Urgent Policies Needed To Steer Countries To Net Zero, Says IEA Chief (theguardian.com) 122
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: New energy policies are urgently needed to put countries on the path to net zero greenhouse gas emissions, the world's leading energy economist has warned, as economies are rapidly gearing up for a return to fossil fuel use instead of forging a green recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic. Most of the world's biggest economies now have long-term goals of reaching net zero by mid-century, but few have the policies required to meet those goals, said Fatih Birol, the executive director of the International Energy Agency (IEA).
The IEA's latest figures show global coal use was about 4% higher in the last quarter of 2020 than in the same period in 2019, the clearest indication yet of a potentially disastrous rebound in the use of the dirtiest fossil fuels, following last year's lockdowns around the world when emissions plummeted. Birol told the Guardian: "We are not on track for a green recovery, just the opposite. We have seen global emissions higher in December 2020 than in December 2019. As long as countries do not put the right energy policies in place, the economic rebound will see emissions significantly increase in 2021. We will make the job of reaching net zero harder."
He urged governments to support clean energy and technology such as electric vehicles, and make fossil fuels less economically attractive. "Governments must provide clear signals to investors around the world that investing in dirty energy will mean a greater risk of losing money. This unmistakable signal needs to be given by policymakers to regulators, investors and others," he said. Birol said stronger 2030 targets were essential to meet net zero. "Looking at the energy sector, the next 10 years will be very, very critical," he said. "If governments put money in clean energy finance, in the context of their economic recovery plans, that will make the challenge less difficult." Birol called on the U.S. to lead the way on setting out a national plan, called a nationally determined contribution (NDC), for cutting emissions strongly in the next 10 years. He also urged governments to put in place strong policies to discourage drivers from buying SUVs, which make up nearly half of all cars sold in key economies.
The IEA's latest figures show global coal use was about 4% higher in the last quarter of 2020 than in the same period in 2019, the clearest indication yet of a potentially disastrous rebound in the use of the dirtiest fossil fuels, following last year's lockdowns around the world when emissions plummeted. Birol told the Guardian: "We are not on track for a green recovery, just the opposite. We have seen global emissions higher in December 2020 than in December 2019. As long as countries do not put the right energy policies in place, the economic rebound will see emissions significantly increase in 2021. We will make the job of reaching net zero harder."
He urged governments to support clean energy and technology such as electric vehicles, and make fossil fuels less economically attractive. "Governments must provide clear signals to investors around the world that investing in dirty energy will mean a greater risk of losing money. This unmistakable signal needs to be given by policymakers to regulators, investors and others," he said. Birol said stronger 2030 targets were essential to meet net zero. "Looking at the energy sector, the next 10 years will be very, very critical," he said. "If governments put money in clean energy finance, in the context of their economic recovery plans, that will make the challenge less difficult." Birol called on the U.S. to lead the way on setting out a national plan, called a nationally determined contribution (NDC), for cutting emissions strongly in the next 10 years. He also urged governments to put in place strong policies to discourage drivers from buying SUVs, which make up nearly half of all cars sold in key economies.
Dunno about urgent, but in favor of NetZero. (Score:3)
Honestly, building (and refitting) better buildings can take an ENORMOUS bite out of demand load in most first world countries.
And while they're slightly more expensive up front, in the long run, the energy savings and the lower consumption will buy us time to research and implement on the "hard" stuff.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
When I want to see filipinas, that is just too long. The ads load faster than the girls do.
Too bad. So sad.
Re: Dunno about urgent, but in favor of NetZero. (Score:2)
Netzero - they're still around?
Last I used it was in 2002, before they started charging for their 'free' ISP service. And there was Allshack, and Juno, and maybe some other no name 'free' ISP I remember nothing about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, when I'm talking about "energy savings", I'm not talking about monetary remuneration.
I'm talking about the overall reduction in demand.
Meaning less generation infrastructure needs to be built/maintained.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
People are always going to WANT more.
What we really need are tools to help them stop consuming wastefully.
NetZero is one such set of tools.
