Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions at All-Time High, Study Finds (theguardian.com) 147
Greenhouse gas emissions have reached an all-time high, threatening to push the world into "unprecedented" levels of global heating, scientists have warned. From a report: The world is rapidly running out of "carbon budget," the amount of carbon dioxide that can be poured into the atmosphere if we are to stay within the vital threshold of 1.5C above pre-industrial temperatures, according to a study published in the journal Earth System Science Data on Thursday.
Only about 250bn tonnes of carbon dioxide can now be emitted, to avoid the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere that would raise temperatures by 1.5C. That is down from 500bn tonnes just a few years ago, and at current annual rates of greenhouse gas emissions, of about 54bn tonnes a year over the past decade, it would run out well before the end of this decade. Prof Piers Forster, the director of the Priestley Centre for Climate Futures at the University of Leeds, and lead author of the paper, said: "This is the critical decade for climate change. Decisions made now will have an impact on how much temperatures will rise and the degree and severity of impacts we will see as a result."
Only about 250bn tonnes of carbon dioxide can now be emitted, to avoid the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere that would raise temperatures by 1.5C. That is down from 500bn tonnes just a few years ago, and at current annual rates of greenhouse gas emissions, of about 54bn tonnes a year over the past decade, it would run out well before the end of this decade. Prof Piers Forster, the director of the Priestley Centre for Climate Futures at the University of Leeds, and lead author of the paper, said: "This is the critical decade for climate change. Decisions made now will have an impact on how much temperatures will rise and the degree and severity of impacts we will see as a result."
And yet⦠(Score:5, Insightful)
Capitalism will simply continue to refuse to care. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is simply not profitable, full stop.
Re:And yet⦠(Score:5, Insightful)
China is the worlds worst polluter. It doubles the United States. source [climatetrade.com]
Russia is number 4 on the list, for what that's worth.
So it appears that this problem has little to do with which economic model a country chooses.
Re:And yet⦠(Score:5, Insightful)
China is the worlds worst polluter. It doubles the United States. source [climatetrade.com]
Russia is number 4 on the list, for what that's worth.
So it appears that this problem has little to do with which economic model a country chooses.
And why do they do it? Because it's far more profitable to allow those emissions than to crack down on them. It's also how these "non capitalist" countries manage to become behemoths on the world-stage. They'll do all the dirty work that "civilized" countries refuse to do, and sell the results to those "civilized" countries.
It's all based on the idea that more money = more betterrer no matter what. And there is no concept more capitalist than profit above all.
Re: (Score:1)
So, wait, are you saying that the reason one of the largest Marxist-Lennist countries in the world is the biggest polluter in the world is because really they are capitalists in disguise?
Re: (Score:2)
In a way. In the west we view capitalism as a individual pursuit. They've taken the stance that capitalism is a country-wide pursuit, and use their capitalist methods when dealing with other countries to continue to increase they market share, increase their own country's profits, and increase their influence.
Like it or not, capitalism infects everything it touches with capitalism. It's the driver of the global market. They absolutely use their ability to circumvent / remove / ignore environmental protectio
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese most definitely are driven by greed, even more so than many other cultures.
And that is the basis of capitalism, using the drive to improve material wealth for yourself and your family as the basis for production.
Re: (Score:2)
If you try to maximize long term benefits then yes, if the world dies or at least becomes much less hospitable then long term gains are reduced. However capitalism only is about the short term, some times paying the cost up front is what is needed.
Re: And yet⦠(Score:2)
If you read Mao's "The New Democracy", he makes it clear the pathway to Communism requires capitalism. I'm sure people will say something like I'm just a Chinese shill but if you understand their policy/doctrine it's clear they are way more capitalistic than communistic. In fact calling themselves communists is just something they do to make them feel good when being authoritarian.
Re: (Score:2)
Mao did realize the horrors inflicted by five-year plans.
The Chinese even tried to warn other communist states about the inherent dangers of the system.
The one case of it working as intended was Stalins method.
But his intention was to let loads of people die to promote industry above all else.
It was still horrific as all other attempts.
Just saying that it worked and turned Russia into an industrial power-house when it began as a poor agrarian society.
Re:And yet (Score:2)
They are clearly not socialist anymore, but they look far more like fascists than capitalists, in that if the government is unhappy with any privately run company, they can simply take control over it and if they think it necessary, throw the old owners in jail or worse.
Also there are still many significant state monopolies, like pretty much the entire banking sector, which is another tool in controlling their quasi-market economy.
Re: (Score:2)
fascists than capitalists
Fascism is a political model.
Capitalism is an economical modal.
Has nothing to do with each other.
