G7 Nations Committing Billions More To Fossil Fuel Than Green Energy (theguardian.com) 205
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: The nations that make up the G7 have pumped billions of dollars more into fossil fuels than they have into clean energy since the Covid-19 pandemic, despite their promises of a green recovery. As the UK prepares to host the G7 summit, new analysis reveals that the countries attending committed $189 billion to support oil, coal and gas between January 2020 and March 2021. In comparison, the same countries -- the UK, US, Canada, Italy, France, Germany and Japan -- spent $147 billion on clean forms of energy. The support for fossil fuels from seven of the world's richest nations included measures to remove or downgrade environmental regulations as well as direct funding of oil, gas and coal.
The analysis from the development charity Tearfund, the International Institute for Sustainable Development and the Overseas Development Institute showed that the nations missed opportunities to make their response to the pandemic greener. In most cases, money provided for fossil fuel industries was given with no strings attached, rather than with conditions requiring a reduction in emissions or pollution. The analysis found that eight in every 10 dollars spent on non-renewable energy came without conditions. This included lifelines that were thrown to the aviation and car industries, which received $115 billion from the G7 countries. Of that money, 80% was given with no attempt to force the sectors to cut their emissions in return for the support. Only one in every 10 dollars committed to the Covid-19 response benefited the "cleanest" energies such as renewables and energy efficiency measures.
The analysis from the development charity Tearfund, the International Institute for Sustainable Development and the Overseas Development Institute showed that the nations missed opportunities to make their response to the pandemic greener. In most cases, money provided for fossil fuel industries was given with no strings attached, rather than with conditions requiring a reduction in emissions or pollution. The analysis found that eight in every 10 dollars spent on non-renewable energy came without conditions. This included lifelines that were thrown to the aviation and car industries, which received $115 billion from the G7 countries. Of that money, 80% was given with no attempt to force the sectors to cut their emissions in return for the support. Only one in every 10 dollars committed to the Covid-19 response benefited the "cleanest" energies such as renewables and energy efficiency measures.
Green energy? (Score:3, Funny)
SERIOUSLY.
Re: (Score:3)
It looks cool [starecat.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's quite clear blue is where the power is, given how freaking bright the blue leds are, giving everything they're in that "dragon ball Z beams" appearance.
and what is the complaint? (Score:2, Informative)
The reality is fossil fuel supplies 84 percent the world's energy, yet green got roughly as much money from G7 (to produce much much less energy)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
That's not true at all. "... nothing is going to change if keep on throwing money at the fossil industry" is a childish outlook. It's not binary.
We have been throwing massive funds at fossil fuels for the entirety of the lives of all living humans and we still are seeing massive growth in solar and wind power. We're seeing ongoing experimentation in hydrogen fuel cells and the genuine mass-marketing of electric vehicles.
Ya, we would likely see quicker growth in more sustainable energy solutions if we dropp
Re: (Score:3)
A solid point. Also odd is that nuclear didn't really appear in that summary at all. This is the strange sort of article that manufactures news where there is none to suit an agenda.
Re:and what is the complaint? (Score:5, Informative)
> Thanks America.
> The G7 have the most money. Cause the most problems.
Unless your news source is the Daily Cuckhold, every other source seems to indicate China is the primary source of CO2 emissions.
China #1, the independent and free nation of of Taiwan #24 (2017)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
China Emits More Carbon Dioxide Than The U.S. and EU Combined (2018)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/r... [forbes.com]
Re:and what is the complaint? (Score:4, Insightful)
> China #1, the independent and free nation of of Taiwan #24 (2017)
Wait, if China claims Taiwan then also add that CO2. I guess China's emissions are even higher than previously thought :)
Re: (Score:3)
> Thanks America. > The G7 have the most money. Cause the most problems.
Unless your news source is the Daily Cuckhold, every other source seems to indicate China is the primary source of CO2 emissions.