Re: (Score:2)
In the real world y ou cant have it all, humanity needs to decide if they the want more crap from places like aliexpress, amazon, walmart or if they want a cleaner, greener world.
Re: (Score:1)
A physical saleplace, brick and mortar, has all the energy inputs of online ordering. And, likely, a larger power consumption footprint overall.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Necessary evil.
You're focusing on the "evil".
I'm focusing on the "necessary".
Or you can tell me about how you've survived since conception in isolation from everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Theres nothing necessary for a large majority of the crap humans buy.
Then again im going to guess you are american the land of bullshit aka advertising.
> Or you can tell me about how you've survived since conception in isolation from everything.
Given your selfish and self absorbed reply its hardly a shock you will step over to the only skill you have - aka calling people names.
But are you in favor of acts of war? (Score:3)
Dunno about urgent, but in favor of NetZero.
What we're talking here isn't improving buidings. It's committing acts of war against countries that haven't fallen into line with the net-zero program to "put countries on the path to net zero greenhouse gas emissions". Are you in favor enough to go to war with, for instance, China and India (just for starters)?
Honestly, building (and refitting) better buildings can take an ENORMOUS bite out of demand load in most first world countries.
First world countries are
Re: (Score:2)
China has already committed to a net-zero target by 2060.
https://www.ft.com/content/c52... [ft.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Yes yes.
But this is China we're talking about.
Well known for their honesty and forthrightness!
So, when the time comes, they'll ANNOUNCE that they've reached their targets.
Meanwhile, their pollution problem will simply be ignored.
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry? Did you have enough of a set of balls to create an ACTUAL point of argument?
Or is pointless trolling as close to a set of genitals as you get?
Re: (Score:1)
Go to war?
No. I'm simply saying that building towards NetZero is a good idea.
FORCING people to do it at gunpoint. Not so much.
And what's better? Building huge over-capacity to meet power needs plus contingency?
Or reduce our consumption so we don't NEED to build that much capacity?
And I understand and agree with you about China, India, etc.
Part of the whole NetZero process is the exploration of the field to find cost reduction strategies that can be used in these countries as a clear "better/cheaper optio
easy (Score:1)
Fast reactors using our existing nuclear waste as fuel (and leaving only short lived waste), and after that produce many tens of times as much energy from uranium and thorium.
Re: (Score:1)
Won't happen. Too many nervous nellies and NIMBYs.
Re:easy (Score:4, Insightful)
Won't happen. Too many nervous nellies and NIMBYs.
It will happen. Just not in Western democracies.
China has 17 nukes under construction and 39 more planned.
India has 7 under construction.
China and India are both working on Thorium MSRs.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I think whomever did the anti-nuke propaganda campaign deserves a place in history as one of the biggest war-winners around. Because of anti-nuke fears, the amount of energy available per capita, and the cost per watt is a lot less in Western countries than it is in China. Germany is selling its soul to Russia for natural gas, or buying energy from France. The US can't even keep the power grid going in times of high demand (Texas is a good example of this, as well as California... neither state wants to
Re: (Score:1)
I think whomever did the anti-nuke propaganda campaign deserves a place in history as one of the biggest war-winners around.
Wait until it gets revealed as a propaganda campaign funded by Ruhrkohle and Exxon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
that's negligible part of global energy use, wouldn't accomplish much.
Re:easy (Score:4, Insightful)
Carter had more than a passing acquaintance with nuclear power from his time in the US Navy.
He personally inspected the site after the accident. I am sure his inspection was not required, I believe it was more of a PR thing, helping those around the site to feel better ( the President is there, it cant be too bad ) and helping people to feel better about nuclear power in general ( the accident was contained and is safe enough for the President to inspect ).
I seriously doubt that he banned breeder reactors due to any knee jerk reactions.
I agree with the part about him being concerned about the products of breeder reactors.
Re: (Score:2)
You might think that time in the navy would give an understanding of nuclear principles, but even working with nuclear material doesn't indicate a vast understanding of the risks involved.
