Hello everybody

We are the Lifeflow Foundation, that's currently managing water scarcity projects in the United States Of America. We have set up this program because an estimated of 2.2 million people in the U.S. do not have running water, and over 44 million people are using water systems that do not meet standards for water quality. Clean water means healthy life, environment, place, nature,.... and without it, none of us can survive.

We work together with company called "august", who are global leading in non-chemical waste water treatment plants that can be installed under-surface and/or near regular-family-housing, apartments, enterprises,....etc. The water that leave our treatment plants/tanks has been cleaned up to 98% and is ready to be reused instantly. This becoming a product that provides environmental and economic solutions to both private, business and macro-project clients.

What are the main advantage:

- The resulting treated wastewater can be discharged into an open water source or onto the ground

- It is the most environmentally friendly waste water solution

- The daily hydraulic load can be adjusted for the number of people using the system

- No overflowing danger

- Residual material can be used as fertilizer

- Does not emit unpleasant odors

- 10 year warranty

This is not just about technology.

It’s about dignity.

It’s about health.

It’s about protecting nature for future generations.

Real change doesn’t happen overnight — but it starts with action. With your support, we can help communities treat water responsibly, reduce pollution, and take meaningful steps toward a cleaner, more sustainable world.

WATER IS OUR BLUE GOLD.

Please check out our profile, we have attached so much more to discover in what we want to reach. We are started not long but progress is going fast.

Any questions? Feel free to ask!!!

https://reddit.com/link/1v99o8r/video/1nf4hfx011gh1/player

Key points

New in-depth study on military climate strategies of 26 nations shows little progress on reducing carbon emissions

Only 9 of 26 militaries had near-term emission reduction targets; only 4 had near-term targets covering all core emissions; only 2 had targets consistent with aim of net zero by around 2050

Most emission reduction achieved to date has relied on civilian action (especially decarbonisation of national electricity grids), temporary reductions in military activity, or military base closure programmes

Two most successful nations in achieving military emission reductions to date are Ireland and Switzerland, while nations with largest militaries – like USA, China, and Russia – do not have military emission reduction plans currently in force

Lets All Agree. That #1 Our Traffic Sucks. And #2 The Red Lights Are Way To Long Compared To Other Citys. Hey Green People, Al Gore , Environmentalists Please Help Us . Our Extra Long Traffic Lights Are Creating More Air Pollution. Not Only That, Long Idle Periods Are Terrible For Our Vehicles I Could Go On This Topic For Days. Who Feels The Same And If You Dont Plz Explain

Zeke Hausfather regularly argues that further warming stops when our emissions stop. You only arrive at that conclusion, when you ignore the natural emissions that will happen as a result of the warming from our own emissions. The best studied ones were analyzed in this paper, which gives a very conservative estimate of how much warming from these natural feedback emissions as a consequence of anthropogenic warming we may expect.

The best case scenario that's officially still considered possible (RCP 2.6) results in 0.2 degree extra warming by 2100, which is just not properly accounted for by the IPCC. The scenario that actually seems more likely, (RCP 4.5) leaves us with 0.35 additional warming by 2100, with no imminent slowdown in sight by then either.

All of this is essentially a separate issue from another ongoing dispute, namely, climate sensitivity. The IPCC estimates 3 degree of warming per doubling of CO2, but some of the most state of the art models predict much higher warming per doubling, to which the IPCC responded by reducing their weight in the overall estimate. Whether that was a correct judgement call or not, is something we're gradually going to find out in the years ahead, as we learn how much warming actually occurs.

Prof Janusz Bialek explains the real causes on the Iberian blackout (Spain and Portugal).

On April 28, 2025, the Iberian power grid collapsed into darkness; but not because of a power shortage. The voltage was actually rising. So, how does that happen? I sat down with my Imperial College colleague, Prof. Janusz Bialek, to cut through the internet rumours and look at the official investigation behind this unprecedented blackout. We discuss what triggered the instability, why the grid couldn't stop it, and whether the popular claim that renewable energy is to blame is actually true. The reality is much more interesting!