China #1, the independent and free nation of of Taiwan #24 (2017) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
China Emits More Carbon Dioxide Than The U.S. and EU Combined (2018) https://www.forbes.com/sites/r... [forbes.com]
The EU looks good per capita, for example, but many products used in the EU are made in China, so it makes the figures for the EU (and USA) look better than they would if industry was onshored. It might be that if it was onshored, that with more efficient energy production, the increase would not be huge. E.g. if it takes X tons of CO2 to make Y tons of goods in China for the USA, then the USA might make those Y tones for 0.75X tons of output. Apportioning CO2 output to nation thus becomes an issue of where
Re: (Score:2)
Real data puts it in perspective (Score:2)
Let's see:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart&country=USA~CHN
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Using CUMULATIVE output since 1965 to mask the explosive output of China. You were right to post as an Anonymous Coward, that is some embarrassing cherry picking.
1965 was over 50 years ago. China was still in the middle of the Great Leap Forward. Most of the CO2 emitted was probably from the decomposing victims of communism.
"Famine deaths and the reduction in number of births caused the population of China to drop in 1960 and 1961.[50] This was only the third time in 600 years that the population of Chin
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It doesn't really matter who is polluting more. If we want to stop increasing atmospheric CO2, we need to switch to electric cars and away from fossil fuels.
So that means we need improved technology, and that is true for both American, China, and Europe.
Re:and what is the complaint? (Score:5, Insightful)
1965 was over 50 years ago.
So CO2 emitted 50 years ago had somehow magically disappeared? No. It would still be here contributing to climate change, just as much as CO2 emitted 5 minutes ago.
In fact, CO2 emitted 200 years ago since industrial revolution all contributed to climate change, so all of them should be counted.
Re: and what is the complaint? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You think it just sticks around?
Actually, some of it does. That's why atmospheric CO2 levels have been rising all that time, and they are still rising. We have exceeded the planet's ability to sink CO2. That's WHY we are having a crisis! Try to keep up.
Re: (Score:2)
Even your own politicians don't think it's a crisis or they would act accordingly. You have a handful that do while the vast majority just pay lip service.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yes, politicians are the absolute arbiters of what is real, true, and important.
Thank god we can all focus on the important things now that we have politicians to tell us what they are. What's that? Trans teens playing sports, sunday morning voting, and abortions are the most important things to worry about? Great. We'll all get right on those things!
Re: and what is the complaint? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
half-life is a radioactive coefficient that says the natural decay of an isotope will be half of what it is in that span of time. Five half-lives is considered non-existent. But CO2 is not about radioactive decay. Its about consumption. As members of the animal kingdom we consume oxygen as a transporter and oxidizer of fuel. In turn waste in the form of carbon is attached to that oxygen and transported out of our body via our lungs. Plants, on the other hand, only use oxygen at their roots. The rest use CO2
Re: (Score:2)
half-life is a radioactive coefficient that says the natural decay of an isotope will be half of what it is in that span of time.
No, it's not limited to just isotopes.
Re: (Score:2)
What has gone way off kilter is the CO2 removal. We over-produce CO2, and if that isnt bad enough, we are also actively removing CO2 removal at the same time.
It's both. What is concerning is that some aspects of a warmer planet break down CO2 removal mechanisms. Equally, a few are enhanced, but the balance in a warmer world, even absent and other factors, is a removal of mechanisms to remove CO2. Eventually other feedback loops kick in, but it means that initially we are fighting harder to control CO2 than we otherwise would have to.
Re: (Score:2)
we are also actively removing CO2 removal at the same time
You do realise that over the past few years the US, the UK and the EU have all increased the amount of land covered by forests?
no amount of changes now can fix it unless your fix involves genocide of 5.4 Billion people.
I agree, which is why I refuse to reduce my quality of life until and unless people take this shit seriously. I'm already far less polluting than most people on the planet and I've had enough.
Re: and what is the complaint? (Score:2)
Re: and what is the complaint? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you have a time machine, you can't make the US "undo" this pollution.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you have a time machine, you can't make the US "undo" this pollution.
You can, by planting trees to absorb the CO2 that would otherwise stayed in the atmosphere, especially in places where trees would not have grown by itself.
Re: (Score:2)
To a certain extent yes, but if you're trying to stop the current pollution from happening, you're better off looking who's the biggest polluter right now,
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It is true that the U.S. has put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than any other country, and that U.S. per capita emissions are among the highest in the world.
China's emissions passed those of the U.S. in 2005, and by 2012 had surpassed the combined contribution of both the U.S. and the EU. Should recent trends continue, China will be responsible for the most atmospheric carbon dioxide in less than 20 years.