I used to be pretty involved in the radiochemistry and health physics end of things for a nuclear fleet. I'll never forget a weeklong course I took in detecting and dealing with alpha exposure, which is actually pretty specialized since there aren't a lot of places that work with concentrated alpha emitters. A lot of the
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense, deaths per TWh for coal is provably over 100K, for oil as fuel over 36K, while nuclear is some tens (as in less than 100) making guesses and assumptions. Nuclear is immensely cleaner and safer.
The reactors I'm talking about burn everything fertile and fissionable away, there is no weapons material to be had in the end products, nor are there long lived minor actinides so the waste has manageable lifespan.
Only one policy is needed. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's very simple. You pay a tax that pays for the clean up for the pollution you make. The tax will ramp up over a number of years, ensuring that polluting is not rewarded. Imported goods from a country that doesn't tax pollution? Import pollution tax.
This isn't complicated, we just have politicians that don't give a shit about doing the right thing, only about getting re-elected, not making the hard choices. Lots of people only blame politicians but too many humans are shortsighted and egocentric. You need only look at the percentage of people buying brand new ICE cars to EVs to realize the vast majority of humans are unwilling to make any sacrifices. You may not like it but chances are you are in that group.
Re:Only one policy is needed. (Score:4, Informative)
How do you clean up atmospheric CO2? What price would actually pay for that?
It is possible to extract CO2 from the atmosphere. There are plenty such techniques, search for "carbon sequestration." It isn't a question of "can we do it," it's a question of "how much does it cost."
Re:Only one policy is needed. (Score:5, Interesting)
Generating one kwh of electricity in America produces about 0.4 kg of CO2.
CO2 costs about 6 cents per kg to extract from the atmosphere and sequester.
So a "fair" carbon tax on electricity would be 0.4 * $0.06 = 2.4 cents/kwh.
The average cost of electricity in America is 12 cents/kwh.
An offsetting carbon tax would raise that to 14.4 cents/kwh.
That would be the average. But the tax should be higher for coal and less (or zero) for solar and wind.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm seeing far higher prices.
https://cleantechnica.com/2016... [cleantechnica.com]
Re: (Score:3)
1. That article is 5 years old. Technology has improved.
2. Your link is based on electricity that is 100% from coal. But coal is only 20%. My numbers were based on average emissions per kwh, so are much lower.
3. I got my numbers from a 30 second Google search. So they may be wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
maybe the cheapest way is planting trees.
Re: (Score:3)
Bear in mind that 2.4c/KWh can jump to $9/KWh if there is ever an electricity shortage [wikipedia.org] (say for example if people started converting from ICE to EV en masse).
Re: (Score:2)
if there is ever an electricity shortage (say for example if people started converting from ICE to EV en masse).
Americans drive 3.2 trillion miles per year.
A typical EV uses 0.3 kwh per mile. So that is about 1 trillion kwh.
America currently uses 4 trillion kwh of electrical energy in a year.
So a 100% switch to EVs will add 25% additional demand.
The switch will happen over the next 20 years, so the grid has time to adapt, and EVs are usually charged at night when demand is lowest.
EVs are not going to cause power shortages.
Re: (Score:3)
60% of electricity generation in US is from coal and natural gas [wikipedia.org] which have to go by 2050 for carbon neutrality, the last thing needed is a 25% increase in demand over that period.
Re: (Score:2)
60% of electricity generation in US is from coal and natural gas [wikipedia.org] which have to go by 2050 for carbon neutrality, the last thing needed is a 25% increase in demand over that period.
Coal is fading fast. Coal's share of power production has fallen from 30% to 20% in just the last 5 years.
EVs running on electricity from NG are way more carbon-efficient than ICEs running on gasoline.
Re: (Score:3)
That assumes the tax will somehow combat pollution.
It's really semi-amusing to see people who are normally less than pure free marketeers have so much faith in the market.
How does a small increase like going from 12-14 c/kwh reduce pollution? Really, is that going to really change anyone's behavior? Mine included.
We've just had an increase in the carbon tax here. It's not going to change my driving behavior. I have an ICE car. I have places to go. I'm just paying the increased cost. If anything, this carbon
Re: (Score:3)
Carbon taxes primarily impact larger energy buyers. If you are spending $10 million a year on energy then even a 10% increase or decrease is $1 million and an amount like this matters enough to switch to cheaper alternatives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Plants to a fantastic job of extracting CO2 from the atmosphere. We need more plants.
