BG McFarlane’s Post

Bavijas Energy Review has provided an answer to the much asked question. Read this now! Thank you Bavijas Energy Review #wemove

Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas (GHG) than carbon dioxide (CO2). Methane is reported to cause approximately 30X more global warming effects than CO2. It has a higher global warming potential (GWP) than CO2, as it lasts longer in the atmosphere. But CO2 is the most important and common GHG emitted by human activities hence why it is used as a reference for accessing the GWP of all other GHGs. The above position has been clearly explained by both the UN Environment Programme and the IPCC. Hope this helps clarify this contentious question.

Current net zero pledges and policies are predicted to only have a 14% chance of keeping 1.5C and we have a 90% chance of 3.5C warming by the end of the century, with a best estimate of 2.4C. Current policy will only achieve 10% of the reductions needed by 2030. Coal, oil, and gas production is increasing worldwide. 🏭 It is dangerous to pretend that ecosystems can adapt to the climate change we will experience. We will lose almost all of the world’s coral reefs.

Did you know that although Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most common GHG, it is not the most powerful in causing global warming? It is estimated that 1 tonne of Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCS) is the equivalent to over 1,800 tonnes of CO2, while 1 tonne of methane (CH4) is estimated to be the equivalent of around 25 tonnes of CO2 in terms of its impact as a greenhouse gas. I thought you should know! 

Methane, a key component of natural gas, is increasingly recognized for its significant environmental impact. Despite being less discussed than carbon dioxide, its potent effect on global warming is undeniable. To find out more about the effects of methane and explore the measures needed to mitigate its emissions, we invite you to delve into our detailed analysis in the article: https://lnkd.in/duzkfm-g

Harsh reality check. The majority of climate scientists foresee at least 2.5C of global warming. Only 6% believe that the 1.5°C limit will be achieved. I hope that adaptation efforts will act as a feedback loop for the mitigation strategies that have not yet been implemented. In light of this what should be our stance when we comment on the announcement that the Science Based Target initiative is considering allowing CO2 certificates to account for Scope 3 emissions? I think it's evident that current efforts aren't sufficient or rapid enough; therefore, the use of CO2 certificates for Scope 3 should be considered favorably for entities that are actively and effectively addressing their Scope 1 and 2 emissions. Source: https://lnkd.in/eHvP-qvv

With less than a decade to prevent catastrophic impacts from global warming, here's how Bloomberg is reducing its carbon emissions in line with a 1.5°C future. 👇 Learn more in our latest Impact Report: https://bloom.bg/3wZXqDQ #ImpactInAction #Sustainability

With less than a decade to prevent catastrophic impacts from global warming, here's how Bloomberg is reducing its carbon emissions in line with a 1.5°C future. 👇 Learn more in our latest Impact Report: https://bloom.bg/3KHoVVU #ImpactInAction #Sustainability

Carbon neutrality refers to net-zero carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions attained by balancing the emission of CO2 with its removal so as to stop its increase in the atmosphere that causes global warming. As of February 2021, 124 countries had pledged to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 or 2060. This is a remarkable development reached after the annual United Nations Conference of the Parties of 1995, in particular those of Kyoto (1997), Bonn (2001), Bali (2007), and Paris (2015), with progressively more concrete binding commitments to emission reduction by the parties (countries).

With less than a decade to prevent catastrophic impacts from global warming, here's how Bloomberg is reducing its carbon emissions in line with a 1.5°C future. 👇 Learn more in our latest Impact Report: https://bloom.bg/4e4z50p #ImpactInAction #Sustainability