Yet , new data suggests that reef growth during this period was “extensive and active” that is also characteristic of modern reef growth in the region.

In fact, the authors write that all trends at the time, based on shared beliefs about coral reefs, inhibited coral development and were harmful to the growth of coral colonies. Their research shows this is not the case. The Great Barrier Reef emerged during a period of rapid environmental change, with rising sea levels, warmer temperatures, and heavy runoff from humid conditions leading to the delivery of more sediment to the reef area, suggesting significant adaptation of coral communities and species over time. sex.

This confirms what Climate Overview: Coral Reefs previously noted: “Corals have persisted over the past 60 million years at temperatures and carbon dioxide levels that are significantly higher than today.”

Source: No tricks zone; Quaternary Science Review

Relevant