Intel commits to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2040 Intel has committed to being net zero for greenhouse gas emissions across its global operations by 2040, and has set itself interim milestones for 2030 including 100 percent renewable electricity use and to identify greener chemicals with lower global warming potential. The chip giant announced the move as part of plans to …
This whole "greenhouse gas" nonsense (note: CO2 is a *TERRIBLE* greenhouse gas - just look at the infrared absorption spectrum for IR frequencies that correspond to temperatures on earth, as compared to something like WATER) is a bunch of touchy-feely PAP for the UNSCIENTIFIC "experts" to CONTROL "compliant" people with, claiming that TECHNOLOGY and FREEDOM (i.e. use of fossil fuel energy) is "damaging": the planet somehow... and so we must EMPOWER "THEM" to control OUR LIVES or some other equally *EVIL* plan.
Does ANYONE *STILL* buy into this *NONSENSE* ??? *SERIOUSLY* ???
@Bombastic Bob: Bob, you might want to look at Modtran. There's a web accessible version at http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/ Make sure "Looking Down" is selected (Looking Up is incoming radiation). Set everything other than CO2 to zero. As any fool can plainly see CO2 does take a big chunk out of outgoing IR. Since outgoing IR is how the Earth dumps heat, the Earth will almost certainly have to warm a bit to make up for the effect of CO2. I have some technical quibbles re Modtran but I, and most other climate skeptics, agree that it's not utter garbage. BTW, the other greenhouse gas that causes a substantial notch to the right of CO2 is Ozone not Methane or NO2. We probably don't want to get rid of Oxygen even if we could. Methane? Now THERE is your overhyped greenhouse gas. Even if you multiply its concentration by 200 to bring it up toward the current level of CO2, it doesn't have a huge effect compared to CO2.
@NeilPost: Neil, You might want to look at Modtran also. But instead of getting rid of the other gasses, leave them, but look at the affect of doubling, quadrupling, etc CO2. Yes, that increases warming a bit, but nowhere near as much as you probably expect. You might also want to look at the Paleomap project and specifically at the map of past climates http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm. we are living in probably the coolest period since the Earth seems to have frozen pretty solidly (for reasons we don't remotely understand) around 700 million years ago. It appears that there is plenty of upside margin for warming. Far more than the IPCC's 1.5C.
I wouldn't bother to argue about any of this, were it not for the fact that the climate hysterics seem determined to save a world that is probably not in need of salvation using a tool kit -- wind and solar -- that is almost certainly quite incapable of accomplishing what it is expected to do. I think that quixotic effort is likely to end badly and the price will be paid as always, not by the wealthy, but by the world's poor.
Intel won’t be net zero. They’ll outsource all their emissions to other entities. The U.K. government has done exactly the same. They claim they’re lowering emissions by stopping oil, gas, coal etc. extraction but are then importing it which uses infinitely more fossil fuel to transport. Drax power station can’t burn coal but can import thousands of trees from the US to burn. How are they getting to the U.K., by battery powered ships, no by some of the worst polluting vessels on the planet. It’s a scam.
Yes Bob the greenhouse gas nonsense is a hoax. Even if we stopped using all fossil fuel today we have no idea if it will have any effect. If we could jump forward to 2070 we wouldn’t be able to measure the difference. The climate is so vast it is impossible to model.
Isn’t it funny that “no” government is telling anyone to use less energy or buy fewer things. If governments really wanted to lower emissions then lowering consumption would be the guidance. However, that would mean telling the truth.
Well these guys are. In the same El Reg mail. Perhaps you missed it.
https://www.theregister.com/2022/04/13/climate_mit_fortran/
Are you perhaps ignoring the model completely to the n’th degree as opposed to making reasonable assumptions based on prior data and modelling so their model works to a degree of certainty but with margins of error..
Science - when it come up short or is in error or models don’t work - self-corrects… unlike Republican’s, anti-vaxers, climate change deniers or Brexiteers.
If it's world-global (and for real), it's a good thing.
However, I doubt limiting some emissions will be enough. Even if all of Europe stops to emit any CO2 (except breathing) in 2030, it will be largely offset by the growth of India and China.
The only viable solution I see is to capture CO2, and fast. There are a few initiatives starting worldwide, they must be implemented at an exponential scale
CO2 capture via trees and growing stuff - GOOD
Giga-scale Chemical Engineering Carbon Capture and Storage is mad-scientist SciFi Terraforming nonsense… where the efforts and investment would be better spent on home insulation, efficiency and reduction in carbon-based fuel and electricity consumption to gain the same effect.
For example buy everyone an ultra-efficient single cup water boiler/dispenser rather than suck up the CO2 from hundreds of millions of electric or hob kettles. (Self evidently recycling the old dirty kettles).
Funded home insulation programmes etc.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2023