So in 20 years China will be as bad as America. But still with less than a quarter the population.
How many centuries do you estimate before the per capita numbers are bigger in China?
Trick question, as the trend shows it probably never will [ourworldindata.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: and what is the complaint? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually if you really want to have an impact on emissions then find a way to do it while maintaining a very high standard of living. Then sell that tech to developing nations as an alternative to the American lifestyle.
That's the real danger. The West can reduce emissions, but billions of people in developing nations want a similarly high standard of living to what we enjoy. If they follow us we are all screwed because they will emit too much CO2, but fortunately it looks like most of them have realized th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... posting on social media powered by enormous server farms...
This is Slashdot. It runs off an old Pentium in Whipslash's basement. Sure it should be migrated to a Raspberry Pi, but we adblock too much, so the capital expenditure required is too high. There sure as shit is no enormous server farm involved.
Re: (Score:3)
Why does an American person today get to emit twice the CO2 as a European or Chinese person? [ourworldindata.org]
Taco Bell
Re: and what is the complaint? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The planet only cares about the total.
Actually the planet gives 2 shits about the total. The planet has seen far, far worse swings in both direction and weathered it just fine. This is all about humans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Complaining about 'explosive growth" when you know fully well it's growing from zero. Makes you look like the American apologist you are.
That growth Still puts China at about half America, same as Europe. [ourworldindata.org] What excuse does America have for being so dirty?
America was the dirtiest for a very long time. And CO2 stays in the air for hundreds of years
Carbon dioxide is a different animal, however. Once it's added to the atmosphere, it hangs around, for a long time: between 300 to 1,000 years.
It was your source that picked 1965 you moron it was a quote from your own link...
My link [ourworldindata.org] was from 1750. Enough to capture more of the 300-1000 years the CO2 wil
Re: (Score:3)
See, every country is on an emissions curve. It goes up, hits a peak, and goes down. The up side of the curve is industrialisation, going from agrarian and rural living to industrial and city living. China is on the up side.
The West is on the down side of the curve, having already industrialised. Demanding that China also be on the down side is basically telling them to forgo industrialisation and reaching Western standards of living. Obviously that is not acceptable.
China is looking like it will peak well
Re: and what is the complaint? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Considering most of Europe got leveled in WW2, no doubt their CO2 was down for a period of time. This gave them the golden opportunity to rebuild and make a lot of changes that would otherwise been cost prohibitive.
AC is just trolling though.
Re: and what is the complaint? (Score:2, Troll)
If America is dirtier than Europe, why is it that none of our cities make the list of the top 1000 polluted cities in the world, and yet many European ones do?
Re: (Score:2)
Population density.
For instance, LA is only the 90th most dense city in the world yet has the 20th worse air quality: https://www.iqair.com/world-ai... [iqair.com]
But out of curiousity, where does Flint in Michigan sit on your list? I sure as fuck don't want to drink the water there.
Re: (Score:2)
CO2 is neither dirty nor a pollutant, and the EU doesn't actually enforce its vehicle emissions standards (the emissions cheating that VW got into trouble for in the US is legal in the EU.)
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't alive 50 years ago so don't be fucking blaming me for that shit.
What sort of absolute moron blames someone for the deaths of babies they didn't kill while actually killing babies themselves?
Oh, that's right. A fucking environmentalist.
Quote: "... total sum of CO ... since 1751." (Score:2, Informative)
"Cumulative carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions represents the total sum of CO2 emissions produced from fossil fuels and cement since 1751, and is measured in tonnes. This measures CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and cement production only – land use change is not included."
The U.S. had modern use of fossil fuels much sooner than other countries. For example, Ford Motor Company American corporation [britannica.com].
"After formation of the Ford M
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be quite happy to make it mandatory for countries to manufacturer most of their products from the country they intend to sell them. Raw materials would still need to be moved around the world but you could just as easily have a manufacturing plant in each country.
China of course doesn't want this to happen because it would crater their economy. USA or Europe doesn't really want this either, because then the high standards and pay for the workers would drive up the costs.