Re: (Score:2)
Alright Corporatism then, but people tend to confuse that with Corporatocracy.
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty much every current government on earth is backed by a private sector using a capitalistic model.
This most definitely includes China as well as Russia.
There are some differences in how much the state regulates and nudges along the market, but capitalism is definitely in effect.
The state provides projects which it believes will have long-term gain and are to large-scale for private actors (infrastructure mostly), which is mostly the same as in western democracies.
It's still a totalitarian nightmare, bu
Re: (Score:2)
People doing the enforcement also realize they will live longer and happier lives if they don't crack down on the "non-capitalist polluters".
If you think China and Russia will let the climate agreement enforcers enter their countries and stop their pollution...I gotta few bridges that I can sell to you at very cheep prices.
Re: (Score:3)
China is the worlds worst polluter. It doubles the United States. source [climatetrade.com]
Doubles you say? 1.4 billion people are producing only double the amount of pollution as 330 million? I don't think you're making the argument you think you're making.
Well no actually you're making exactly the argument you think you're making, the argument is "Hey everyone look over there, stop looking at me be wasteful, there's errr ... *manipulates numbers nonsenically* ... double the amount of pollution over there!"
Re: (Score:2)
The point is to focus on the biggest emitters, the planet doesn't care about "per capita" emissions.
A ten percent reduction in China is twice as big as a ten percent reduction in the US.
A great first step would be to get China to stop building coal-fired power plants, don't they realize how much cheaper solar and wind power are? I mean come on, they make the solar right there!
Re: (Score:2)
The point is to focus on the biggest emitters, the planet doesn't care about "per capita" emissions.
Ridiculous. The planet doesn't care about fantasy lines drawn on a fantasy political map, much less about percent reductions per administration.
Damn, the planet doesn't even care about green house gases. It's not the planet that will suffer. It's us.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The point is to focus on the biggest emitters, the planet doesn't care about "per capita" emissions.
False. The planet doesn't care about where we arbitrarily chose to define invisible borders. Gas doesn't stop at the border. And since the planet doesn't care what you're actually saying is that you are more important and have more of a right to be wasteful than someone else, simply because an arbitrary line was drawn.
Pathetic.
Re: (Score:2)
China has ~1400M people, the US is about ~350M.
China's per capita output is less than half that of the US.
If you think you can get the Chinese to agree to foregoing the same kind of lifestyle that Americans have, good luck to you.
The good news is that China is on track to peak well below where the US did, and then fall back much more quickly than any Western country did. We need to keep the pressure on India, Brazil, and others to do likewise.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they're not.
Re: (Score:2)
China is the worlds worst polluter. It doubles the United States. source
Wait wait wait a second here. I was told RELIABLY and with great force, that if you divide the amount of population in China by the amount of pollution, it turns out that the Chinese pollute FAR less than any other industrial country.
What gives bro? How is China both the most and least polluting country on the planet? Fuck it, I guess the world will burn since we will fight endlessly about who is doing what while ignoring that the pollution is still happening. I wonder if rsilvergun minds as he was the one
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, really? So China puts out twice the pollution the US does?
Not bad... given they have more than FOUR TIMES the US population.
Re: (Score:2)
I think ac's point was that communism is based on the greater good.
Re:And yet⦠(Score:4, Informative)
Except the US is actually making decent headway on curbing greenhouse gasses where as China is still rapidly increasing its output https://www.bbc.com/news/scien... [bbc.com] . Sure we could be doing better but its hard to create the political will to do more over here when everything we do is effectively canceled out by India, China, and the rest of the developing world.
Re: (Score:2)
Oops, China is about level now in regards to emission reductions, India is the country that is out of control on this.
Re: (Score:2)
> its hard to create the political will to do more over here when everything we do is effectively canceled out by India, China, and the rest of the developing world.
Yeah. On that, these kinds of perspectives are also interesting:
"Rich Nations Owe $192 Trillion for Causing Climate Change, New Analysis Finds" -
https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
China is one country, the vast majority of the developing world is ramping up emissions hence despite progress made both in the US and Europe global emissions are still growing.
Re: (Score:2)
China is actually doing far, far better than the US. The US peaked and is now falling, but it took centuries of industrialization to get this far. China is industrializing and on track to peak in mere decades, and that peak will be much lower than the US one (per capita). At their current pace they will cut emissions after the peak far faster as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Except the US is actually making decent headway on curbing greenhouse gasses
Sure, but by population, USA is by far, the worst polluter on the planet. We would need to cut our pollution by 10 times what it is now to even begin to get close to China's level of cleanliness. Ask rsilvergun. He knows.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we became the worst polluter during an era of ignorance in regards to global warming. China doesn't have that excuse and doesn't *need* to be opening new coal plants every week, they're developed enough to use cleaner sources than the dirtiest possible.
