you say you’re from the state of green no fact is you’re from the state of soot?

Yousayyou’refromtheSTATEOFGREEN?No”Factisyou’refromtheSTATEOFSOOT?

THiiiNK Holding Switzerland AG

Jäger Treuhand & Verwaltungs AG Kirchacherstrasse 9 CH-8608 Bubikon Zurich Switzerland

e-mail [email protected] Web www.THiiiNK.com

Unsustainable 12,000 Sea miles + 1000 times more Natural Resources for 50% Less Energy? EQUALS: 1 Ship EEE = 376 million Cars = Only 4 ships = All world 1 billion Cars? In relation to emissions caused by sea transport per item which causes a $Trillion in extra healthcare cost due to aggressive Cancer” but also causes rapid Sea-leave Rise, as nor Co2 nor Forrest fires have been the main drivers in rapid ice melt but years of shipping SOOT darkening the ice, year bye year layer bye layer, which is now being exposed as the dark ice melts fast”or main reason for ice free arctic 80 years before IPCC prediction?

Advantages

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQKgo1s4yN-oOQGWouFOzCk0Fu7Sn-8vnpmP_JKPUX_aQn8G9AoPAFPtA

Shippingsoot=>Greenlandmeltsmuchfaster(gone80yearsearlierthanIPCCprediction)Shippingsoot=1.3trillioncarsOnour70%OceanPlanet?(only1billioncarsgloballynow)

JornP.WinklerexplainingthefutureofEnergyMarketshere

Yousayyou’refromtheSTATEOFGREEN?No”Factisyou’refromtheSTATEOFSOOT?hRps://waRsupwiththat.com/2016/03/03/another-alarmist-pillar-collapses-greenland-melXng-due-to-old-soot-feedback-loops-and-albedo-change-not-agw/





If you’re the CEO of a land based Green tech or Clean tech company” you have no clean products at all” they do not exist? as the supply chain manufacturing process of your product from A to Z might require your product has gone 5 times around the Earth before delivered to the END USER? All day you talk Co2” but SOx, NOx & PM plus 50 other Things in SHIPPING FUEL, are left out from IFO 380 to MDO the so-called NEW CLEN FUEL?

You keep saying Co2” but you forget to mention the Guy that controls what Co2 dose” the Guy below the most Dangerous thing on Earth = Dark-Air” Dark- Rain” Dark- Lung” Dark-Snow this Guy is in your Brain Tissue?





Yousayyou’refromtheSTATEOFGREEN?No”Factisyou’refromtheSTATEOFSOOT?DoyourselfafavorwatchthisfromAtoZ”aslongasyoudonotdealwiththe70%,ourOceanyourtransportHighWay,youhaveNOTHING“0”STOPsayingyou’reGreen”whenyourproductisNOTHINGbuta24/7BlackRainspreadingdeathandclimatedestruction?You think we are kidding” watch A to Z below” Is your product Clean? Once on the ship it turns into a killer? http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xudm8n_bbc-global-dimming-documentary-about-geoengineering-global-warming_people

Can only exist when it has dealt with FALSTERBO 2016” the discovery that all the Clean is lost at sea” even in a Clean fuel zone” unless fuel burn itself is reduced by at least 50% RETTROFIT immediately on existing fleet? http://shipemissions.blogspot.co.uk/

Particle emissions from ship traffic lördag 13 februari 2016 This is the preview of the results of the measurements of the Falsterbo campaign January-February 2016, and some nice pictures from the measurements. Here you see is your local Wind Turbine transport” here you see the real STATE of GREEN in ACTION” you think it’s Beijing China” Nope this is down town Copenhagen, all the Green is all Black in reality, all the Green is lost at sea just a few miles from the little Mermaid?





Adam no hat” Jorn with hat” So Green CEO’s are you goanna do something about our Ocean, your transport high way” if you don’t that Ocean is dead WindSolar Electric Cars or not: http://shipemissions.blogspot.co.uk/ You think Adam and myself a kidding, about the effects of 400 million tons of heavy fuel IFO 380 or Clean Fuel Being burned 24/7 to move your Green Product across 70% of Earth our Oceans” Read below? ‘Extremely High Levels’ Of Toxic Pollutants Found In Deepest Parts Of World’s Oceans There’s literally no escaping mankind’s mess. Not even the very deepest, darkest depths of Earth’s oceans can escape mankind’s legacy of toxic pollution. In a shocking discovery highlighting the interconnectedness of our planet, scientists have detected “extremely high levels” of organic chemicals in the fatty tissue of amphipods, a type of crustacean, living in Mariana trench ― the deepest part of the world’s oceans.

“We still think of the deep ocean as being this remote and pristine realm, safe from human impact, but our research shows that, sadly, this could not be further from the truth,” study author Alan Jamieson, a marine ecologist at Newcastle University in Britain, said in a statement. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/toxic-pollutants-mariana-trench-alan-jamieson_us_58a1f7fee4b03df370d8eaac?ncid=engmodushpmg00000004

Fact’s are grim what dose WindSolar Electric cars help, if we destroyed the ocean during production & delivery?





Now we have to bring this in relation with the sulphur & PM emissions caused by the sea transport from China to Europe (appr. 12.000 nautical miles) e.g. of a cell phone, a pair of shoes or an electrical car. A standard container is capable of taking appr. 40.000 cell phones, 2500 pairs of shoes or 2 electrical cars. The Vessel, e.g. Emma Maersk can take 14.770 TEU and the duration of the voyage varies between 20 and 25 days at sea depending on speed. When considering only at the volume of cargo, Emma Maersk could nearly transport 600m cell phones, when this is then compared with sulphur emissions of a car, the sea transport of one cellphone causes appr. 280m/600m=0.47x 23 (days at sea) = sulphur emissions of appr. 11 days of normal car usage. For the pair of shoes this is worse because of the lower capacity of the container by factor 16 = 176 days of car usage. For the transport of the electric cars it is a factor of 20.000 compared to the cell phones leading to the fact, that the transport of one electrical car from China to Europe would cause the same amount of sulphur & PM emissions as 220.000 days of normal (gasoline driven) car usage. Or there are is in fact no such thing as Green or Clean export products anymore as all then Green and Clean is lost at Sea a 10,000 times or more over as a 20 foot Container TEU in 2016 is equal 22,000 petrol driving Cars? This numbers are not taking into account the typical lower payload percentage and the misbalance of cargo on the way back to Asia, so this is a very conservative approach. Because transportation of cars in containers is not usual, we can also look at sulphur emissions of a typical car carrier vessel, which is interesting, because the cars themselves might offer very good environmental characteristics, but overall, including their sea transport, we get another picture, which you are not informed about when purchasing a car: As example we take “Andromeda Leader” a typical car carrier vessel. It typically loads 5500 cars and has a consumption of 45 tons of heavy fuel oil per day and a typical voyage between Japan and Florida takes 22 days. This results in appr. 1000 tons HFO for the complete voyage or 1000/5500= appr. 182 kg HFO per transported car. Factorized with the 3500 times higher sulphur content of HFO we get 637 tons of car fuel. These 637 tons of car fuel are containing the same amount of sulphur like up to 182 kg HFO! Even though the transport of cars in highly specialized car carriers is optimized to the limit, this still means the transport in this example causes as much sulphur emissions as appr. 160,000 days or 436 years of normal car usage (at 4kg fuel per day). Another perspective in concern of the actually high amount of wildfires in the U.S.: If all the forests in California would burn down within one year, meaning an estimated 850 million tons of wood (http://news.berkeley.edu/2015/04/15/california-carbon/ ) containing 0.1% of sulphur(http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/portal/page?_pageid=77,103200&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL ) this would be equivalent to “only” 24 million tons of HFO due to the higher suphur content by factor 35. The large Container Vessel with it`s consumption of 320 tons per day roughly spends 250-300 days per year operating at sea, leading to an annual consumption of 80,000 tons of HFO. So 300 ULCSs -during one year! ce - would emit the same amount of sulphur & PM like burning down California`s forests, this means that sea transport is burning down the entire Californian Forrest 25 times per year DARKsnow melting the ice quicker that ever, and at least 254 of these vessels already exist (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_Large_Container_Ship ) SOOT is why the ice melted so fast? Co2 yes” but the effect of the ice being black from SHIPPING soot made it melt many times faster” or it’s why the IPCC predictions one ice free arctic where wrong by 80 years 2 bad





I did not run into Marco Tedesco years ago” well I was right from A to Z but that’s all to late now I’m afraid? From the EARTH INSTITUTE AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY the ongoing melting that has been incorrectly blamed on CO2, when instead it’s all about older soot embedded in snow coming around again to enhance melting combined with weather pattern changes? https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/03/another-alarmist-pillar-collapses-greenland-melting-due-to-old-soot-feedback-loops-and-albedo-change-not-agw/

Greenland’s ice is getting darker, increasing risk of melting Feedback loops from melting itself are driving changes in reflectivity Greenland’s snowy surface has been getting darker over the past two decades, absorbing more heat from the sun and increasing snow melt, a new study of satellite data shows. That trend is likely to continue, with the surface’s reflectivity, or albedo, decreasing by as much as 10 percent by the end of the century, the study says.

