This article does use more specific language than "southern hemisphere", so not too sure what you mean. It also includes several links for further reading in relation to this topic.
Thank you for pointing that out, this part really does not make any sense. Not to sure what I had in mind, so I thought of making an edit with a strikethrough so that the sentence does make sense.
To be honest, I don't know who's in the right here, ...
The way I see things, it's pretty clear. In the global south are the countries that suffer the most from the economic activities (to say the least) that come from the global north. Giving these badges to the global south NGOs is important as an effort to balance out how underrepresented these part of the world typically are, even tho they are most affected by actions of others ~~,namely the countries that got upset, or companies that come from there~~. Admittedly, I don't expect too much out of this specific climate conference due to the intense lobbying that takes place there. I'd love to be wrong on this one and be pleasantly surprised, for sure.
...but the article definitely feels like it’s taking a side, and the editorialized title makes that bias worse.
I believe it is important to accept that all media is biased, even if they try to portray themselves as neutral or objective (an easy example would be fox's fair and balanced sloggan). So I don't think that bias is a problem by itself, but performing impartiality totally is, and mainstream media do that for several reasons.
Still, I think a journalist or an outlet can be trustworthy, and this relies on their processes. They need to be honest and meticulous in their research (and perhaps something else that I didn't think of right now).
Edit: The strikethrough
Great article, I didn't know about this effort. I have to admit, at first it did not make any sense to me, since it took me almost half the article before remembering that gas in the US, is what is called petrol in other english speaking places, and is definitely not related to natural gas.
From the link you provided, it looks like in 2021 it was 4.2 not 7.5. Apart from that, this approach sounds too speculative to me, since the production comes from 2021 and the CO~2~ emissions quota from 2023. In the Drax chart it shows a decline in TWh produced from 2017 to 2021 (btw 2021 is also the year they retired coal). Still, assuming from this trend that their production few years latter continues to decline is something I would consider too risky to do.
The Ratcliffe chart has so many fluctuations till 2021 that I couldn't dare guess what their 2023 production was.
If I find the 2023 numbers, I'll add a comment or edit this one.
Even tho Drax uses only biomass and its CO~2~ emissions are 4 times higher than Ractcliffe's which uses coal, I think it is also important to mention that Drax can produce twice as much electricity in comparison to Ratcliffe. Still terrible news from the 2023 report, just saying.
Its generating capacity of 3,906 megawatts (MW),
Ratcliffe-on-Soar Power Station
the station has a capacity of 2,000 MW
The problem is in the system that allows these people to be in power. Even if this one is out of the picture there is a list of others waiting to take their turn.
Good point. It looks like
Its generating capacity of 3,906 megawatts (MW),
Ratcliffe-on-Soar Power Station
the station has a capacity of 2,000 MW
This is typical whataboutism. It's a way of deflecting the conversation to something else, instead of engaging with the argument you provided and reflect on it in good faith.
The only thing I could say is: don't take the bait, or don't fall in this trap (sometimes it's not a tactic, it can be just a question that came to their mind)
More info on the cloud formed behind the aircraft or contrail are in the study itself (see link above). If I got it right it is observable from satellite 30 min behind the aircraft, for less than an hour.
In relation to your question on if it has been peer reviewed, I could say that to my understanding this is a standard policy of IOP Science (details here).
Looks like the article was removed. I suppose this is a great reminder why it's important to archive a link before posting it, and share the archived link as well.