Re: (Score:2)
So why hasn't America stopped using oil?
Easy, because transition to renewables can't possibly happen over night.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but we're solving our problem now that awareness of it has firmly settled in and that is helping. What's not helping is most of the developing world ramping up their emissions. All of Europe and America's progress on reducing emissions is more than canceled out by the developing world as globally emissions are still rising.
Re: (Score:2)
I like how you expect the developing world to just flip a switch and be 100% renewable overnight.
Re:And yet⦠(Score:5, Informative)
Didn’t help that billionaires spent decades convincing rednecks that it’s fake.
Re: (Score:2)
Didnâ(TM)t help that billionaires spent decades convincing rednecks that itâ(TM)s fake.
Oh no you don't! Do NOT try to blame this crap on the billionaires. They are tirelessly working to give the masses what the masses want. It is not THEIR fault that you are fucking greedy pigs who wallow in their own filth. If y'all would stop breeding like rabbits when you can't even afford your own carbon footprint, the world would not be in such a dire situation in regards to the environment. (but don't stop breeding, we need more "workers")
Re: (Score:2)
You mean shuffling money around with useless "carbon credits", so the rich can get even richer ISN'T WORKING?!?!
Unpossible!
Re: And yet (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
China's CO2 output seems to have leveled out actually https://www.bbc.com/news/scien... [bbc.com] .
Re: (Score:2)
Scroll down a bit and you'll see a graph of UK emissions detailing what they've pledged to do versus what they're actually doing versus what they need to do as part of keeping the world below 1.5C. Look around it, there's a filter option to view other country's emissions labeled "Select a country".
It doesnt have every country in the world but it has most of the major ones and enough minor ones to give one an idea on where they are going.
Are you seriously still talking about 1.5? (Score:5, Interesting)
There is exactly no chance we will stay below 1.5. If we enacted all current pledges, something we have singularly failed to do for all previous pledges, we're still on track for something like 2.6 by 2050.
The Mauna Loa graph has us up a little over 3ppm just in the last year.
Economic perspective (Score:1, Troll)
There is exactly no chance we will stay below 1.5. If we enacted all current pledges, something we have singularly failed to do for all previous pledges, we're still on track for something like 2.6 by 2050.
The Mauna Loa graph has us up a little over 3ppm just in the last year.
Fixing CO2 increase will take about 10% of world GDP in today's GDP dollars for about 200 years. That's not a price that anyone is willing to pay. Yes, you can rail about the existential threat all you want, but you're absolutely *not* going to get anyone to pony up 10% of their current salary fix this, let alone everyone worldwide.
GDP is exponential with a doubling period of about 30 (ish) years. If we focus on new technologies and bringing emergent nations up to a modern standard of living, up to about ye
Re: (Score:2)
All it takes is for governments/businesses to QUIT MAKING BAD CHOICES.
Elon Musk has forced the world to switch to EVs for road transportation.
Parallel systems, combined with EV trucking, are coming and these will also make a HUGE impact on the world and emissions.
Will these cost $? Intially, a bit more than what LICE/HICE costs, BUT, within 5 years, all of these will be cheaper than what LICE/HICE costs.
Ships? It is only a matter of time before cargo ships swi
Re: (Score:2)
I was with you until you suggested ships were one day going to be nuclear powered. One case of piracy would show the extreme error in doing something like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Heat and sea water? I'm very curious how you will "heat" the sea water. Will you burn something? Will you harness solar power? Perhaps something like geothermal? /smh
Re: (Score:2)
All it takes is for governments/businesses to QUIT MAKING BAD CHOICES.
So in other words, it will never happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ships? It is only a matter of time before cargo ships switch to nuclear power.
Unlikely.
So you would need a new reactor technology. Small enough for ships. Simple enough to operate that you can have 1 or 2 simple engineers and no special crew. Not requiring super high enriched uranium. It is more likely that ships sw
Re: (Score:2)
Fixing CO2 increase will take about 10% of world GDP in today's GDP dollars for about 200 years. That's not a price that anyone is willing to pay.
Even if it did take that amount of money (it won't, not even the dumbest estimates I've seen have been that high), GDP is not a concept that is deleted through any activity. It's deleted through inactivity. I.e. spending money to solve the problem *raises* GDP. The smart countries know this and are fostering green energy development knowing fully well when panic rises they will be there to cash in on the benefit.
I'll probably be driving a Chinese car in 30 years. God knows the Americans and Germans have the
Re: (Score:2)
If we enacted all current pledges
The 1.5C in the timeframe we had assumed the pledges would lead to a steady decline in CO2 emissions towards the target goal. We haven't even started a decline. What was a 50% reduction by 2030 is now a 50% reduction by 2027. People seem to completely forget that.