While soot blowing in from wildfires contributes to the problem, it hasn’t been driving the change, the study finds. The real culprits are two feedback loops created by the melting itself. One of those processes isn’t visible to the human eye, but it is having a profound effect.

The results, published in the European Geosciences Union journal The Cryosphere, have global implications. Fresh meltwater pouring into the ocean from Greenland raises sea level and could affect ocean ecology and circulation.

“You don’t necessarily have to have a ‘dirtier’ snowpack to make it dark,” said lead author Marco Tedesco, a research professor at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and adjunct scientist at NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies. “A snowpack that might look ‘clean’ to our eyes can be more effective in absorbing solar radiation than a dirty one. Overall, what matters, it is the total amount of solar energy that the surface absorbs. This is the real driver of melting.”

The feedback loops work like this: During a warm summer with clear skies and lots of solar radiation pouring in, the surface starts to melt. As the top layers of fresh snow disappear, old impurities, like dust from erosion or soot that blew in years before, begin to appear, darkening the surface. A warm summer can remove enough snow to allow several years of impurities to concentrate at the surface as surrounding snow layers disappear. At the same time, as the snow melts and refreezes, the grains of snow get larger. This is because the meltwater acts like glue, sticking grains together when the surface refreezes. The larger grains create a less reflective surface that allows more solar radiation to be absorbed.





“It’s a complex system of interaction between the atmosphere and the ice sheet surface. Rising temperatures are promoting more melting, and that melting is reducing albedo, which in turn is increasing melting,” Tedesco said. “How this accumulates over decades is going to be important, because it can accelerate the amount of water Greenland loses. Even if we don’t have a lot of melting because of atmospheric conditions one year, the surface is more sensitive to any kind of input the sun can give it, because of the previous cycle.”

The study used satellite data to compare summertime changes in Greenland’s albedo from 1981 to 2012. The first decade showed little change, but starting around 1996, the data show that due to darkening, the ice began absorbing about 2 percent more solar radiation per decade. At the same time, summer near-surface temperatures in Greenland increased at a rate of about 0.74?C per decade, allowing more snow to melt and fuel the feedback loops.

A likely cause for the large shift around 1996 was a change in atmospheric circulation, Tedesco said. The North Atlantic Oscillation, a large-scale natural weather cycle, went into a phase in which summer atmospheric conditions favored more incoming solar radiation and warmer, moist air from the south. Later records show those conditions shifted in 2013-2014 to favor less melting, but the damage was already done – the ice sheet had become more sensitive. In 2015, melting spiked again to reach more than half of the Greenland ice sheet.

While new snowfall can make the ice sheet brighter again, the dark material built up during the melt years is waiting just below the surface, preconditioning the surface to future melting, Tedesco said.

The scientists also ran a computer model to simulate the future of Greenland’s surface temperature, grain size, exposed ice area and albedo. Over the current century, the model projects that the average albedo for the entire ice sheet will fall by as much as 8 percent, and by as much 10 percent on the western edge, where the ice is darkest today. Those are conservative estimates – the change could be twice that, Tedesco said.

The study also raises questions about whether Greenland’s high plateau is darkening as previous reports have suggested. The scientists found no long-term trend of darkening at the top, and they suspect that the Terra MODIS satellite sensor that has detected darkening in the past may actually be degrading, as previous studies have suggested. At lower elevations, the signal is much stronger.

The feedback loops could be stopped with lots of snowfall and less melting, but that doesn’t seem likely given the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, Tedesco said. And while warming is expected to increase precipitation, that precipitation includes increasing rainfall, which speeds up melting. Melting is also moving to higher elevations as global temperatures warm.

“As warming continues, the feedback from declining albedo will add up,” Tedesco said. “It’s a train running downhill, and the hill is getting steeper.”

Note: since 2007 I reported these numbers, but Ice Science NGO’s Greenpeace & Friends or the Earth on the IMO panel just looked the other way causing a global catastrophe Years Lost Every Reports Directly Misleading” for no other reason than to hide there failures and become famous by misleading the world: http://www.slideshare.net/jornw1/shippings-bermuda-triangle5 Shipping Bermuda triangle, 2007 I found 320 million tons of IFO380 missing in the global emissions budget or 1 billion tons of Co2 missing PLUS deadly SOx, NOx & PM or all data on subject ice melt, cancer, rain fall and drought due to SOOT was wrong by a factor of 5 and hand been of for almost 20 years of climate science on subject” or why we had Ice Fee Artic 80 years before the IPCC prediction” the first big tipping point I call it” I discovered the missing driver which most hate me for from A to Z” the fuel for drought which is Global Dimming ?





Denmark the STATE OF GREEN” whose ships and burning Trees destroyed the ice with black Soot?

The icesheet in the Ilulissat region of Greenland. The dark patches are cryoconite, formed by windblown dust, soot and ash particles that settle on the ice and turn the snow dark. Photograph: Daniel Beltra Why cutting soot emissions is 'fastest solution' to slowing Arctic ice melt Reducing wood-burning, gas-flaring and global diesel emissions would be ‘quick win’ in combating irreversible climate change, scientists say Wednesday 21 December 2016

World leaders should redouble efforts to cut soot emissions because it is the cheapest and fastest way to combat climate change, climate scientists and advocates have told the Guardian.

Deposits of soot – unburned carbon particles – have stained parts of the Arctic black, changing the ice from a reflector of sunlight to an absorber of heat, and accelerating the melting of ice and snow, which itself is starting to alter global weather patterns.

Arctic ice melt 'already affecting weather patterns where you live right now'

Some scientists believe reducing the concentration of soot particles and other so-called “short-lived climate pollutants” entering the atmosphere may be easier in the short term than bringing down carbon dioxide emissions.





Such a “quick win” would be important to provide breathing space while world populations reduce their use of fossil fuels, scientists say.

Paul Bledsoe, a former White House adviser who has worked on climate science issues for a decade, said: “Limiting short-lived climate pollutants is the cheapest, fastest way to prevent ice melt globally, particularly in the Arctic.”

Durwood Zaelke, president of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development, said: “You can’t solve a fast-moving problem like Arctic warming without fast-moving solutions. Cutting the short lived-climate pollutants is the fastest solution we’ve got.

“Cutting these super climate pollutants can cut Arctic warming by two-thirds in the near term.”

The vast expanse of ice and snow covering the Arctic may look startlingly white from a distance, but on closer examination the glaciers and snow cover are patched by dark streaks of inky black and dusty grey and brown. Some are small and self-contained; others are miles long. All are the mark of man.

Hailong Wang, an atmospheric scientist at the US Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, said that both observational and modelling evidence showed that soot was warming the Arctic.

“The warming effect could be through the direct heating to the air, snow and sea ice by absorbing sunlight, and then accelerating the melting of snow and sea ice,” Wang said. “When the melting starts, there are positive feedback processes that can lead to even faster melting.” https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/21/cutting-soot-emissions-arctic-ice-melt-climate-change





Ill never forget 2004 till 2008 every expert new we had a very serious problem in Denmark

2004 till 2008 I travelled the world speaking till I was blue in the face, we new the SOOT from the ships next to the ice, the SOOT was like a flamethrower melting the ice, Denmark was be lost to the sea faster than thought? Even worse the Nano particles were killing people by the thousands with millions more with Cancer” knowing what’s happing I have nightmares to this day I wake up screaming” people are dying by the thousands in slow motion” that’s when I decide again and again I will never surrender” people are people real people” I can help? My 2004 till 2008 speech 1 ship pollutes as much as 50 million cars https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCCc8gLk2xo My 2004 till 2008 presentation 1 ship pollutes as much as 50 million cars https://www.slideshare.net/jornw1/singapore-2008-winkler





The conclusion: Transport or Electricity from Renewables like 100% WindSolar cannot or is impossibly Green, even though production has been strongly optimized, as production still requires that the minerals or components are shipped to the production site? Unless all take place in the same place, there is Nothing Called Renewables when it comes to the production of Electricity, except for Nuclear Power the last 50 years Nothing ells is or has been Green, especially Renewables like 100% WindSolar or Batteries for the production of Electricity? What do just the 12,000 sea miles mean to short life Cycle products WindSolar & Batteries when delivered to the end-users all over the world” so Q to Z Fished product delivered to end-user? We did NOT in below figures Include A to Q Mineral Extraction to the finished product or another 50,000 to 100,000 sea miles on top? EQUALS: 1 pair of shoes 176 days of gasoline driving EQUALS: 1 TESLA 222 000 days of gasoline driving EQUALS: 1 Ship EEE corresponds to 2 million wood burning stoves EQUALS: 1 Wind Turbine 334 years of gasoline driving EQUALS: 1 Ship EEE equals 38 rows of Cars round the world EQUALS: 1 Ship EEE = 376 million Cars = Only 4 ships = All world Cars EQUALS: Large emissions reduction needed at scale to save Climate are nearly technically impossible?