Re: Only one policy is needed. (Score:2)
A bit too easily degradable once dead though, also the plants contain too many nutrients with limited availability to just bury.
Some processing required.
Re: (Score:3)
Plants have many other benefits too, but unfortunately they are not able to work fast enough to meet the targets we need to hit to limit climate change.
Industrial scale systems are needed for this industrial scale problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Plants to a fantastic job of extracting CO2 from the atmosphere.
The problem is that over the long term they are carbon neutral because when they die they release all the CO2 they have gathered. At best, radically increasing the number of plants we have is a stopgap measure.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you clean up atmospheric CO2? What price would actually pay for that?
It is possible to extract CO2 from the atmosphere. There are plenty such techniques, search for "carbon sequestration." It isn't a question of "can we do it," it's a question of "how much does it cost."
It is also a question of "does it make any sense"? Which sequestration doesn't, for a lot of reasons.
Want to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, that's what plants do. Forests in Europe are expanding. Stop deforestation in South America and other places. Reduce CO2 emissions, and the plants will take care of the rest.
Re: Only one policy is needed. (Score:2)
Natural growth removes co2 on geologic timescales, on human timescales for a given biomass the stored co2 is close enough to constant not to matter.
Re: (Score:2)
It is also a question of "does it make any sense"? Which sequestration doesn't, for a lot of reasons.
Lots of reasons? And yet you couldn't be bothered to give a single reason. Your post would have been a lot more meaningful if you had.
Re: (Score:1)
A quick search gives the ballpark of $500-$1000 per ton of sequestered carbon.
Planting trees is far more cost-effective. Also provides shade.
I have yet to see calculations of emissions needed to maintain and build such an industry.
If after building it would require ten years to get back to net zero, then it really isn't a solution.
Re: (Score:2)
To some degree, that kind of tax has encouraged the production of electric vehicles.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Even simpler: We force the fossil fuel producers to ramp down their production by x% every year, with high penalties in case of non-compliance. Other countries extracting fossil fuels? Hit them with sanctions like Iran and North Korea. Include imports in the ramp down.
That way, we have to deal only with a couple of 100 players who are under public scrutiny. Not billions of individuals, who in many cases
may not have or see a choice.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Free trade agreements fly in the face of that. Just look at what happened when we in the west started implementing environmental regulations: Everything was displaced to the east.
I agree that import taxes should level the playing field (environmentaly, humanely...), but it just isn't happening.
With sanctions you'll get a prisoner's dilemna.
Having followed broad climate change news for the past few years, I'm very pessimistic. Between deniers, people believing more technology will save us, and politics, I do
Re: (Score:2)
Great thinking there!!
Re: (Score:3)
It's very simple. You pay a tax that pays for the clean up for the pollution you make.
I agree with you what should be done, but disagree that it's "very simple". Everyone will disagree about how much pollution they make. Lawmakers will struggle to define it. Companies will bring expert witnesses to argue in court about how to numerically estimate pollution. When someone buys a disposable plastic item, there'll be arguments over whether the producer has caused the pollution or the consumer. Companies will work hard to disguise or hide the pollution they make. The audit/compliance/enforcement
Re: (Score:3)
As I said, I agree it should be done. I just don't think it'll be simple. I think it'll be an order of magnitude harder to push through (in the US) than Obamacare.
Obamacare is a great example because it will probably just wind up being a big handout to corporations. Insurance companies are written into the ACA and they are still in charge of denying coverage, you know those "death panels" that republicans warned us about. Well, Obamacare is actually Romneycare with basically no changes, so the republican plan put the death panels into the fucking law. And then Obama got behind it, proving that he was the ultimate republican.
Whatever law the US congress winds up with
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't complicated, we just have politicians that don't give a shit about doing the right thing
Nope. You need *all* politicians to do the right thing. Otherwise you'll end up with the same shit that leads to tax loopholes.