As I've said, no one REALLY wants
Re: and what is the complaint? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the issue is that ultimately we need to transition away from fossil fuels, primarily because CO2 is an issue, and ultimately because they are finite. There are renewable energy options that are well-developed but require lots of land (e.g., hydro) and so are not suitable everywhere. Ones that are more easily deployed may not be fully developed and still need additional funding. Some of that funding is coming from industry, but government potentially has a role to play in accelerating research and development for goals that are longer term than the horizon on which industry can easily look at due to the need for it to deal with current market conditions and funding mechanisms. This is why, in general, nuclear power receives state funding, for example, as the break even point for this is around 20 years from the start of building as there are huge upfront building costs and obtaining private financing for such long term paybacks is quite difficult. It affects most large-scale infrastructure projects such as large rail projects or large bridges too, which almost always have heavy involvement from governments to get underway as a government can deal with a longer-term investment portfolio.
In terms of electrical transmission lines, this seems to be more due to NIMBYs than greens, as I've seen greens campaign for new transmission lines to things like wind farms that they have also campaigned for but NIMBYs have campaigned against. Not quite in my backyard, but I can see a windfarm from my house.
Re: and what is the complaint? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: and what is the complaint? (Score:2)
Where you're wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Given the inertia in the large energy system and technologies in our economy that rely on it, the transformation to a GHG-emissions-free energy system and very low emissions economy must start immediately and urgently and with incredible pace of change, which will require government focus and resources, as well as significant incentivization of the private sector to move in the emissions-free direction.
It is already "ultimately".
This problem and the consequent need for significant change was well known among the relevant scientific community, and among those capable and willing to pay attention to it, by the late 1980s. It would have been relatively easily and economically painless to start a gradual transition around then, but this change was fought all the way, and is still being fought all the way, by selfish greed-driven right wing interests. These interests want to make money in the active destruction, and then make money in the catastrophe recovery.
Re: (Score:2)
Working as intended. The people in charge want it this way.
To translate that: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oil companies etc have made so much money over the years that they buy their politicians wholesale, and are practised in doing so.
"Green" companies, being newer and without those cash stockpiles / etc, and with less experience in the political game, can't buy quite as many.
Re: (Score:2)
So how much for a six-pack of politicians? I have a coupon!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at least we have a new measure for corruption in countries. The ratio between how much countries fund fossil fuel corporations with tax payer dollars and how much they fund renewable energy with tax payer dollars. Fund fossil fuels more corrupt, fund renewables less corrupt. Should local government fund renewable energy generation, not giving the money away but directly investing in renewable energy to power local government infrastructure, offices, service centres and sell surpluses back to the grid.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at least we have a new measure for corruption in countries. The ratio between how much countries fund fossil fuel corporations with tax payer dollars and how much they fund renewable energy with tax payer dollars.
Don't be silly.
The UK alone raises $60bn in tax a year just from domestic power supplies and petrol/diesel sales. That all by itself covers more than the gap in investment into fossil vs so-called renewable energy across the whole of the G7.
Now add in the other members of the G7 and all the investments mentioned in both fossil and other energy sources are entirely covered by taxes on fossil fuels alone.
Re:To translate that: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, modded "troll" by some fossil fuel loving shill? Actually it's probably a nuke-fan, they are always getting upset about renewables being too cheap to compete with.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, modded "troll" by some fossil fuel loving shill? Actually it's probably a nuke-fan, they are always getting upset about renewables being too cheap to compete with.
No, they get upset by people ignoring the amount of mining that renewables require.
Re: (Score:2)
More than fossil and nuclear?
Garbage in, garbage out. (Score:5, Insightful)
They come from American parents, and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses, and American universities; and they're elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces - garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish ignorant leaders." - George Carlin, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23BJNveKMRI [youtube.com]
When the vast majority of voters are omnicidal biosphere destroying greedy narcissists, then guess what kind of politicians they vote for: Tories, Republicans, and Democrats. Guess who they don't vote vote for: Greens.
Not quite true... No one SANE votes for Greens (Score:2, Interesting)
Guess who they don't vote vote for: Greens.
US Green party are the Kanye West of politics.
