No, seriously. The same company which uses lots of wood, obtained by cutting down carbon pollution sucking trees, and has lots of plastic bowls, dishes, cups, etc, is uber concern trolling
(Telegraph) Ikea is developing a new ‘green’ version of its famous Swedish meatballs in order to cut carbon emissions and help tackle climate change, the retailer has revealed.
The flat-pack furniture giant sells an estimated 150 million meatballs, made from beef and pork, in its cafes each year.
But the popular snack is also the least environmentally-friendly item on the Ikea menu, because of high carbon dioxide emissions involved in the farming process and high methane gas emissions from cattle.
Ikea is so concerned about the contribution to global warming from the meatballs that it is now developing “vegetarian meatballs†as an eco-friendly alternative.
Obviously, they’re going to stop selling the Evil Carbon Polluting meatballs, right?
Ikea later insisted it would “continue to sell the regular meatballs†but confirmed it was planning to “introduce lower carbon alternativesâ€.
“A chicken meatball and a veggie ball are under development and will complement our meatball offer next year,†a spokesman for the company said.
So, um, no. They’re really just going to cater to some Warmist nutjobs. Wise of them to make some extra cash off the Warmistology practitioners, who are Very Concerned over rising temperatures
WoodForTrees. What you see is a spike going back to 1980. That spike goes to 1995. From 1996 to current there is statistically insignificant warming, per RSS. From 1997 forward there is statistically insignificant cooling. You can’t go back further than 1979, when the data first started rolling in.
Thank you for mentioning IKEA
In less than 6 years (2020) IKEA will be using totally green energy AND will be planting more trees than it cuts.
Teach you also frequently post the 90 CMIPS to show how often the climate models fail against some temps. But in THAT graph you can clearly see that since 1983 the temps have always trended up, including since that wicked hot year of 1997. Can you explain that graph to us ? And how it shows a “pause” in temps ?
Now for solar. The cost of solar goes down each year, partly because of the subsidies which in past years allowed it to grow. Total worldwide green energy investments in 2012 was about 270 Billion Private Chinese investment was about 2x as much as in the USA. Yes some of that money will go to companies that fail. But smart money is still pouring into green energy
Most of these investors AND countries realize that green energy will/may cost more in the near term BUT
green energy is the future, unless you think that fossil fuels are somehow going to decrease in price in the future. And when you build a new coal plant investors might be just a bit skeptical about fossil fuel prices towards the end of its 50 year service life.
Teach,
Direct question. Why do you ONLY rely on the RSS dataset?
“Green energy is the future..” Only in your dreams, John. “Unless you think fossil are going to decrease in price..” Even if they don’t, they’ll always be cheaper than “green energy” because fossil fuels are much more efficient. “Total worldwide green energy investments are…” Irrelevant. Of course “investments” are up- it’s so heavily subsidized. Take away the subsidies and I’m sure the investments will go down. But none of that matters anyway. It’s not what goes in but what comes out that’s important-and what comes out is highly inefficient.
Teach,
Direct question. Why do you ONLY rely on the RSS dataset?
Having a hard time coming up with an answer?
j,
You’re ignorant on this issue. Just as any polluting industry or interest is responsible for the damage it causes, so too must the fossil fuels industry be held responsible for its pollution. That said, we were all complicit in the pollution and the potential damages are so grave that it is a global issue. Rather than ban fossil fuel burning we will have to tax it to recoup damages while also necessarily pointing us to non-GHG emitting sources.
You are right that fossil fuels are highly efficient and convenient, although that was not always the case. The technology to handle them was refined over a century or so. Fossil fuels concentrate potential energy into very dense packages and release that energy by burning. And although burning a gallon of gasoline delivers tremendous energy it also delivers about 20 pounds of CO2 to the atmosphere, which cannot yet be efficiently captured. (If you don’t understand how 6 lbs of gasoline is converted into 20 lbs of CO2 by burning, consult a chemistry text – or as the illiterati bleat, “Over 2/3rds of CO2 is oxygen, which is good for you!”).
Of course, science deniers such as you, do not “believe” that CO2 can absorb infrared radiation (although it’s been known for a century), or that if it does absorb infrared radiation, it magically shoots it into space instead of back into the atmosphere, or that the Earth being 4 billion years old refutes the theory of AGW. Whatever.