Re: Only one policy is needed. (Score:2)
There will be no loopholes if you allow no loopholes. You can just tax all high energy fossil deposits as high as necessary to eliminate them eventually ... no exceptions, don't care if it's burned or processed, same tax, come hell or high water.
It's easy enough to find oil/gass wells and coal mines ... impose tax at the source, no exceptions.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd think so, but in many cases loopholes occur due to the different implementation of laws in different areas. Specific wording is needed to prevent unintentionally screwing one company over another for reasons unrelated to the law. The end result is companies carefully take advantage of the differences.
If you want no loopholes you need a fully coordinated approach.
Re: (Score:2)
You need only look at the percentage of people buying brand new ICE cars to EVs to realize the vast majority of humans are unwilling to make any sacrifices.
An ICE car is a considerable expense and requires infrastructure. But you are still correct, just a better and more Slashdot relevant example would be the number of people who don't even turn their PCs off at night, because it's just a couple of watts. You know, a couple here, a couple there, a few more with the Raspberry Pi, the cable box, oh I want my house warm before I get home so better turn the heaters on remotely an hour before I get there, etc.
Re: (Score:1)
It's very simple. You pay a tax that pays for the clean up for the pollution you make.
So we continue polluting, but someone makes a profit.
What's not like??
Re: (Score:1)
This isn't complicated, we just have politicians that don't give a shit about doing the right thing, only about getting re-elected, not making the hard choices. Lots of people only blame politicians but too many humans are shortsighted and egocentric. You need only look at the percentage of people buying brand new ICE cars to EVs to realize the vast majority of humans are unwilling to make any sacrifices. You may not like it but chances are you are in that group.
yes, politicians often don't lead.
but conside
Re: (Score:2)
but consider the following. Republican politicians see the light and start implementing net zero policies.
they would ALL lose next election cycle.
This is why they are called hard choices: it's best for everyone but it will hurt you.
Re: (Score:2)
It's very simple. You pay a tax that pays for the clean up for the pollution you make. The tax will ramp up over a number of years, ensuring that polluting is not rewarded. Imported goods from a country that doesn't tax pollution? Import pollution tax.
This isn't complicated, we just have politicians that don't give a shit about doing the right thing, only about getting re-elected, not making the hard choices. Lots of people only blame politicians but too many humans are shortsighted and egocentric. You need only look at the percentage of people buying brand new ICE cars to EVs to realize the vast majority of humans are unwilling to make any sacrifices. You may not like it but chances are you are in that group.
This is certainly part of the solution, but it is in no way simple. What do you do with all the people you put out of work because their polluting industries are now too expensive to operate? Do you retrain them, pay for their early retirement with the tax money?
Also, in the short to mid term, necessary commodities like food, building materials, clothes, etc will get much more expensive because they are currently dependent on polluting processes. I'm sure in the long term we'll find cleaner ways to get t
Re: (Score:2)
I agree we need to clean up and in a hurry, but we need to be realistic and realize that the necessary changes will unavoidably harm a whole lot of people.
This is the same song and dance the republicans have been singing for 20 years and I'm sick of it. There will be plenty of jobs building cleaner systems. We are beyond the point where we can avoid harming people by transitioning slowly due to the devastating effects it will have on the ecosystem in the future. We're reaching the point where an immediate carbon tax would harm fewer people now than a gradual one would harm in the future.
the time for "slow and easy" is over because it turned out to be "dela
Re: (Score:2)
This is the same song and dance the republicans have been singing for 20 years and I'm sick of it. There will be plenty of jobs building cleaner systems. We are beyond the point where we can avoid harming people by transitioning slowly due to the devastating effects it will have on the ecosystem in the future. We're reaching the point where an immediate carbon tax would harm fewer people now than a gradual one would harm in the future.
the time for "slow and easy" is over because it turned out to be "delay, delay, delay because I'm going to get every last cent out of the business" has rendered no results. At this point, if you have joined a dying industry then the fault is your own when it finally dies and you're out of a job.