Entitled, mentally ill and a Republican-endorsed front [nytimes.com] used to cut into the votes of their opposition by exploiting the gullible and the uninformed. [huffpost.com]
Again [washingtonpost.com] and again [apnews.com] and again... [jsonline.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Blaming people who vote for the Greens, for Republicans winning because they should've voted for the Democrats, is like blaming a supporter of Gandhi of not voting for the lesser evil Stalin and therefor letting the greater evil Hitler win. For Greens both are omnicidally psychotic, even if one is worse than the other.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure if you are a 3rd party voter, you've been told by people of both parties you wasted your vote. It's very ironic that these same people will continue to check D or R while wondering why nothing changes. They literally keep doing the same thing over and over again but expect a different outcome.
And you people want EVERYONE to get a vote. Yeah.... Better off requiring a litmus test for voting then just letting everyone vote. Oh well, easier to manipulate the masses then it would be to actually convinc
Re: (Score:2)
Guess who they don't vote vote for: Greens.
That's because they're too intelligent. Green party policies would destroy the economy, preventing investment in pollution reducing technologies.
Why would we vote to reduce our standard of living with no upsides?
Re: (Score:2)
The Liberals and the Tories: "The propping up of the oil and gas sectors was particularly evident in Canada and the US, both major oil and gas producers. As well as direct support, both countries rolled back environmental regulations on fossil fuel companies. [theguardian.com]"
The Green party of Canada on the other hand states that "The climate emergency is the single most dangerous health and security threat Canadians will e [greenparty.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
That's why the recent news of fossil fuel companies losing lawsuits and getting activists on their boards is so important. It's very clear by this point that they will have to be forced, kicking and screaming, to clean up.
Re: (Score:2)
USA IPO would be huge!
The hard truth is, oil still needed (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm as big a fan of solar and nuclear power as anyone- but the simple truth is that no mixture of green energy can grow to provide the entire worlds energy supply anytime soon.
That is especially true when you factor in poor developing nations, if you cut off all oil you will crush growing economies.
It absolutely makes sense to move forward with rapid deployment of nuclear and solar technologies, but we cannot be economically crushing half the worlds population in the attempt.
Re: (Score:3)
If even some of this funding was tied to expanding into renewable energy markets it would have an incredibly positive impact, the dead fuel companies would continue to make money, and the renewable energy market would produce
Re: The hard truth is, oil still needed (Score:4)
Presumably a lot of the coal support is to keep the infrastructure running so you don't get rolling blackouts when demand hits peak next winter.
Re: (Score:2)
Or even this summer when temps breach 100F.
Re: (Score:3)
Hey guess what, those are not attainable goals.
They absolutely are attainable goals. They just require lots of (liquid fueled Gen IV) nuclear to do it. We've had the technology to do it for sometime now. But the greens don't want nuclear, they want batteries and renewables. And they don't either know or care how much mining and environmental damage that causes because they have been scared into fearing nuclear for 40 years. So maybe there is a good reasons the Greens don't get much support in the US (or Asia, or Africa, or South America).
Re: (Score:2)
I'm as big a fan of solar and nuclear power as anyone-
Why not also wind, which is pretty cost-effective these days?
Re: (Score:2)
Because wind is stupid in about a thousand ways.
You presented very few, certainly not 1000.
The accounting for it being "cost effective" assumes a lifespan that is about half what actual windmills achieve.
What do you believe it this lifetime is?
Producing the blades and other components produces a ton of pollution.
Like solar, nuclear, coal. So are you saying it is worse than these? Do you realise how many resources go into building a nuclear reactor and keeping it fuelled? Would you like to present actual evidence?
Windmills REALLY fuck up local bird populations.
No, they don't. It's completely overblown.
Make green energy cheaper and more reliable (Score:5, Insightful)
How about we develop green energy to the point it is more abundant, lower in cost, and more reliable than fossil fuels?
People don't burn fossil fuels because they want to increase global warming, they burn petroleum and natural gas because they are low cost, plentiful, and we can draw on this power as we wish. The only energy source that has a chance to offer these things is nuclear fission.
Hydroelectric dams are great if there's the right climate and geography for it. The same can be said for onshore wind and geothermal, they are limited by favorable climate and geography. Solar power is lacking in so many ways that this is the choice of last resort. If someone is using solar power then they are stupid or out of options.