As nothing has been done about shipping Wind-Turbines probably reduced emissions the least of all?





THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CLEAN TECH” AS ALL THE CLEAN IS LOST AT SEA?

Since 1980 Swedish & Danish taxpayers alone have paid €24 billion inextra EXTRA Health cost in Cancer & Death due to SHIPPING..?

6 Øresund Bridges 24 Billion





Related work 2000 - 2008: http://www.slideshare.net/jornw1/singapore-2008-winkler In 2008 I discover that 1 ship pollutes as much as 50 million cars numbers nobody had found or they where not in any global emissions budget for Health or rapid ice melt due to SOOT for 20 years? http://www.slideshare.net/jornw1/shippings-bermuda-triangle5 Shipping Bermuda triangle, 2007 I found 320 million tons of IFO380 missing in the global emissions budget or 1 billion tons of Co2 missing PLUS deadly SOx, NOx & PM or all data on subject ice melt, cancer, rain fall and drought due to SOOT was off my a factor of 5 and hand been of for almost 20 years of climate science on subject” or why we had ICE FEE ARCTIC 80 years before IPCC prediction? My new 2014 figures where conservative the 280 million cars per ship were 376 million cars per ship when checked by 3 party regulators in Germany just post COP 21” or just 4 ships EEE equal all the worlds 1 billion cars? GEUS Denmark had the date but failed to warn COP21 of the ice melt danger; or they made 100% certain that shipping passed COP21/22” even though the SOOT is the 911 melt Danger in Greenland? How could GEUS miss a jump from 50 to 376 million cars SOOT on ice, or blame it on Algae & wild fires?

References for base calculations NOBODY in Ice Science Human health or Renewable Energy seems to want to know or use? Which is the TRUE PROBLEM bad Science” Or everything Renewable & Electric is only Calculated from Q to Z to make the numbers work? As using A to Z =





A Tesla is 220,000 days of petrol driving before delivered? Fact is the 99.9 of all global export Green product due not include these figures” as doing it would mean NO GREEN, or unless something is done about shipping ASAP Nothing will be Green at the Scale needed?

• 3rd link the impact of international Shipping doc below is the source for the 17g per kwhr (NOx) • The 40 mg NOx per mile for cars in the U.S. was in the press just after VW blew up. • The 3.5 % Sulphur limit you find in Marpol Annex VI and general in any information about Heavy fuel oil

for shipping • The 10 ppm resp. 0.001 % Sulphur content of car fuel you can find e.g. in Wikipedia abt. EUronorm EN

590 • Power of ULCS like Emma Maersk and no. of Cont / TEU you can also find in Wikipedia. • on Marinetraffic.com you can find some info about what engines are installed on certain vessels. • The assumption of 4 kg fuel usage per car is from my side, assuming that 4kg is roughly equivalent to 5l and

5l last for roughly 60 km or 40 miles.. That’s roughly 22000 km or 15000 miles per year is realistic. • The typical consumption per kwhr you can find in MAN Diesel facts

https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/Nitrogen-oxides-(NOx)-–-Regulation-13.aspx http://www.lr.org/en/_images/213-34172_global_marine_fuel_trends_2030.pdf http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CC0QFjACahUKEwjy4Z6r-cTIAhXEPRoKHYd-BhE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eea.europa.eu%2Fpublications%2Fthe-impact-of-international-shipping%2Fdownload&usg=AFQjCNGhu-wZnCSViqL1-t0R6ZDKsFE0Ww http://marine.man.eu/docs/librariesprovider6/technical-papers/propulsion-trends-in-container-vessels.pdf?sfvrsn=20 http://marine.man.eu/docs/librariesprovider6/technical-papers/propulsion-trends-in-bulk-carriers.pdf?sfvrsn=16 http://marine.man.eu/docs/librariesprovider6/technical-papers/propulsion-trends-in-tankers.pdf?sfvrsn=20 You might be shocked” but fact is that shipping has done nothing the past 30 years on the vessels them self except make them bigger and slow steaming without any effect as the fleet was doubled at the same time?

• The article below describes FALSTERBO 2016” the fact that the Clean Fuel is not working as our Guy the harmful nanoparticle is still there in full force drifting on the wind as the fuel burn volume is not reduced? Why a sea breeze may not be so good for you anymore: Particle pollution from shipping is far worse than had been thought

• Traffic on the seas produces high levels of harmful nanoparticles • Researchers estimate it may contribute to 10 000 premature deaths a year • The particles can travel long distances over the ocean carried by the wind

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3327622/Why-sea-breeze-not-good-anymore-Particle-pollution-shipping-far-worse-thought.html For centuries people have escaped to the coast for a healthy dose of fresh sea air. But the breeze blowing in off the ocean may not be as good for you as it perhaps once was, a new study has suggested. Scientists have found that pollution produced by shipping is worse than had been previously thought and that traffic on the North and Baltic Seas alone may contribute to up to 10,000 deaths a year.





Studies of areas with high levels of shipping show that nanoparticles – harmful pollutants that are so tiny they are invisible to the naked eye – are produced in higher quantities than previously thought.

Pollution produced by shipping may be far more harmful than had previously been thought. Scientists have found particulates produced by vessels on the oceans can travel long distances on the wind. A stock image of a cruise ship off the coast of Greenland is pictured The tiny pollutants contribute to respiratory problems and can even lead to premature death, the authors warn. Scientists from Lund University said that their research, carried out in the Baltic and North Sea would also apply to areas of heavy shipping in the UK as well, such as the English Channel. Researcher Adam Kristtensson said: 'We were surprised to see that ship emissions could contribute so much to nanoparticles. 'If you go to other environments where you have very high shipping lanes you could have roughly the same kind of effects. The researchers, whose work is published in the journal Oceanologia, found half of the measured particles stem from sea traffic emissions, while the rest is deemed to be mainly from cars but also industries and natural particles from the sea. He added: 'Previously, we thought that land-based pollution from northern European countries and emissions of natural particles from the surface of the sea accounted for a much larger proportion.' Nanoparticles are dangerous their small size means they can penetrate deeper into the lungs than larger particles contributing to both cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases. A cubic centimetre can contain several thousand nanoparticles. The diesel burnt by ships – called bunker fuel – is more harmful to the environment than diesel used by cars as it has a higher sulphur content, although this was recently reduced by EU legislation.





Emissions from shipping (pictured) accounted for half of the measured particles, while the rest is deemed to be mainly from cars but also industries and natural particles from the sea To conduct the research Dr Kristensson and his colleagues studied air flow as it passes over the Baltic Sea from their station in southern Sweden and another in Finland to another station on the Lithuanian coast. They found the wind can often carry the particles eastwards for long distances before they are washed away by the rain. By comparing levels of nanoparticles, the researchers can draw conclusions about the respective proportions that stem from cars and other emissions, and sea traffic. Particles from sea traffic in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea are expected to contribute to 10,000 premature deaths every year.

