margrietkuijper.bsky.social
34 posts
51 followers
26 following
Getting Started
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Euro; Netherlands
comment in response to
post
1.99 for 10 eggs (and no we won't export to the US anymore)
Good luck with Trump.
Sad to see that he will not only screw up the US but also many other countries in his mad dash for more power.
comment in response to
post
Awful indeed!
I think the rest of NATO should also stop sharing info/intelligence with the US. Cannot be trusted anymore (not to share info with Russia).
comment in response to
post
Of lees de brief van Lech Walesa aan Trump nav het oval office fiasco:
"Materiële hulp - militaire en financiële - kan niet gelijkwaardig zijn aan het bloed dat vergoten wordt in naam van onafhankelijkheid en vrijheid van Oekraïne, Europa en de hele vrije wereld."
www.facebook.com/lechwalesa/p...
comment in response to
post
yes, but it's a bit like climate change: most people agree on it but it's not high on their daily (nor elections) priority list.
We will see what happens. But I would not be surprised if most Americans accept a bad deal for Ukraine if it means better economic deal for US.
comment in response to
post
because they don't really care about this issue...
comment in response to
post
The amounts of CO2 stored are actually very low in 2 of the 3 scenarios. And compared to many assumptions about AI impact (surge) and efficiency/behavior improvements (Horizon) and long term storage (all) the challenges of scaling up CCS are a piece of cake I would say.
comment in response to
post
AI 😉🤔?
comment in response to
post
not a good war to go into....as if they had a choice.
comment in response to
post
Is this not merely a reflection of the lower required filling targets per 1 February? the later in the winter season the lower the required filling %.
comment in response to
post
A CTBO would require fossil fuel producers & importers to permanently store a rising percentage of the CO2 emissions from their products. Read the report here: netzeroclimate.org/publications...
comment in response to
post
waarom niet naar Afrika kijken? grote groei van LNG export daar. Lange termijn contracten EU-Afrika met technology transfer en afspraken over methaan/CO2 emissies. Stuur liever geld naar Afrika dan naar Trump of Qatar. Die hebben al genoeg vediend aan fossiel.
www.lngindustry.com/special-repo...
comment in response to
post
tsja, vandaar deze voorzet voor Sophie en Silvio...
Overigens denk ik dat een linkse regering ook niet helpt want die doet net of we in NL binnenkort geen fossiel meer gebruiken. En wil alles meteen *echt* duurzaam, ongeacht de kosten en vertragingen.
comment in response to
post
je moet altijd doelen stellen, maar liefst doelen die weinig interventie behoeven bij veranderingen. Met een CTBO moeten producenten/importeurs zorgen dat er ook genoeg koolstof permanent wordt opgeslagen. 100% in 2050 kan weinig of veel zijn.
comment in response to
post
And this probably won't help either.... should Canada replant trees if/when they burn down at high northern latitudes?
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
comment in response to
post
as always, the whole story appears to be more nuanced:
www.smithsonianmag.com/history/than...
comment in response to
post
can you use blocklists also as 'starter follow lists'....🙃🤭🤔?
comment in response to
post
check out this post and info for more scientific background info: bsky.app/profile/haus...
comment in response to
post
😂🤑
comment in response to
post
thank you!
comment in response to
post
hi, can you add me also?
comment in response to
post
Link to first report (see chapter 2):
cdn.prod.website-files.com/5f3afd763fbf...
comment in response to
post
what we proposed in our first report is to make this symetrical: creating ownership and accountability for geostocks monitoring (and getting fluxes in/out to net zero on time), accountability for biocarbon (LULUCF) STOCKS monitoring, and adding emission accounting for CO2 emissions from biomass. 4/x
comment in response to
post
Emissions are reported when bio-stocks are harvested; not by the user/emitter.
For the geosphere we do the opposite at the moment: we don't track flows in/out and the emitter is responsible for and has to report emissions. 3/x
comment in response to
post
The 'like for like' principle then mainly applies to carbon stocks accounting. With biosphere carbon storage credits being non-tradeable with geosphere storage credits. Interestingly, it already works like that for biosphere (LULUCF) and for sustainable forestry criteria. 2/x
comment in response to
post
Now we're getting deep into carbon accounting basics...
Indeed, in our first Carbon Takeback Obligation report we proposed to split emission accounting (in/out atmosphere) from carbon stock accounting. And to split carbon stock accounting into 2 groups: geosphere and biosphere. 1/x
comment in response to
post
The paper argues for separate accounting biosphere carbon and geosphere carbon. This means that it would be ok to offset emitted/lost soil carbon (eg because of a housing development) with soil carbon credits. Or a chopped down forest with forestry credits.
comment in response to
post
If you allow use of avoided emission credits to offset actual fossil carbon emissions then we will never reach atmospheric net zero. And definitely not geological net zero.
comment in response to
post
This is very much in-line with the paper that we published last week arguing that only durable removals are consistent with Paris agreement goals to stabilize global temperatures: www.nature.com/artic...
comment in response to
post
indeed, I know him as very knowledgeable, open for discussions, but also not afraid to call out where he thinks errors are made or incorrect conclusions drawn. Hopefully Bluesky users are not afraid to be challenged on content.