If people want to see more people choose green energy then find a way to make green energy better than fossil fuels in ways that matter to the buyer. That means it has to be there when and where they need it, and at a price they are willing to pay. Until people can offer this then expect more buying of fossil fuels. We can't just tax our way out of this, such as with carbon taxes and energy subsidies. A tax and spend policy doesn't remove the real drag expensive energy has on the economy, and people aren't going to vote themselves into energy poverty. The real and actual cost of green energy has to be cheaper than fossil fuels, and be available where and when people need it.
The answer to that problem will most likely come with hydroelectric, geothermal, onshore wind, and nuclear fission energy. Transportation fuels will then be from synthesized hydrocarbons.
Re: (Score:2)
The only energy source that has a chance to offer these things is nuclear fission.
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:3)
Here's a citation:
http://www.roadmaptonowhere.co... [roadmaptonowhere.com]
Another:
https://withouthotair.com/ [withouthotair.com]
One more:
https://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
And another:
https://michaelshellenberger.s... [substack.com]
I see this often, a demand for data while none is provided to prove otherwise. It is merely assumed that we can sustain our economy without nuclear power or fossil fuels when no nation has been able to do so.
I'll see people point to France or Germany on how they plan to close all their nuclear power plants and keep their economy running. O
Re: (Score:2)
How about we develop green energy to the point it is more abundant, lower in cost, and more reliable than fossil fuels?
We are already there, except the abundant bit.
Renewable energy is already cheaper than fossil or nuclear. It's highly reliable too. All we need is a lot more of it.
The problem is entrenched interests that don't want to give up their fossil fuel businesses.
Re: (Score:2)
We are already there, except the abundant bit.
Then that's a problem, is it not?
Renewable energy is already cheaper than fossil or nuclear. It's highly reliable too. All we need is a lot more of it.
Really? Solar power only works when the sun shines which, last I checked, the sun stops shining with aggravating regularity. It's so bad that getting a capacity factor over 30% from any solar power facility is quite likely impossible on Earth. We could put solar collectors in orbit so the sun shines on the collectors with greater regularity but as Elon Musk will point out when asked this comes with considerable losses in conversion and transmission.
Wind power has a simila
Re: (Score:2)
My electricity supply is 100% renewable. No fossil, no nuclear. It's also very reliable. Somehow they keep the lights on at night.
It's the cheapest option too. I check regularly, the providers who use fossil/nuclear are all more expensive at retail.
Re:Make green energy cheaper and more reliable (Score:4, Interesting)
Two things that come to mind.
First, I don't believe you. Even if true that doesn't mean it works everywhere.
Second, even if your electricity is 100% free of nuclear and fossil fuels there's still a large investment in fossil fuels for transportation. Maybe you charge up your Tesla with solar panels on your roof, but that Tesla was built in a factory powered by nuclear and fossil energy, as were those solar panels.
I will believe in an economy 100% free of nuclear and fossil fuels when there are factories producing solar PV cells powered by the cells that factory produced. The silicon would have to be refined without use of coal. The aluminum frames on those solar panels would have to be powered by windmills, and like the silicon without coal in the reduction of the ore.
Let us not forget that there's been a political opposition to the advancement of nuclear power for the last 50 years or so. In the USA it's been the Democrat party tossing wrenches into the works to develop better nuclear power. Australia has its opponents, including that moonbat Dr. Helen Caldicott. She's been traveling throughout the English speaking world to bolster other moonbats in Canada, UK, USA, and New Zealand. I'm sure France and Germany have their own moonbats.
This isn't a discussion just about electricity, it is about all fossil fuels. Transportation runs on hydrocarbons because hydrocarbons are just awesome fuels. To get away from petroleum will mean we produce them some other way. We can make electric cars. We can make electric trains. We can't make electric airplanes, long haul trucks, ships, or rockets to space. We can make nuclear ships, and nuclear rockets. For airplanes to keep flying we need hydrocarbon fuels, and we know how to make hydrocarbon fuels with nuclear power because the US Navy did the research.
In the USA the Democrats lost much of their opposition to nuclear power. It's a losing position to take politically now. I expect this to spread to other nations. Japan is restarting their nuclear power plants, and have plans to build more. If there is any nation on this planet with a reason to oppose nuclear power it is Japan, but their time without nuclear power meant rising energy costs and declining air quality. Without nuclear powered aircraft carriers stationed near Japan they'd have problems defending themselves and dealing with the tsunami and the nuclear reactors it damaged.