Dr Adam Kristtensson from Lund University measured the levels of harmful nanoparticles carried on the wind over the Baltic Sea and found the levels were far higher than had been expected However, Dr Kristensson stressed that this estimate is very uncertain, and believes that it is important to continue to conduct these types of measurements. He said he hoped future regulations will hopefully reduce the emissions of harmful nanoparticles, especially soot particles, which are considered the most hazardous. He said: 'It is especially important to continue to set stricter caps on nitrogen oxides and sulphate content from ship fuel. 'This year a new regulation was introduced for the North Sea and the Baltic Sea that limits the sulphate content in fuel to 0.1%. 'As researchers, we still have to look at what positive effects this has had so far with regard to the particle levels.' BREATHING IN BEIJING IS EQUIVALENT TO SMOKING 40 CIGARETTES A DAY Air pollution kills 4,000 people a day in China, representing 17 per cent of all deaths in the country, according to a recent report into air pollution. The figures show that China's smog problem, particularly in the east of the country, is even worse than previous estimates. Breathing air in the country's capital Beijing for just one day is the equivalent to smoking 40 cigarettes, claims one of the report's authors. Experts have known that air pollution in China has been a problem for a number of years, but estimates for how bad the situation actually is have been unreliable, often relying on satellite data. To get a better picture of the situation, in 2012 the government set up more than 1,500 air monitoring stations across the country that produce hourly reports. The air reporting system takes measurements of pollutants including particulates less than 2.5 microns in diameter, known as PM 2.5, which can penetrate deep into the lungs causing heart attacks, strokes, lung cancer and asthma. The report shows that 38 per cent of the population is breathing 'unhealthy' air according to United States Environment Protection Agency (EPA) standards. This number rises to 83 per cent of the population if people with sensitive groups are included, for example those with existing conditions. Equals the unseen’s killer the little Guy or your smoking Cigarettes 24/7 like it or not?





In the below links you see just how bad things are. Just a few kilometers from the Centre of Copenhagen today, in a so CALLED CLEAN FUEL ZONE, Danes are dying from Cancer like flies just like people in London or any costal city’s in the world, just like the ice is melting due to one thing alone, Shipping emissions. The fuel on ships needs to come down to 10 parts per million to avoid or stop anything. Or their needs to be a massive reduction of the fuel burn IMMEDIATELY, as all land based reduction efforts’ are a total waste of time as the shipping particles are everywhere 24/7. DATA showing just how bad CLEAN FUEL is” it never really worked, people in Denmark and Scandinavia are dying like flies with thousands more with Cancer day in day out” while healthcare budgets on a land are reaching epic proportions due to aggressive cancer as the amount of fuel burned is not reduced 400 million tons of MDO is absolutely deadly for all Marine life & Humans including any improvements on land are a waste of times if nothing is done about global shipping immediately RETROFIT on the existing fleet?

Significant increase of aerosol number concentrations in air masses crossing a densely trafficked sea area Summary In this study, we evaluated 10 months data (September 2009 to June 2010) of atmospheric aerosol particle number size distribution at three atmospheric observation stations along the Baltic Sea coast: Vavihill (upwind, Sweden), Utö (upwind, Finland), and Preila (downwind, Lithuania). Differences in aerosol particle number size distributions between the upwind and downwind stations during situations of connected atmospheric flow, when the air passed each station, were used to assess the contribution of ship emissions to the aerosol number concentration (diameter interval 50—400 nm) in the Lithuanian background coastal environment. A clear increase in particle number concentration could be noticed, by a factor of 1.9 from Utö to Preila (the average total number concentration at Utö was 791 cm 3), and by a factor of 1.6 from Vavihill to Preila (the average total number concentration at Vavihill was 998 cm 3). The simulta- neous measurements of absorption Ångström exponents close to unity at Preila supported our conclusion that ship emissions in the Baltic Sea contributed to the increase in particle number concentration at Preila.

http://www.slideshare.net/jornw1/kecorius-oceanologia-2016-ships-to-to-n

1. Introduction

Aerosol particle emissions from global shipping might con-tribute to 60,000 premature deaths according to a healthimpact assessment (Corbett et al., 2007), and the emissionsare thought to lead to a global temperature decrease due toan increased emission of sulfate particles (Bieltvedt Skeieet al., 2009). The contribution of particles is generally notextensively quantified, for instance how much the shipscontribute to the number of particles and the soot concen-trations. One study shows that when air is transported acrossone major shipping lane in the North Sea, it can increase thedaily averaged particle number concentration by 11—19% at acoastal station 1 h downwind of the shipping lane (Kivekäset al., 2014).

This study has a slightly different focus, and examinesthe influence that ships have on the particle number sizedistribution (PNSD) when the air travels along severalshipping lanes and encounters multiple ship plumes. Forthis purpose, particle concentrations have been comparedbetween two field stations upwind of the shipping lanes,and one station downwind of the shipping lanes severalhundred kilometers from the upwind stations. In the BalticSea, two suitable upwind stations were found, Vavihillin southern Sweden, and Utö, an island in the Finnisharchipelago. Preila in Lithuania was chosen as downwindstation.

In Section 3, it will be quantified how much the particlenumber concentration in the size range 50—400 nm dia-meter increased during transport from the upwind stationsto the downwind station. However, not only ship emissionsaffect the particles in this size range as the air is trans-ported several hundred kilometers over the Baltic Sea.There could be in total 5 or more factors contributing tothe increase: (1) Boundary layer evolution could affectPNSD; (2) Condensational growth of new or pre-existingparticles can contribute to the particle concentration in thefocused size ranges of the PNSD; (3) Land based emissionsbetween the upwind stations and downwind station; (4)Emissions of sea spray aerosol particles; (5) Aerosol particleemissions from ships. In Section 4, the influence of each ofthe first 4 factors will be discarded as potentially significantfor the observed increase in particle number concentration.It will instead be shown that the particle size distributionproperties match well with those of aged ship emissions asindicated by the trajectory pathways. Measurements of theabsorption Ångström exponent will further confirm theinfluence of ship emissions.

2. Material and methods

2.1. Measurement stations

Two background stations upwind of the shipping emissionswere used, Utö in Finland and Vavihill in Sweden. The back-ground station downwind of the shipping lanes was Preila inLithuania (Fig. 1).

The Utö station (598470N, 218230E, 8 m above sea level,Hyvärinen et al., 2008) is located on a small island in theBaltic Sea about 60 km from the Finnish south-west coast andmore than 10 km from the nearest inhabited islands. Turku,the closest town, is about 90 km to the north-east. The islandis almost tree-free. Engler et al. (2007) has shown that at theUtö site, air masses with trajectories prevailing from north-ern sectors (3208—408) are considered to be unaffected byanthropogenic land-based sources.

The Vavihill station (568010N, 138090E, 172 m above sealevel) (Kristensson et al., 2008), is located in southern Sweden,

A clear increase in particle number concentration could be noticed, by a factor of 1.9 from Utö toPreila (the average total number concentration at Utö was 791 cm!3), and by a factor of 1.6 fromVavihill to Preila (the average total number concentration at Vavihill was 998 cm!3). The simulta-neous measurements of absorption Ångström exponents close to unity at Preila supported ourconclusion that ship emissions in the Baltic Sea contributed to the increase in particle numberconcentration at Preila.# 2015 Institute of Oceanology of the Polish Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by ElsevierSp. z o.o. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Figure 1 Shipping lanes and Skaw line in the Baltic Sea usingAutomatic Identification System (AIS, HELCOM, 2013), as well aslocation of the stations used in this study.

2 S. Kecorius et al.





More DATA showing just how bad CLEAN FUEL is or that it is not working as expected as the volume of fuel burned is not reduced, or the Contribution of ship traffic to aerosol particle concentrations downwind of a major shipping lane will just stay the same, Equals there is no such thing as Clean or Green Tech? http://www.slideshare.net/jornw1/kivekas-acp-2014-ship-contribution-to-particle-number-1

A video with Adam explaining just how out of control the situation is along your Beach A Death NO GO ZONE, you think it fresh air no you & your Children right in the deadly Nano particle Zone your Beach? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3327622/Why-sea-breeze-not-good-anymore-Particle-pollution-shipping-far-worse-thought.html#v-8820395334664275265

8260 N. Kivekäs et al.: Contribution of ship traffic to aerosol particle concentrations

Table 1. Number and fraction of different types of days during our measurement period and during the entire year 2012.

