Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NickB79

(19,668 posts)
2. So, a 60% reduction of 3% of global emissions?
Thu Jan 11, 2024, 08:21 PM
Jan 2024

That would shave 1.8% off global emissions by 2050, which is pretty decent, but not spectacular in and of itself.

But this stood out at me:

The study shows that the greatest investment need is in Australia, to supply the Asian markets, with large production clusters also predicted in Chile (to supply South America), California (to supply Western U.S.A.), North-West Africa (to meet European demand), and the southern Arabian Peninsula (to meet local demand and parts of south Asia).


One of Australia's largest exports to Asia is coal. Northwest Africa moves Nigerian oil. Arabian Peninsula exports are oil tankers. Are we going to build green cargo ships to fight climate change, but use them to move coal and oil?

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Green ammonia could decar...»Reply #2