That's another thing about nuclear power. There was a tsunami that hit Japan, washed thousands of people out to sea to die, caused just unimaginable damage, and all people can talk about is the nuclear reactors at Fukushima. People were found dead there, killed by the tsunami. There was one suspected death from radiation, not proven just suspected. Many people died from the unnecessary evacuation around the reactors. People fled the nation not realizing that they got more radiation on the flight out of the country than if they had stayed. These actions taken from "an abundance of caution" only made things worse.
So, assuming you are correct that all of your electricity comes from non-nuclear and non-fossil sources that still leaves your transportation dependent on fossil fuels. Your ability to get your electricity from non-nuclear and non-fossil sources does not mean everyone else has that opportunity. Wind and solar may be less expensive than nuclear power now but the good spots for cheap wind and solar will be used up quickly, and in this time while wind and solar power are developed nuclear power is developing as well. Nuclear power will get cheaper but that is not a sure thing with wind and solar. We can produce carbon neutral transportation fuels from most any electricity source but given some very real economic issues the chances are that it will only be viable with nuclear fission.
Your situation is the exception, not the rule. The rule is that to keep the lights on we will need nuclear power. If environmental destruction concerns you then think of the env
Re: (Score:2)
First, I don't believe you.
https://octopus.energy/renewab... [octopus.energy]
You can check their tariffs. I use comparison sites to find the lowest costs every year, and for the past few it's been Octopus 100% renewable energy.
Maybe you charge up your Tesla with solar panels on your roof, but that Tesla was built in a factory powered by nuclear and fossil energy
Excuse me, the goalposts were over there. Please move them back.
Your situation is the exception, not the rule.
Octopus is a major supplier in the UK, and not alone. There are a few others offering 100% renewable energy now. They have a national advertising campaign and consistently gain customers from comparison sites that show them to be the cheapest.
Let us not forget that there's been a political opposition to the advancement of nuclear power for the last 50 years or so.
Even in China? Anyway
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't met many Republicans have you?
Apparently neither have you.
https://michaelshellenberger.s... [substack.com]
Democratic frustration spilled out into the open on Monday. "You cannot negotiate a climate bill with climate deniers," tweeted U.S. Senator Edward Markey (D-MA). Markey's tweet inspired an angry response from Republican Congressman Dan Crenshaw. "You aren't, you liar. We aren't denying climate change, we are just pointing out that your 'solutions' will hurt people, and do nothing to prevent climate change."
I testified six times before Congress over the last year and not once did a Republican in one of the climate change, science, or agricultural committees deny the reality of climate change or humankind's contribution to it. When I pointed this out on Twitter, people responded by posting articles claiming to offer evidence of widespread climate denial among Republicans in Congress. But what they call "climate denial" was often Republican denial that weather-dependent renewables can power America.
Democrats like to think of themselves as people that follow the science. A scientist that is concerned about the contribution that humans make to global warming and environmental damage would look at the causes then seek alternatives with the best chances to lower that contribution. What energy sources use the least materials, land, and labor while also producing the least hazardous waste?
From the link above:
It is hard not to get the impression that the real reason Democrats, Blackrock, and Chinese solar makers donâ(TM)t like nuclear power is because it means we donâ(TM)t need renewables to address climate change. While Democrats could get away with using renewables to greenwash their anti-nuclear agenda in the past, those days are coming to an end.
In November, the European Unionâ(TM)s watchdog ruled that the European Commission had failed to fully consider why BlackRockâ(TM)s investments in Chinese solar, wind, and electric cars created a financial conflict of interest in its ability to create supposedly objective environmental, social, and governance criteria for so-called âoeESGâ investing.
It turns out that BlackRock manipulated ESG criteria to favor solar over nuclear, even though solar requires 300 - 400 times more land than nuclear, demands 18 times more steel, and produces 300 times more hazardous waste.
What energy sources produce the leas
Read the article (Score:5, Insightful)
"This included lifelines that were thrown to the aviation and car industries, which received $115bn from the G7 countries. Of that money, 80% was given with no attempt to force the sectors to cut their emissions in return for the support."