Type of day Number of days Fraction of days (%, Fraction of days(measurement period) measurement period) (%, entire year 2012)

Ship day 39 28.5 18.3Sea day 17 12.4 10.9Inland day 16 11.7 14.2Mixed day 63 46.0 54.4Missing data day 2 1.5 1.9

Total 137 100 99.9

Figure 5. Three uppermost graphs: Color plots of total particle number size distribution (PNSD), background particle number size distribution(PNSDb) and excess particle number size distribution (PNSDe) as functions of time during 12 March 2012. All three graphs have the samecolor axis. Bottom graph: The corresponding number concentrations N , Nb and Ne as function of time.

statistics are thus poor, there was too much noise in Vb hid-ing any signal from the plume. To exclude the noisy data, welimited the particle volume analysis to 12–150 nm in diam-eter. We also analyzed the size range 12–300 nm, but in thissize range the noise was already too high for reliable results.Therefore, we do not report numerical results for that sizerange.We defined excess particle number concentration (Ne) and

excess particle number-size distribution (PNSDe) as the dif-ference between the measured (total) N and PNSD, andthe corresponding background values (Nb, PNSDb) (Fig. 5).This data included the ship plumes as well as the noise inthe measured data. In plotting, we replaced negative parti-cle number concentrations in the Ne with 1 cm�3 and in Vewith 0.001 µm3 cm�3. The actual analysis, however, is done

with data where the negative values were left intact. We de-fined the excess number ratio (RNe) and excess volume ratio(RVe) by dividing the measured total particle number (or vol-ume) concentration by the background particle number (orvolume) concentration.If there were significant and rapid changes in the back-

ground particle number concentration (Nb), those could haveaffected our analysis later. We calculated the absolute and rel-ative change rates of Nb and smoothed them by taking a slid-ing average of six consecutive measurement points (30min).We marked any period when these smoothed values wereabove 56 cm�3 in absolute change or 5% in relative change(or below �56 cm�3 or �5%, respectively) as unanalyzable(Fig. 6). These values correspond to a change of 67% ofwhat is needed to define a plume (discussed later). We also

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 8255–8267, 2014 www.atmos-chem-phys.net/14/8255/2014/

N. Kivekäs et al.: Contribution of ship traffic to aerosol particle concentrations 8257

Figure 1. Map of total ship traffic in the western North Sea duringthe entire year 2012, based on the ship AIS data. The green and yel-low lines show the shipping lanes where ships have operated duringthe year. The yellow and black star is the location of the Høvsøremeasurement site. We used the red line for defining air mass tra-jectories arriving over the shipping lane (Sect. 2.1) and the blackline for calculating the number of ships that pass the site (Sect. 2.2).Apart from the star and the red and black lines this figure is providedby the Norwegian Coastal Administration.

but no measurements were performed in their work. We havedeveloped a new method to estimate this contribution, whichis intended for use at other on-shore field sites. The methodhas been developed with the Arctic area in mind since shipemissions can have a large environmental and climate impactin this region. To the authors’ knowledge this is the first studyto address the contribution of one-hour aged ship plumesto the particle number size distribution measured on-shorebased on the passage of several hundred ships. The method issuited to investigate how the particles are transformed about1 hour downwind of the emission sources. The method is ap-plicable to other emission species as well, and the results canbe used for the parameterization of the plume transformationin global climate and air quality models.

Figure 2. A close-up of the Høvsøre field site (yellow cross) withsurrounding wind power turbines (white crosses). The sparsely traf-ficked local road (in north–south direction) is in the middle of thepicture and the coastal road (Torsmindevej) is next to the coastlinenear the left edge of the picture.

2 Measurements and data

2.1 Høvsøre field site

Measurements were carried out at the wind power test fa-cility station Høvsøre, Denmark (56�2603900 N, 8�0900600 E)(Fig. 1), between 9 March and 23 July 2012. The major off-shore shipping lane northwest of the station is not defined byclear administratively set boundaries, as it is not in coastalwaters. We have defined the shipping lane from AIS datashowing where ships operate while passing the site. The dis-tance from the station to the shipping lane is between 25 and60 km depending whether the ships are on the closer or fur-ther edge of the shipping lane.The measurement container hosting the instruments was

positioned 1.8 km from the coastline (Fig. 2). The landscapebetween the coastline and the container is flat with very lowelevation above sea level, except for a 5m high and 10mwide sand bank along the coastline. The container is sur-rounded by agricultural fields with very few trees, and 100mto the NNW and 200m to the SSW of the container, respec-tively, there are two wind turbines which spin occasionallybut not continuously.There is a road located about 1 km southwest of the con-

tainer. Each day only a few cars pass by on this road. The lo-cal and tourism road along the coastline just to the east of thesand banks on the other hand, has a frequency of maximum2500 vehicles per day during the summer. Zhang et al. (2004)showed that with an average traffic intensity of about 300 000vehicles per day, measured particle number concentrations300m downwind of a major highway were not discerniblefrom the upwind concentration. In their study the upwindconcentration of particles between 6 and 220 nm in diameterwas several thousand particles per cm3 in the selected sim-ulations. Based on this comparison, we argue that the coast-line road near Høvsøre should have very minor or no impact

www.atmos-chem-phys.net/14/8255/2014/ Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 8255–8267, 2014





Note: Co2 we keep seeing shipping is at 2.2% impossible shipping is at 4.7% PLUS Co2 or are we back in believing in the Bermuda Triangle or old German submarines again like 2007?

Shipping Industry Calls for Exemption from EU Carbon Market Reform February 15, 2017 by Reuters

http://gcaptain.com/shipping-industry-calls-exemption-eu-carbon-market-reform/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Gcaptain+%28gCaptain.com%29

PRESS RELEASE 11th July 2007

SHIPPING’S BERMUDA TRIANGLE:

THE ‘LOST’ 70,000 VESSELS AND 1.2 BILLION TONNES OF CO2

Industry stands to lose $110 billion over 20 years if new orders do not include

new technologies

DK Group, a leading global maritime technology company, today announced startling new figures

that show the shipping industry is contributing more than double the amount of CO2 emissions

than aviation. Speaking at the International Maritime Organisation’s MEPC (Marine Environmental

Protection Committee) conference in London, Jorn Winkler, founder, DK Group, produced figures

that prove the shipping industry will be responsible for emitting at least 1.2 billion tonnes of CO2 every year by 2011.

The Danish Ministry for the Environment recently announced that the shipping industry emits 800

million tones of CO2 per year, but does not take into account the new insert figure vessels on order

which will emit a further 363 million tones of CO2 a year within three years. This shows the

dramatic growth in the industry’s CO2 output in relation to the decline within the aviation industry,

which currently stands at 600 million tonnes. Winkler also stated that the failure of the shipping

industry to implement new technologies on current new build vessels will see shipping companies

emit 1.19 billion tones of CO2, based on a ship’s 20-year life span. This would cost shipping

companies and their investors $110 billion in wasted fuel costs, based on bunker fuel consumption

of $300 per tonne.

Based on Lloyd's Registry vessel numbers and MAN B&W engine performance figures, DK Group

conducted a study of 7,759 vessels over 175 meters for a major European bank, which concluded

that over the course of a year 484 million tonnes of CO2 was emitted. This figure was calculated

based on the amount of fuel burned, providing a genuine picture of CO2 emissions, rather than the

amount of fuel bought, the traditional calculation method used by the industry.





http://www.slideshare.net/jornw1/shippings-bermuda-triangle5 Shipping Bermuda triangle, 2007 I found 320 million tons of IFO380 missing” Equals Shipping is at 4.7% Co2 +++ in 2017?

This calculation is substantiated by MAN B&W who has sold over 10,000 engines since 1984,

which they state publicly on their website emits 555 million tonnes a year.

However, this figure does not factor in the remainder of the global commercial fleet, which

according to Lloyd’s Registry, the world’s leading provider of publishing and information services to

the shipping industry, currently stands at over 90,000 vessels. Using a conservative estimate by

taking insert figure vessels between 75 and 175 meters the annual CO2 figure stands at over 750

million tonnes. This is based on each vessel producing an average of 60 tonnes of CO2 every day

for 250 days in the year. Adding all the calculations together means that within three years the

shipping industry’s CO2 emissions contribution will potentially be a minimum of 1.2 billion tonnes

every year and rising, dwarfing that of aviation.

DK Group believes that technology and innovation is the most efficient and immediate way to

reduce carbon emissions for the shipping industry, and has developed a patented Air Cavity

System (ACS) technology, which can reduce the shipping industry’s shipping emissions by up to

15% per year. DK Group has recently invested €3 million, including the purchasing of an 83-metre

vessel to demonstrate to the industry the potential of ACS; tests are being carried out in

conjunction with DK Group’s partners, which includes Germanischer Lloyd, the marine industry’s

leading classification society.

Speaking at the conference, Winkler highlighted the impact that technology can have on reducing

carbon emissions:

“Technology is the most effective way of immediately reducing carbon emissions,” said Winkler.

“Technologies like ACS can be implemented into vessels within six to nine months. Not only will

ship owners and operators be able to reduce carbon emissions they will also be making huge

savings on fuel bills. Whilst shipping is considered to be the most environmentally efficient for of

transportation, this should not negate the responsibility to take action; if the environmental benefits

are obvious, the significant financial advantages should act as a massive incentive.”

Winkler concluded:

“The shipping sector has the opportunity to set an example and lead the charge on reducing the

transport industry’s impact on climate change. However, we must first have a fundamental

understanding of what the real CO2 emission figures are, which will provide the industry with the

basis to measure success. DK Group is committed to working with leading research bodies to

uncover the reality of what this figure is.”