I wasn't arguing for slow and easy. I think this stuff needs to be done yesterday. I'm just saying that doing it purely through tax policy is not a one stop solution, particularly not if you take the human cost into consideration. You aren't going to be able to retrain every 55-year old oil field hand or coal miner into being a solar panel tech. Some, but not enough. We should just pay for that guy to take an early retirement. I'm all for that. He did a hard job for years for shady bosses who took ad
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just saying that doing it purely through tax policy is not a one stop solution
I agree that additional measures should be put in place but I also know the people you want to help are the very people who will oppose such measures, even if they are bundled. If bundled, it will become one more talking point about why the tax is bad. However, since they are going to bad mouth the tax anyway, why not make the mitigation measures a second bill so that either Republicans will have to vote against helping their constituents or it's suddenly becomes a bipartisan effort?
We should just pay for that guy to take an early retirement.
If that would solve th
Net zero? Fuck that! (Score:2)
We need to be kicking it into high gear to reach net negative within 10 to 15 years. We need to sharply curtail fossil fuel use, stop deforestation in the Amazon basin (by military might if necessary), stop hacking old-growth forests, and start reforesting in a huge hurry.
Working towards "net zero by mid-century" means we may not get to "mid century" with anything like the modern civilization we've come to depend on. Food shortages, environmental refugees, rampant war, a world-wide siege mentality - those a
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting assumption. Naive, but interesting. On what do you base your "conclusion"? on the fact that you have to buy the pollutant in order to dump it at zero profit? On the fact that increasing efficiency (whilst it cant be done forever) can be done sufficiently to drive net carbon down significantly? On the fact that concrete generates an enormous amunt of CO2 so simply avoiding demolishing sound buildings would improve the situation? On the fact that improved rail and bus links would reduce fossil fue
Re: (Score:1)
> on the fact that you have to buy the pollutant in order to dump it at zero profit?
Negative externalities. Pollution creation is never/rarely accounted for in the price of raw material. You never pay for the material itself (its existence is considered free), but only for the work/energy required to get it
> On the fact that increasing efficiency (whilst it cant be done forever) can be done sufficiently to drive net carbon down significantly?
I'll reference you to Vaclav Smil, Jean Marc Jancovici.
Basic
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever considered that you may just be a violent PoS who likes death and destruction?
Re: (Score:2)
We need to be kicking it into high gear to reach net negative within 10 to 15 years.
If a goal is unachievable it is no longer strived towards. That's goal setting 101. I like your passion, but it is self defeating.
Re: (Score:2)
It's achievable. There are many activities that are wasteful and could be used to curtail CO2 production. There are many technologies, such as next gen nuclear reactors, that could be installed in countries that need massive amounts of energy but lack the ability to produce it themselves. And then you need to ask why they need all that power. Last but one century technology in manufacturing? Offer free upgrades. It's cheaper than paying the medicare and medicaid bills for those who are sickened by pollution
Re: (Score:1)
There are many technologies, such as next gen nuclear reactors, that could be installed
Sigh. No there aren't. Next gen nuclear reactors don't exist, and every time someone tries to design one it turns out to still be too expensive to bother with.
in countries that need massive amounts of energy but lack the ability to produce it themselves.
If those countries are just bootstrapping then they are ideal candidates for renewables without centralized storage, because even having to sit out the lulls will be a massive upgrade for them. Places that need reliable all-day power can install battery banks on site (e.g. hospitals.)
Once you've reduced CO2 production enough, then demolishing the illegal farms and replanting the Amazon will have an actual impact. Nature can't sequester as fast as we currently produce
The Amazon does a lot more than CO2 sequestration. In fact, rainfore
Re: (Score:2)
Next gen nuclear reactors don't exist, and every time someone tries to design one it turns out to still be too expensive to bother with.
Actually there are plenty of "next gen" nuclear reactors ready to go that are no more expensive than any other nuclear plant. The problem with the expense is that we are the ones who made it expensive, not because it costs money to actually build. One classic example from personal experience is updating a safety system on a nuclear reactor. Same one I've installed in refineries and chemical plants so it should be a breeze. Well for some reason when we asked for a Nuclear 1E certificate for the identical har
Re: (Score:2)
It's achievable.