That should tell you everything you need to know about this "study". They act as though $189 billion went directly to petroleum and coal producers. It didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
The money was to save the airline and automotive industry from Covid-19, more likely than not.
That aside, by your line of thinking, everything and everyone are dirty since, ultimately, we all use fossil fuel. Activist groups could still gripe even food stamps.
Think of all the fuel used to grow and distribute that food! Think of all the fuel used by the people fed by that food! It's an environmental catastrophe!
Misleading Article (Score:5, Interesting)
But the linked Guardian article is totally misleading and disingenuous.
Using a window in time that spans the 2020 pandemic, it makes claims (without citation) such as, "...new analysis reveals that the countries attending [the up-coming G7 meeting] committed $189bn to support oil, coal and gas between January 2020 and March 2021. In comparison, the same countries – the UK, US, Canada, Italy, France, Germany and Japan – spent $147bn on clean forms of energy."
But if you stop and think about that for a minute, in the time period shown, Covid travel restrictions caused a precipitous drop in the amount of international air travel. A typical passenger jet making a trans-Atlantic crossing could consume 100 tons of fuel, so the near elimination of a significant portion of travel for the best part of a year would have had a devastating economic impact on the petrochemical industry had some form of investment not been made.
I'm not suggesting it is right, I'm just suggesting that the huge size and scale of the petrochemical industry meant that had it been allowed to fail [in significant part] the risk of that becoming a "domino effect" and tanking even more of the world's economy for an even longer period of time would have been very, very high - bordering on near certainty. By comparison, the renewable energy industry is not only still a tiny fraction of the fossil fuel industry, but it has momentum behind it. As we saw in Texas earlier in the year, homes with off-grid energy production were able to better cope with the freezing temperatures.
So yes, let us by all means keep pushing the governments of the G7. In fairness to the Guardian article, they do go on to point out that of the $115 billion thrown as a lifeline to the aviation and car industries during the period covered by the article, "80% was given with no attempt to force the sectors to cut their emissions in return for the support".
Of course, what the article then fails to discuss is why the G7 governments failed to extract any meaningful concessions in return for all of this public-taxation-funded largesse. The answer, of course, is simple: corruption. The lobbying for that funding would have been intense.
And the temporary blindness from market watchdog organizations around the world has been similarly interesting. It simply isn't possible to just "turn off" an oil refinery, in large part because of the costs and risks associated with attempting a restart. So with the oil industry producing a massive surplus of fuel, how come the price we have paid for gas hasn't fallen through the floor? The oil companies should have been giving the stuff away, right? The answer? You got it, more corruption. Governments turned a blind eye because the oil lobby begged them to do so, arguing that the governments should not be kicking an industry after it was knocked down.
Maybe. But what governments should also be doing is putting all major industry sectors on notice: no more government bail-outs. Your companies need to build cash reserves sufficient to enable you to survive this sort of economic down-turn... and if you don't, you have no right to stay in business.
Chances of that happening??? Yeah, right.
Re: (Score:2)
The more striking thing about those numbers is how little money is going into renewables. $147bn from the G7 is nowhere near enough. The pandemic is an opportunity to have a green revolution. Reduce by not commuting to offices so much, and generate more renewable energy and jobs to recover from the economic hit.
$147bn would be low in a normal year, but right now the G7 should be putting in 5x that much at least.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you a builder wanting to develop a property? Guess what: you won't get planning permission unless you commit to having solar and/or wind and/or a ground pump. You won't get permission unless you have sufficient off-road parki
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, it's insane that new buildings are going up without solar, heat pumps and proper passive heating/cooling.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfollowed TheGuardian for a while now over its reportage, its methods and the ends to which it means to achieve.
Its rare and narrow the amount of brain cycles to which I have available to parse facts from realities in context to the story arc presented such as you’ve enjoyed on this one.
Re: (Score:2)
I did briefly follow Greenwald to the Intercept, but it didn't take long for his "Prima Donna" attitude to foment trouble and his departure, which of course was followed by more catty back-stabbing.
I find that in order
Re: (Score:2)
The analysis from the development charity Tearfund, the International Institute for Sustainable Development and the Overseas Development Institute...
Consider the source of the "study". No way it would be biased. \s
Re: (Score:3)
Encouraging (Score:2)
Well, that's encouraging news. It turns out that not actually everyone is insane.