Arctic ice melt could trigger uncontrollable climate change at global level Scientists warn increasingly rapid melting could trigger polar ‘tipping points’ with catastrophic consequences felt as far away as the Indian Ocean

• What nobody sees, except for a select few, non are looking at this at all” it killed millions already the Catch 22 of

Climate Change SOx, NOx & PM the 3 things that determine how the Co2 will effect our Global temperatures” a monster that is just as power full or more power full that a Volcano” the ultimate Climate Change lesson from 911, the fact that temperatures moved 1 degree in a space of only 24 hours” my 24/7 nightmare, the nightmare of a select few against nearly all others or 99.9% the Global Dimming Monster?

•

If you’re a Clean Tech CEO no matter which product you produce or sell for export you need to watch the Catch 22 the positive particle feedback loop the factor behind and around Co2 that makes it act? http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xudm8n_bbc-global-dimming-documentary-about-geoengineering-global-warming_people





Even without Nuclear the STATE OF GREEN” Can only really exist = (Clean WindSolar & Electric Cars) when it has dealt with FALSTERBO 2016” the discovery that all the Clean is lost at sea” even in a Clean fuel zone” unless fuel burn itself is reduced by at least 50% RET-TROFIT immediately on the existing shipping fleet? Take your pick” takes 3 years to make the GLOBAL STATE OF GREEN a reality instead of the current 24/7 PR fiction where all the Green is lost at sea? http://www.slideshare.net/jornw1/vessel-fuel-burn-reduction

1 ©

Wär

tsilä

19

Sep

tem

ber 2

008

Ene

rgy

Effic

ienc

y C

atal

ogue

/ Sh

ip P

ower

R&D

BOO

STIN

G E

NERG

Y EF

FICI

ENCY





The thing that really hurts me the most about Ineffective Unsustainable Electricity from WindSolar” is that the Greenpeace PR is so effective” that nobody noticed that the Greenpeace Energy policy, makes Greenpeace the Most Aggressive driver of Global deforestation” I.e. My 2 Country’s Denmark and Germany hunt Green Trees 24/7? Or Denmark the STATE OF GREEN is nothing but PR” Fact is it’s so bad in Denmark that America is the STATE OF GREEN” Let me explain why Denmark has little if any Co2 Reduction at all?

Here you see my Denmark; the Horror is everybody thinks they are Green? Little do they know, Little Denmark my Country is at the forefront of Aggressive Global Deforestation 100% = Ineffective Unsustainable WindSolar Electricity as you see Denmark is not State of Green; Denmark is nothing but masses of Co2 = Fossil Fuel Trees 100% of district heating will be Trees by 2035 according to future planning, save our climate by burning Trees?

Advantages



HowbadisDenmarktheSTATEOFGREEN?Bycomparison?AmericaisSTATEOFGREEN!





How bad is it really” with Ineffective Unsustainable Electricity by saying 100% WindSolar, take a close look? Bad is not the right word if you like Green Trees, the true word is HORROR if you know what you see” as you Note” the energy is not coming form WindSolar No Wind No Sun or Darkness” the energy is our Green Trees? 65% of the combined EU energy consumption is Green Trees” we scream at “Trump” will we in Denmark and EU use Green Trees by the millions each day to watch TV, Take a hot shower and charge our IPHONES?

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Energy_from_renewable_sources#Main_statistical_findings

Green Trees for Energy? So tell me do you still think, that you’re from the state of Green?





Now most people do not know this” go make an experiment yourself” I do it myself, ask a person you know, or anyone you meet Bar of Café: Ask how many % of the renewable energy in the EU Do you think comes from Trees? The answer is always the same” or it comes in 2” first people say Trees for energy that can’t be that much” you ask again, or say you did not answer my question, how many % is Green Trees? Most I have asked this question say 1% or 2% some have said 4% at the most? When I then say 65%” people freak out” that’s impossible who would do that 65% that’s crazy” Are you shore that’s wrong” I tell them take your mobile say 65% Trees” People literally go Green or they look up in absolute horror and say but that’s impossible? how could this happen?

Europe’s green energy policy is a disaster for the environment December 2016

Biofuels or fossil fuels? Boris Horvat/AFP/Getty

The European Union’s proposals for revising its renewable energy policies are greenwashing and don’t solve the serious flaws, say environmental groups.

The EU gets 65 per cent of its renewable energy from biofuels – mainly wood – but it is failing to ensure this bioenergy comes from sustainable sources, and results in less emissions than burning fossil fuels. Its policies in





some cases are leading to deforestation, biodiversity loss and putting more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than burning coal.

“Burning forest biomass on an industrial scale for power and heating has proved disastrous,” says Linde Zuidema, bioenergy campaigner for forest protection group Fern. “The evidence that its growing use will increase emissions and destroy forests in Europe and elsewhere is overwhelming.” On 30 November the European Commission unveiled a draft “clean energy” package for the period up to 2030. On the surface, these proposals address some of the issues with existing renewable energy policies. But environmental groups who have been analysing the proposals say that the changes will make little difference.

“It’s almost worse than doing nothing,” says Sini Erajaa, the bioenergy policy officer for BirdLife Europe & Central Asia, who describes the changes as greenwashing.

Burning biomass For instance, one proposed change is to apply the EU’s sustainability criteria to biomass used in heat and power plants whose output is 20 megawatts or more. “This means, for instance, that electricity and heat from biomass have to produce at least 80 per cent fewer greenhouse gas emissions compared to fossil fuels by 2021 and 85 per cent less by 2026,” states a memo on the revised renewable energy directive. You might think this will ensure that burning biomass does not result in higher greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuel use, but far from it. That statement is misleading because it does not make clear that the EU’s method for calculating emissions assumes burning biomass produces no CO2 at all. “Emissions from the fuel in use shall be taken to be zero for biofuels and bioliquids,” states a 2009 directive. The assumption is that these emissions don’t have to be counted because the growth of plants soaks up as much CO2as is emitted when they are burned. But this assumption is not true on the timescales that matter for limiting climate change. Burning wood can result in higher emissions than burning coal. This fact is not controversial. Buried deep in the EU’s own impact assessment is an acknowledgement that burning forest biomass is not carbon neutral, and that using some forms of forest biomass can increase emissions. “Biogenic emissions remain high (higher than emissions from fossil fuels) beyond a policy-relevant timeframe for sawn wood, stumps, coarse dead wood,” it states on page 106.

Carbon neutral? But because the EU doesn’t count these emissions, it is claiming carbon reductions for activities that are sometimes increasing emissions – what New Scientist has recently revealed as “the great carbon scam”. For instance, the EU is not just burning small bits of wood waste for energy, which can indeed reduce emissions. Whole trees are being felled for energy and often in an unsustainable way, say campaigners.

A recent report by Birdlife and other groups documents several examples of how EU subsidies are driving deforestation in Europe and beyond. Supposedly protected forests are being cut down in Slovakia and Italy, for instance. Campaigners want the EU to abandon its drive to use ever more bioenergy, particularly forest bioenergy. “We are not saying bioenergy has no role to play,” says Erajaa. “But it will have to be smaller.”

When asked about these criticisms, a spokesperson for the European Commission said it is committed to making sure the biomass used for energy throughout the EU is sustainable.

The draft proposals now go before the European parliament for review, so there is still a chance to amend them. But countries and industries raking in profits from bioenergy subsidies are fighting to prevent meaningful reform.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2114993-europes-green-energy-policy-is-a-disaster-for-the-environment/?utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter&utm_term=Autofeed&cmpid=SOC%7cNSNS%7c2016-Echobox#link_time=1480701752

65% Energy is your Green Trees?

So tell me do you still think, that you’re from the state of Green?





Now what happens on a Global level when industrial developed Country’s like Denmark, Germany the whole EU is forced by the so Called Green Movement / Greenpeace to use only 100% WindSolar to power both day-to-day life and their heavy industries” saying No Coal Oil or Gas = Use 65% Trees instead? A mentioned above it’s a true horror story from America to Russia; Humans have destroyed 7% of Earth’s pristine forest landscapes just since 2000, equals the rise of Ineffective WindSolar for harvesting electricity? The Green movement is currently the biggest Climate Risk of them all” preaching destructive 0 Solutions?

The world’s natural places are disappearing at a galloping clip, says a new study, released Friday in the journal

Science Advances. It suggests that more than 7 percent of Earth’s natural, intact forest landscapes have been lost

since 2000 — and these ecosystems may be in danger of disappearing entirely from at least 19 countries in the

next 60 years.

