perestroika

Well, today they are actually in production, while 5 years ago they were in laboratories.

As an anarchist who would welcome other anarchists - sadly, I doubt if that's a reliable recipe to stop climate change.

Limiting (hopefully stopping) climate change can be done under almost any political system... except perhaps dictatorial petro-states. However, it takes years of work to tranform the economy. Transport, heating, food production - many things must change. Perhaps the simplest individual choices are:

• going vegetarian (vegan if one knows enough to do the trick)
• avoidance of using fossil fueled personal vehicles
• improving home energy efficiency (especially in terms of heating)
• avoidance of air travel
• avoidance of heavy goods delivered from distant lands

The rest - creating infrastructure to produce energy cleanly and store sufficient quantities - are typically societal choices.

As for corals - I would start by preserving their biodiversity, sampling the genes of all coral and coral-related species and growing many of them in human-made habitats. If we're about to cause their extinction, it's our obligation to provide them life support until the environment has been fixed.

Also, I would consider genetically engineering corals to tolerate higher temperatures. Since I understand that this is their critical weakness, providing a solution could save ecosystems. If a solution is feasible, that is.

Corals reproduce sexually so a useful gene obtained from who knows where would spread among them (but slowly - because typical colonies grow bigger asexually). Also, I would keep in mind that this could have side effects.

As for tempeature - it will be rising for some time before things can be stopped. Short of geoengineering, nothing to be done but reduce emissions, adapt, and help others adapt. The predictable outcome - it will get worse for a long while before it starts getting any better.

News of the sentencing reached the public broadcaster here in Estonia, including Dale Vince's comment that "this resembles Russia or maybe North Korea" and Chris Packham's assessment that "this is a threat against freedom of speech".

I hope the judgement gets overturned on appeal, and the law that enabled the judgement gets scrapped or rewritten.

I also suspect that the next people who want to stop traffic will not choose peaceful assembly as their method, but will use far more dangerous methods - sabotage from distance, e.g. no more traffic lights on a big intersection. Needless to say, state will cry "terrorism" then, and that is not a desirable outcome, so I hope nobody feels compelled to prove the point.

The article is mostly correct. :)

Notes: out of the three, Latvia has serious energy storage - a 4 billion cubic meter (at normal pressure) underground gas store, sufficient to carry all three countries over the winter. So far, it's filled with fossil natural gas - but some day it could be filled with synthesized methane.

As a backup option, Estonia has oil shale - probably the worst fuel on Earth, so the price of emitting CO2 keeps those plants out of the energy market during summer. During winter, they come online though.

As for solar, we aren't planning to rely much on that. Solar capacity has of course skyrocketed, but only because it's very easy to install. For me, it provices a nice way to charge my car from April to October. But at latitudes 55 to 60, days are really very short in midwinter, so wind and waste wood are the likely candidates in future - after oil shale leaves the scene, but before synthetic gas becomes feasible.

Regarding pumped hydro - it can stabilize a day, but can't stabilize a week or month. Lithuania has a biggish (~10 GWh) pumped storage facility. The rest of Baltics don't have suitable terrain. Estonia has limestone banks, but they're under various forms of protection and even if one built a lot of pumped hydro, the low elevation difference (up to 50 meters) means one couldn't support the electric grid through more than a few days.

Regarding hydrogen - maybe. But hydrogen is difficult to store, so I'm betting on wind, and on sourcing technology from Germany to produce synthetic methane from excess power during summer, and pumping it to Latvia for storage.

Finally - connecting to the continental EU power grid allows importing energy when local wind isn't strong enough, and exporting any surplus. So far, all three countries are still in the ex-Soviet synchronization area (common with Russia and Belarus, but with no trade, just synchronization), and thus unable to connect with the EU synchronization area. Local power companies have been building synchronous compensators (devices that steer grid frequency) for the past 2 years to drop this dependency.

If things go as planned, Baltic countries will sever those connections and join the EU grid via Poland in winter 2025. Undersea cables already go from Estonia to Finland and Lithuania to Sweden, but in the current political conditions, I don't think anyone counts of them for sure (a Chinese-owned but Russian-crewed ship broke the Estonia-Finland gas pipeline last autumn when dragging its anchor during a storm - it's still unsure if the damage was accidental or not).

The Ugandan military playing security guards for a China-controlled oil project... I think explaining human rights over there will have to start from zero - and may have to be backed with "or else" statements - if there exists an institution in a suitable position to issue them. :o

I would add:

• if you wanted direct and low-latency access to cameras (for machine vision)

1 C more temperature -> air can hold 7% more water vapour

...but the peaks of fringe events are quite a bit taller than +1 C. Raising the average by 1 C raises the peaks considerably more.

Summary:

But then, in the geologically abrupt space of only a few decades, this great river of ice all but halted. In the two centuries since, it has moved less than 35 feet a year. According to the leading theory, the layer of water underneath it thinned, perhaps by draining into the underside of another glacier. Having lost its lubrication, the glacier slowed down and sank toward the bedrock below.

/.../

“The beauty of this idea is that you can start small,” Tulaczyk told me. “You can pick a puny glacier somewhere that doesn’t matter to global sea level.” This summer, Martin Truffer, a glaciologist at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks, will travel to the Juneau Icefield in Alaska to look for a small slab of ice that could be used in a pilot test. If it stops moving, Tulaczyk told me he wants to try to secure permission from Greenland’s Inuit political leaders to drain a larger glacier; he has his eye on one at the country’s northeastern edge, which discharges five gigatons of ice into the Arctic Ocean every year. Only if that worked would he move on to pilots in Antarctica.

It's not wild at all. :) The plan makes sense from a physical perspective, but should not be implemented lightly because:

• it's extremely hard work and extremely expensive to drain water from beneath an extremely large glacier
• it doesn't stop warming, it just puts a brake on ice loss / sea level rise

If the motor mount is hackable with reasonable effort, and the motor controller's interfaces are open, then in principle... yes.

Yet in reality, companies build extremely complicated cars where premature failure of multiple components can successfully sabotage the whole. :(

I've once needed to repair a Mitsubishi EV motor controller. It took 2 days to dismantle. Schematics were far beyond my skill of reading electronics, and I build model planes as an everyday hobby, so I've seen electronics. Replacement of the high voltage comparator was impossible as nobody was selling it separately. The repair shop wanted to replace the entire motor controller (5000 €). Some guy from Sweden had figured out a fix: a 50 cent resistor. But installing it and putting things back was not fun at all. It wasn't designed to be repaired.

Needless to say, replacing a headlight bulb on the same car requires removing the front plastic cover, starting from the wheel wells, undoing six bolts, taking out the front lantern, and then you can replace the bulb. I curse them. :P

But it drives. Hopefully long enough so I can get my own car built from scratch.

Thanks for the news, but also - thanks for posting a proper summary. :)

(So many videos have only the YouTube-compiled summary, which is typically totally off topic.)

Interestingly, warfare also has the effect of:

• causing houses to be abandoned, necessitating houses elsewhere while the abandoned ones likely get bombed

• decreasing the number of future consumers, whose future footprint would depend on future behaviour patterns (hard to predict)

• changing future land use patterns, either due to unexploded ordnance or straight out chemical contamination (there are places in France that are still off limits to economic activity, because World War I contaminated the soil with toxic chemicals), here in Estonia there are still forests from which you don't want trees in your sawmill because they contain shrapnel and bullets from World War II

I have the feeling that calculating the climate impact of actual war is a difficult job.

But they could calculate the tonnage of spent fuel and energy, that would be easier.

Nice to hear. :) The process seems doable in a suitably equipped factory. :)