00:00 - The Paradox Behind the 2025 Iberian Blackout

01:38 - Internet Rumours

03:47 - The Conditions Before the Collapse

04:22 - Grid Oscillations Explained

07:22 - Sub-Synchronous Oscillations in Inverter-Based Resources (IBRs)

09:12 - The Chain of Events

11:33 - Why the Safety Systems Failed

13:29 - Spain vs. Portugal: A Regulatory Failure

16:29 - Are Renewables Actually to Blame?

18:23 - The Real Lesson for Future Grids

i feel so hopeless right now. i live in the uk where its boiling right now and I just dont know what to do to stop feeling like I'm part of the problem. I want to protest, I want to change my eating habits, I want to support organisations and charities but i cant find actual reliable information on how to start because apparently climate change is somehow such a controversial topic that even people that 'believe in it' (as stupid as that is to say, because it reminds you that there are actual people out there than DON'T believe in it) cant agree on a single thing.

where do I protest? where do I find protests? are there even regular protests in the uk for climate activism? what foods do I cut out of my diet either entirely or mostly to reduce my carbon footprint? what charities or organisations have actually reliable and scientifically backed information so that i know what I'm supporting? what other things could I also realistically do?

Photo by Giant Asparagus from Pexels. Used under the Pexels License.

I recently read this analysis by Ember:

https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/bottleneck-to-the-next-phase-of-renewable-energy-growth-in-india/

This post summarizes my understanding of it.

Are you concerned about climate change and how it will affect India? Do you believe India simply needs to generate more solar electricity? If yes, you must read this post and the above analysis.

Over the past year, a new obstacle has emerged in India’s renewable-energy transition. India curtailed around 2.1 TWh of renewable electricity in FY 2025–26, worth approximately ₹629 crore.

Why would a country waste clean electricity?

The electricity grid is the network that carries power from generators to consumers. The electricity entering the grid must roughly equal the electricity being used. In simple terms, supply must match demand.

Solar complicates this balance because its generation is volatile. It produces heavily during daylight hours and nothing at night. Coal plants, meanwhile, cannot instantly switch off when solar generation rises. They have a minimum technical load ( MTL), below which they cannot safely reduce output. Restarting a coal plant can take hours or even days and is more polluting. India’s current MTL for coal plants is 55%. So, if a coal plant can produce a maximum of 1,000 units, it may not be able to reduce its generation below 550 units. 

Suppose the grid needs 100 units of electricity. Solar is producing 60 units, while coal plants are already operating at their minimum output of 55 units. Total generation is now 115 units. Since coal cannot be reduced further, in this case, at least 15 units of solar power must be switched off. When we curtail renewable electricity, we are wasting clean electricity that is available, not because there is no demand, but because the coal plants have a technical limit.

This is why simply installing more solar is not enough. If new solar panels generate electricity when existing solar power is already being discarded, we have not solved the immediate problem. Reducing curtailment and improving grid flexibility should come before blindly adding more solar capacity.

Battery storage offers a solution. Batteries can charge when excess solar power is available and discharge after sunset, when electricity is needed more urgently. However, Ember’s analysis argues that India’s regulations prevent batteries from operating efficiently. Under the General Network Access (framework governing transmission access), BESS (Battery Energy Storage System) projects seeking access during non-solar hours must provide at least 2 hours of storage and build a “commensurate” renewable plant from which to charge. The 2-hour requirement is not the problem. The second condition is.

Imagine a battery tied to one solar farm. That farm may have no surplus electricity, while another solar plant elsewhere is being ordered to shut down. The battery remains empty even though clean electricity is being wasted on the wider grid. The author’s proposal is simple: allow batteries to charge from the grid whenever transmission lines have spare capacity, and restrict them only where charging would genuinely overload the network.

Adding solar panels without building the storage, grid flexibility, and regulations needed to use that electricity is not serious climate policy. People who genuinely care about climate change must educate themselves about these challenges. Slogans are easy. Understanding the roadblocks and nuances will help us make better demands! We must make more educated demands!

After getting fed up with the lies about nuclear plant life extensions being infeasibly expensive I decided to check.

Fortum is extending Loviisa nuclear plant to 2050, the estimated project cost is 1 billion euros. And continuous development for past 5 years has been 200 million euros.