These landscapes represent some of “the last portions of the Earth that are not significantly affected by human

influence,” said Lars Laestadius, a forest expert, consultant on natural resources policy and co-author of the new

study. “As we lose these, we lose something that is bigger than ourselves.” Using satellite data, the researchers

investigated changes to the world’s intact forest landscapes between 2000 and 2013. In 2000, they found that

intact forest landscapes covered a total global area of 12.8 million square kilometers, or nearly 5 million square

miles. But in the years since, human activities have altered and fragmented many of these areas.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/01/13/humans-have-destroyed-7-percent-of-earths-pristine-forest-landscapes-just-since-2000/?utm_campaign=buffer&utm_content=buffer7bd34&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_term=.a2f1b6524e82 Here comes the Hammer” the Green Movement 24/7 attacks Coal” which is correct Coal is bad” but what is worse is when you do the math from A to Z, not burning Coal but Trees instead, just to say 100% WindSolar electricity were 65% is our Green Trees in reality” is not only sad, but truly frightening?





Biomass Electricity More Polluting Than Coal Apr. 04, 2014 01:21PM EST Biomass electricity generation, a heavily subsidized form of “green” energy that relies primarily on the burning of wood, is more polluting and worse for the climate than coal, according to a new analysis of 88 pollution permits for biomass power plants in 25 states.

The report found that although wood-burning power plants are often promoted as being good for the climate and carbon neutral, the low efficiency of plants means that they emit almost 50 percent more CO2 than coal per unit of energy produced. Photo credit: Global Justice Ecological Project

Trees, Trash, and Toxics: How Biomass Energy Has Become the New Coal, released this week and delivered to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by the Partnership for Policy Integrity (PFPI), concludes that biomass power plants across the country are permitted to emit more pollution than comparable coal plants or commercial waste incinerators, even as they are subsidized by state and federal renewable energy dollars. It contains detailed emissions and fuel specifications for a number of facilities, including plants in California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia and Washington.

“The biomass power industry portrays their facilities as ‘clean,’" said Mary Booth, director of PFPI and author of the report. “But we found that even the newest biomass plants are allowed to pollute more than modern coal- and gas-fired plants, and that pollution from bioenergy is increasingly unregulated.” =

Where Ever You Say 100% makes WindSolar ineffective & Unsustainable = More Everything not less?

The report found that biomass power is given special treatment and held to lax pollution control standards, compared to fossil-fueled power plants.

Biomass plants are dirty because they are markedly inefficient. The report found that per megawatt-hour, a biomass power plant employing “best available control technology” emits more nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter and carbon monoxide than a modern coal plant of the same size.

Almost half the facilities analyzed, however, avoided using BACT by claiming to be “minor” sources of pollution that skim under the triggering threshold for stricter pollution controls. Minor source permits are issued by the states and contain none of the protective measures required under federal air pollution permitting.





"The American Lung Association has opposed granting renewable energy subsidies for biomass combustion precisely because it is so polluting,” said Jeff Seyler, president and CEO of the American Lung Association of the Northeast. “Why we are using taxpayer dollars to subsidize power plants that are more polluting than coal?”

The analysis also found that although wood-burning power plants are often promoted as being good for the climate and carbon neutral, the low efficiency of plants means that they emit almost 50 percent more CO2 than coal per unit of energy produced. Current science shows that while emissions of CO2 from biomass burning can theoretically be offset over time by forest regrowth and other means, such offsets typically take several decades to fully compensate for the CO2 emitted during plant operation. None of the permits analyzed in the report required proof that carbon emissions would be offset.

EPA rules also allow biomass plants to emit more hazardous air pollutants than both coal plants and industrial waste incinerators, including heavy metals and dioxins. Even with these weak rules, most biomass plants avoid restrictions on the amount of toxic air pollution they can emit by claiming to be minor sources, and permits usually require little testing for proof of actual emissions. When regulated as a minor source, a facility is not required to meet any limitations on emissions of hazardous air pollutants.

The potential for biomass power plants to emit heavy metals and other air toxics is increasing, because new EPA rules allow burning more demolition debris and other contaminated wastes in biomass power plants, including, EPA says, materials that are as contaminated as coal. A majority of the facilities reviewed in the report allowed burning demolition debris and other waste wood.

“Lax regulations that allow contaminated wastes to be burned as biomass mean that communities need to protect themselves,” said Mary Booth. “They can’t count on the air permitting process to ensure that bioenergy pollution is minimized.”

Where Ever You Say 100% makes WindSolar ineffective & unsustainable = More Everything not less? = Nobody checked the math from A to Z, as 100% WindSolar is not Energy but pure fanatical Greenpeace, politics for the sole purpose of political power, making them millions of dollars, ending up supporting Fossil Fuel 24/7 for the past 50 years” stopping triple profit global energy for all sectors industries and 3 world economies?

http://www.ecowatch.com/biomass-electricity-more-polluting-than-coal-1881884788.html

Humans have destroyed 7% of Earth’s pristine forest landscapes just since 2000?

65% is Green Trees? Burning Trees for Energy is worse than Coal?

So tell me do you still think, that you’re from the state of Green?





Biomass Emits Double The CO2 Of Gas FEBRUARY 26, 2015

As we all know, burning coal and gas to produce electricity is BAD, but burning wood is GOOD.

But what do the actual figures tell us?

I asked DECC to supply comparative figures CO2 produced/MWh, for coal, gas and biomass (specifically wood pellets). I specifically requested that the biomass figures should purely relate to emissions from the power stations, and not to include “whole life” calculations. This was their reply:

1) We have identified a calculation of the biologically derived CO2 emitted from a typical power station converted to biomass combustion. The calculation assumed that 47% of the dry weight of the wood pellet is carbon and that large biomass conversions are typically 35.5% efficient at converting the energy content of the wood pellets into electricity. These assumptions would need to be amended for specific biomass fuels, and power station operating conditions. Also the value below is higher than the true value of CO2 emissions as no allowance was made for the carbon retained in the ash at the power station.

The value calculated was 920 kg CO2/MWh of electricity generated.

We do not routinely estimate the emissions of biogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) from combustion of wood pellets when calculating the national emissions total. In reporting emissions the UK follows the requirements of IPCC guidelines on International Greenhouse Gas reporting. In order to avoid double counting of emissions and removals, the reporting convention is that the CO2 contained within biological materials, such as wood pellets, which are to be burnt for energy purposes, such as electricity generation, is accounted for by the harvesting country. This emission is reported by countries included under the forest management sector.

2) The quantity of CO2 emitted by fuel use in the pellet making process depends on a range of factors such as how the fuels are used to dry the biomass before pelletisation. As examples;

• saw mill offcuts require no additional drying before pelletisation, • natural forest-side drying can reduce timber moisture content from 50% to 25% without requiring energy, • the CO2 released in generating the electricity used in pelletising will normally have the typical CO2 impact of the electricity network of the country in which it is located.





3) The BEAC report and spreadsheet referred to above contain values for the comparable emissions of carbon dioxide from typical coal and natural gas fired power stations of 1018 and 437 kg CO2 equivalent/ MWh electricity generated respectively.

So, on a straight comparison, you clearly see why we have a Global Climate Crisis” Denmark the State of Green is not reducing Co2, that is all Green PR, fact is Denmark is increasing Co2 = more and more trees?

Or ineffective unsustainable WindSolar electricity is the Global Climate Emergency?

CO2 kg/MWh

Coal 1018 Gas 437 Bio 920 While bio is slightly better than coal, it is emitting more than double the CO2 of gas.

None of these figures account for the emissions involved in processing or transporting wood pellets. Equally of course, they don’t include these for fossil fuels, although it seems reasonable that the add on emissions for gas would not be as great.

The only logic to biomass is that forests are replanted to compensate for the extra CO2 produced, but, even if this is true, it would take decades to happen.

In any event, if the forests were left where they were, how much CO2 would simply have been sequestrated into the soil? Or if the wood had been used for other purposes, such as building material, there would be no extra emissions at all.

Given that we are supposed to only have a few years left to save the planet, would it not be more sensible to be burning gas? The only conclusion is that the whole biomass farrago has been no more than a gimmick, with a veneer of “sustainability”. The clue lies in DECC’s statement:

In reporting emissions the UK follows the requirements of IPCC guidelines on International Greenhouse Gas reporting. In order to avoid double counting of emissions and removals, the reporting convention is that the CO2 contained within biological materials, such as wood pellets, which are to be burnt for energy purposes, such as electricity generation, is accounted for by the harvesting country. This emission is reported by countries included under the forest management sector.