No it's not. We're not even close to achieving the much lower goals already set. I get what you mean by how we have technical capability to make it happen, but that doesn't mean it's achievable. Achievable relies on a human element as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Food shortages, environmental refugees, rampant war, a world-wide siege mentality - those are just a few of the wonderful things we're letting ourselves in for by indulging our delusions while the world burns around us.
Well, all of those would kill off a large portion of the population, and the problem would fix itself. Clearly, you're all for death, so, why not just let this all play itself out?
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you asume that? No, it's polluters who are for death. It's the only way to continue to run the business.
Environmentalists want a lower birth rate, reducing the population but much more slowly and with much less gore.
Re: (Score:2)
who make money off the carbon tax money? (Score:1)
Ridiculous (Score:1)
Net-zero? Mid-century?
Could you be more half-assed?
That won't do shit to stop the catastrophe.
We need *negative* "emissions" of the same amount as we did put out. Like, yesterday!
Any child gets that 0 + 10 - 0 will never result in 0.
You need 0 + 10 - 10 for that.
I'd stretch "yesterday" to ASAP.
But "possible" will never mean "MUHPROFITS". You stole enough. And dumped enough trash. Time to pay up, fuckers!
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible, just as soon as IP becomes less political and the NPT is recognized as it is written and not as the far right want it to be interpreted.
Gosh (Score:1)
These April Fools Day articles get worse every year
Agree totally (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's already happening. Based on current population trends, Earth will probably max out at 9-10 billion people (or so). We will likely not reach 14 billion unless there are major changes to technology and behavior.
We are going to need technological solutions (Score:2)
Whether it's scrubbing, or reflecting, or what ... but we aren't going to be able to force every country on earth to do what we want. We're not going back to the stone age either. So we need to actually figure out how to solve this, technologically.
It's not as fun as having a catechism, punishing "deniers", etc. but it's the only thing that is going to work.
Re: (Score:2)
Carrots work better than sticks. Commonwealth Fusion is going online with a fusion reactor in 2025, allegedly:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/1... [cnbc.com]
Granted, SPARC (not the CPU, the fusion reactor) looks like it'll be more of a tech demo than a market-ready product, but still, investing trillions of dollars in "green energy" and carbon capture/light reflection now seems stupid when hot fusion really is just around the corner. Commonwealth Fusion isn't alone: Lockheed is hot on their heels, among others.
Solar,
You want to know me bette (Score:1)
Why push people towards dialup? (Score:2)
Pushing people towards dialup? Sounds like a terrible policy to me.
Re: (Score:2)
I know, right? I had NetZero back in 1998/1999. It was okay as long as I used a hack to disable their stupid ad framework they required for connection. Sadly I got hit with complaints of being an excess user and had to start paying them at some point so I switched ISPs.
Better act fast (Score:2)
Solar panels and EVs are quickly becoming cheaper than the alternatives.
If they don't act soon, it might become clear how ineffective government is.
In another decade it won't even be possible to take credit where none is due.
Just ask Dennis Miller (Score:2)
NetZero offers free internet, just call for your free CD today!
Somebody needs to sacrifice (Score:1)
Michael Moore and Jeff Gibbs (Score:2, Troll)
Michael Moore and Jeff Gibbs did an interesting documentary related to some of what you said. Specifically what solutions actually work. It's available on YouTube.
Now I know half of the people reading this will say they'd never watch a Michael Moore production. They've seen the utter lies Moore and Gibbs did with Bowling for Columbine, they'll say. He's a lying left-wing extremist, they'll say. Perhaps, but I'm not saying you should *trust* them. Just check it out for 10 minutes. You still might find Plane
Re: (Score:2)
It comes across as someone who's become a good bit disillusioned with a movement they really supported and have realized is in many ways just as corrupt or set-servin
Re: (Score:2)
> I don't think Moore did much beyond attaching his name to it which will probably get people to watch it.
Michael Moore is credited as executive producer, which means he provided or secured the financing. He would be either paying for it himself, or he'd be the face the investors talk to.
Gibbs has produced most all of the films with Moore's name on them (as director) so they are pretty much partners in film-making generally. Not that it would be impossible for one guy to work without the other, but gene