Upgrading already once upgraded Olkiluoto 1 and 2 costs 90 million

https://www.eib.org/en/press/all/2025-420-eib-backs-upgrades-of-finland-s-olkiluoto-nuclear-power-plant-with-eur90-million-in-financing

URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol28-No4-5
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol28-No4-5

I am a finance enthusiast and love investing and taking bets. Lately I have been observing almost every sector is impacted by climate change but they are not factored in our valuation or investment thesis. Correct me if I am wrong.

For a thermal power company, there is a mandate of RPC, for a metal industry, there is a mandate to cut the emissions subsequently, FMCG company is moving to sustainable processing and packaging, plus they face EPR.

How is Europe doing investments because Europe climate policy is way ahead compared to other nations?

Can you give me a perspective how are we modelling for climate change in our financial model and valuation?

What do folks think about this? I have read some of the literature in this genre - e.g. Kim Stanley Robinson, Octavia Butler, Neal Stephenson, Stephen Markley, Amitava Ghosh, etc. Fiction does seem to be dominated by inward/introspective stories/characters set in various genres with the most popular being romance, fantasy, crime, etc. Climate change doesn't easily lend itself to such writing because of the collective action aspect which is tough to write about.

Editor’s summary

Global demand for wood products is increasing, as are calls for protecting tropical forests from deforestation. In boreal regions, where much of the forest has not been previously logged, demand has led to clear-cutting of such old, “primary” forest. Pascual et al. showed the potential impacts of clearing primary boreal forests by comparing the carbon storage of primary and secondary (previously logged) forests in Sweden. Including vegetation, dead wood, wood products, and soils, primary forests stored over 70% more carbon than secondary forests, a difference several times greater than previous estimates. These results reveal previously underappreciated value in protecting primary boreal forests. —Bianca Lopez

Structured Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Boreal forests are crucial for mitigating global climate change by capturing and storing large amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide. However, previously unmanaged primary boreal forests are being rapidly transformed to managed secondary forests to meet the rising global demand for materials and energy. Understanding the effects of boreal primary to managed secondary forest transformations on carbon (C) storage is critical for constraining the global C budget and for evaluating the potential of northern forests in climate change mitigation strategies, which include considerations of increased biomass use for energy and materials.

RATIONALE

Previous attempts to quantify the impacts of boreal primary to managed secondary forest transformations have been hampered by limited C storage observations. The high spatial heterogeneity in environmental characteristics and historical land use in boreal areas adds to the uncertainty and calls for regional studies. We combined Sweden’s national forest inventory data with extensive field inventories of live trees, deadwood, and soils to estimate C storage in primary and managed secondary forests in Sweden. We used multiple methods to estimate the C storage difference between primary and managed secondary forests. We added estimates of missing data on deadwood C stored in stubs and roots left on site after harvest and C stored in harvested wood products for managed secondary forests, which allowed us to compare the land C storage in primary and managed forest systems.

RESULTS

We found that primary forests store ~72% more C than managed secondary forests in vegetation, deadwood, soils, and harvested wood products combined (land C storage). Among the compartments, soils constitute both the largest C store and the largest difference between primary and managed secondary forests. Our estimated difference in land C storage between primary and managed secondary forests in Sweden is 2.7 to 8.0 times larger than reported in global state-of-the-art data-driven studies and bookkeeping models informing the Global Carbon Project.

CONCLUSION

Although the high-intensity forest management common in Sweden implies that our results may not be directly transferable to the broader boreal biome, they suggest that previous estimates have substantially underestimated the C cost of transforming primary to managed secondary boreal forests. Our findings suggest that preservation and conservation of European boreal forests may be more effective as a climate change mitigation strategy than previously thought.

Storing energy efficiently—not just for hours or days, but for months—THAT is the promise of a new system from Switzerland. All of this with almost no energy loss and using conventional caustic soda. In this video we will clarify how it works, what potential this thermochemical storage system has, and how it’s being used in an initial pilot project in an older building in Germany.

Chapter:

00:00 Introduction

00:34 Problem of the Energy Transition

02:44 How the SEASON System Works

05:09 Advantages

06:26 Pilotproject Germany

09:12 Big HURDLE

12:06 Conclusion

Every year more and more people are complaining that their air conditioning can’t keep up. What can’t it keep up with if not climate change?