In other words, you can burn as many trees as you like, as long as they are not your own. Without this edict, biomass would be dead in the water.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/biomass-emits-double-the-co2-of-gas/





Worse the true horror story of the missing WindSolar Energy, replaced by burning millions of our Green Trees burned 24/7. is that Denmark the STATE OF GREEN is cutting American Trees while saying that “Trump is a danger to Climate and COP22? I mean WHO is WHO, we just stopped burning Coal which got us our Trees back, suddenly we bur Trees which is worse that burning Coal” WHO or WHAT is worse TREES or COAL?

Europe's 'renewable' energy plan is actually destroying US forests Dec. 23, 2015, 7:17 PM

Europe imported more than 4 million tons of wood pellets from US forests last year and wrote it all off as renewable energy. A new report from Climate Central exposes how 4.4 million tons of wood pellets were cut from American forests last year, and 98% of it was shipped to Europe to be burnt for energy.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/europe-imports-wood-biomass-from-us-for-power-2015-12?r=US&IR=T

http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/10566/state-of-green-embraces-pellet-power State of Green, no somehow Denmark has become a leader in aggressive deforestation?

Advantages

DenmarkStateofGreen=BurnGreenTrees?RenewableEnergy=BurningGreenTrees?Aninconvenienttruth=BurnTrees4Energy?


Denmarkaleaderinaggressivedeforestation?http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/10566/state-of-green-embraces-pellet-power





50 degrees + North Pole Denmark STATE OF GREEN BURN GREEN TREES equals 24/7 Gas by 2050

http://www.slideshare.net/jornw1/50-years-of-greenpeace-no-nuclear-no-wind-solar-or-electric-cars-by-2040

Burning Green Trees equals Denmark THE STATE OF GREEN has little or no Co2 Reduction? https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/biomass-emits-double-the-co2-of-gas

Do you still think you’re from the STATE OF GREEN?

Advantages



HowbadisDenmarktheSTATEOFGREEN?Bycomparison?AmericaisSTATEOFGREEN!

Burn Green Trees = Double Co2 to burning Gas! https://www.slideshare.net/jornw1/you-say-youre-from-the-state-of-green-no-fact-is-youre-from-the-state-of-burning-green-trees

Advantages

DenmarkStateofGreen=BurnGreenTrees?Aninconvenienttruth=BurnTrees4Energy?BurnTrees4Energy=TwiceCo2toBurningGas


EqualsDenmarkhaslittleornoCo2Reduction?https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/biomass-emits-double-the-co2-of-gas/





Worse than Coal: http://www.ecowatch.com/biomass-electricity-more-polluting-than-coal-1881884788.html

Burning Green Trees equals Denmark THE STATE OF GREEN has little or no Climate Solution? https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/biomass-emits-double-the-co2-of-gas

Do you still think you’re from the STATE OF GREEN?

Advantages



DenmarkmoreCo2moreDeadlyParticels!=BiomassElectricitymorePollutingthanCoal!=BiomassElectricityDOUBLECo2toburningGas!Nowonderis’t50Degrees+ontheNorthPole?

Co2:https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/biomass-emits-double-the-co2-of-gas/COAL:http://www.ecowatch.com/biomass-electricity-more-polluting-than-coal-1881884788.html

Advantages

DenmarkStateofGreenisBurningGreenTrees?BurnTrees4Energy=TwiceCo2toBurningGas?AninconvenienttruthLittleorNoCo2Reduction


EqualsDenmarkhaslittleornoClimateSolution!https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/biomass-emits-double-the-co2-of-gas/





It’s about 50 degrees warmer than

normal near the North Pole, yet again? Do you think burning Green Trees 4 Energy will stop this? Do you think dirty ships & Soot your transport will stop this? February 10

Temperature difference from normal, Feb. 10, 2017. (University of Maine Climate Re-analyzer) Peer at a map of the Arctic and it glows fluorescent red. The warmth, compared to normal, is again nearly off the charts. It’s crazy and perhaps unsettling, but we have seen it coming.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/02/10/its-about-50-degrees-warmer-than-normal-near-the-north-pole/?utm_term=.613b203ccf60





Renewables can't deliver Paris climate goals: study January 31, 2017 This is all no Joke saying 100% WindSolar will kill us all from A 2 Z, as 99.9 do not understand due to the 24/7 Green wash PR from places like Denmark, that the current so called WindSolar Revolution is currently at ONLY 3% of Global Energy Consumption, with a Country like Brazil in population growth being added year by year, we will never make in time with Greenpeace & Co 100% WindSolar as that’s what GOT US HEAR? 50 degrees + on the NORTH POLE should tell EVERYONE WE NEED NUCLEAR?

Even if solar and wind capacity continues to grow at breakneck speed, it will not be fast enough to cap global warming under two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) Expansion of renewable energy cannot by itself stave off catastrophic climate change, scientists warned Monday. Even if solar and wind capacity continues to grow at breakneck speed, it will not be fast enough to cap global warming under two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), the target set down in the landmark 2015 Paris climate treaty, they reported in the journal Nature Climate Change. "The rapid deployment of wind, solar and electric cars gives some hope," lead author Glen Peters, a researcher at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo, Norway, told AFP. "But at this stage, these technologies are not really displacing the growth in fossil fuels or conventional transportation." Earth is overheating mainly due to the burning of oil, gas and especially coal to power the global economy. Barely 1C (1.8F) of warming so far has already led to deadly heatwaves, drought and superstorms engorged by rising seas. The 196-nation Paris Agreement set a collective goal to cap warming, but lacks the tools to track progress, especially at the country level. To provide a better toolkit, Peters and colleagues broke down the energy system into half-a-dozen indicators—GDP growth, energy used per unit of GDP, CO2 emissions per unit of energy, share of fossil fuels in the energy mix, etc.





What emerged was a sobering picture of narrowing options. Barely a dent "Wind and solar alone are not sufficient to meet the goals," Peters said. The bottom line, the study suggests, is how much carbon pollution seeps into the atmosphere, and on that score renewable have—so far—barely made a dent. Investment in solar and wind has soared, outstripping fossil fuels for the first time last year. And renewables' share of global energy consumption has increased five-fold since 2000. But it still only accounts for less than three percent of the total. Moreover, the share of fossil fuels—nearly 87 percent—has not budged due to a retreat in nuclear power over the same 15-year period. Even a renewables Marshall Plan would face an unyielding deadline: To stay under 2C, the global economy must be carbon neutral—producing no more CO2 than can be absorbed by oceans and forests—by mid-century. Compounding the challenge, other key policies and technologies deemed essential for holding down temperatures remain woefully underdeveloped, the study cautioned. In particular, the capacity to keep or pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and store it securely—a cornerstone of end-of-century projections for a climate-safe world—is practically non-existent. Vetted by the UN's top climate science panel, these scenarios presume that thousands of industrial-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS) facilities will be up-and-running by 2030. As of today, there are only one or two, with a couple of dozen in various stages of construction. Negative emissions Another form of clean energy pencilled into most medium- and long-term forecasts that does not yet exist on any meaningful scale is carbon-neutral biofuels. The idea is that CO2 captured while plants grow will compensate for greenhouse gases released when they are burned for energy. On paper, that carbon pollution will also be captured and stored, resulting in "negative emissions"—a net reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere. But here again, reality is dragging its feet. "It is uncertain whether bioenergy can be sustainably produced and made carbon-neutral at the scale required," the researchers noted. All of these technologies must come on line if we are to have a fighting chance of keeping a lid of global warming, which is currently on track to heat the planet by 3C to 4C (5.4F to 7.2F), the study concluded. Market momentum alone is not enough, Peters added. "There need to be a shift in focus," he said in an email exchange. "Politician seem happy to support wind, solar and electric vehicles through subsidies. But they are not willing to put prices"—a carbon tax, for example—"on fossil fuels." "Unless the emissions from fossil fuels goes down, the 2C target is an impossibility." In an informal survey last week of top climate scientists, virtually all of them said that goal is probably already out of reach.

Explore further: Action is needed to make stagnant CO2 emissions fall: research More information: Glen P. Peters et al. Key indicators to track current progress and future ambition of the Paris Agreement, Nature Climate Change (2017). DOI: 10.1038/nclimate3202 There is no Green Energy Revolution, 3% is not a Revolution” it’s an emergency of epic proportions? https://phys.org/news/2017-01-renewables-paris-climate-goals.html#jCp





Advantages

DenmarksClimateSolutionSailingaroundtheWorldlookingforGreenTreestocutandburn?

JornP.WinklerexplainingthefutureofEnergyMarketsherehttps://www.slideshare.net/jornw1/you-say-youre-from-the-state-of-green-no-fact-is-youre-from-the-state-of-soot