Re: (Score:2)
There is exactly no chance we will stay below 1.5
What is this "we" shit? I am being taken on an involuntary ride here. I can live sustainably. Can you? (apparently not)
Re: (Score:1)
It's speeding up, though. CO2 and methane concentrations go ever higher, ice coverage is lower, and the oceans are running out of room to easily absorb most of the excess. And we're still increasing emissions.
Tech will solve this. (Score:1)
Don't worry, we'll start eating the humans soon.
- DalekGPT
It will continue to climb (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
So basically carbon tariffs. If you want to sell in our country, you have to pay the tariff, prove that you've already paid it as a carbon tax in your own country, or reduce the carbon intensity of the item's manufacture.
And domestically, we could institute a revenue neutral carbon tax-and-dividend. As a bonus, it would also act as a partial basic income.
Re: (Score:1)
"Partial basic income"? How? Because the poor (AKA those "not rich") don't do anything to generate carbon emissions?
Re: (Score:2)
This is simply a tax that applied to LOCALLY CONSUMED goods/services based on where the parts/service come from and their emissions. Ideally, it would ONLY be the worst part. This way, it encourages businesses to quit buying parts from BAD NATIONS/BUSINESSES.
This means it is a tax applied to all ALL GOODS/services, not just imports.
In addition, it absolutely should NOT care if the part/service had their local government apply
Re: (Score:2)
The only way to stop this is for nations to put pressure on other nations politicians. A tax on consumed goods/services based on where from, and the emissions from there, would solve this quickly.
Pardon me. My sides hurt from laughing too hard.
Your silver bullet relies on laws being able to be changed faster than manufacturing locations can be changed. You assume WAY too much integrity on the part of our "leaders".
Not up to us now (Score:3, Interesting)
By "us" I mean rich western nations, which at this point cannot producing meaningful CO2 reductions beyond what they have, not compared to global output.
Well except Germany of course, fuck you and your massive increase in coal burning by shutting down nuclear power.
But really the people who we are all relying on to reduce CO2 now, is pretty much China and all emerging nations.
If you really, really wanted to reduce CO2 - well China will do whatever, not much can be done there. But emerging nations? The entire world could give those guys bunches of free nuclear reactors to spread around countries, so they would not have to use dirtier forms of generating energy, and just have lots more energy overall so they could use electricity to heat instead of wood.
Re: Not up to us now (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Complicated by the fact that the wood is renewable and the nuclear plant is not.
And at $15 billion apiece your definition of 'free' is different than mine. To run the oven is 5 kw of PV panels, not particularly cheap either.
Now keeping the refrigerator running and the lights on for a few hours at night, that is doable.
Most of the developing world is warm which helps. Not freezing to death in a midwestern winter is the hard part.
Nuclear is same as renewable (Score:1, Troll)
Complicated by the fact that the wood is renewable and the nuclear plant is not.
The supply of nuclear is large enough that we will never run out.
So why does it not count the same way as renewable? Our sun will eventually burn out too.
Most of the developing world is warm which helps.
They still need to cook, and the ability to cool is nearly as important in saving lives as the ability to heat. And for quality of life, you need to be able to do things easily at night.
All of civilization is really a story of h
Re: (Score:2)
And that does not even include fusion!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Not freezing to death in a midwestern winter is the hard part.
I now have experience with a ground-source heat pump (GSHP), and it works. It would work in the midwest as well.
During nice weather you dig up your yard and install plastic pipes under the frost line. The system pumps a mixture of water and anti-freeze through the pipes, and the heat pump collects and concentrates the heat from the yard.
Because it's buried, it's trouble-free. And when the air is really freaking cold in the winter, the ground i
Re: (Score:2)
Well except Germany of course, fuck you and your massive increase in coal burning by shutting down nuclear power.
Germany is burning less than half of the amount of coal as they were before Fukushima you anti-intellectual idiot. Even with 2022's restart of coal fired power plants to compensate for the loss of gas they *were* still only a tad over half, and they are already scaling those back as well.
How is it that you've never said anything correct on Slashdot, not even by accident?
Re: (Score:1)
Germany is burning less than half of the amount of coal as they were before Fukushima you anti-intellectual idiot.
How much is Germany burning compared to what they burned last year [reuters.com]?
And they buy a lot of power from elsewhere, forcing others to burn more fossil fuel for power... the exception being France where they gat to rely on France's expanse of... nuclear reactors.
Germany is headed in the wrong direction.
Seems like someone who can't even detect a simple change of direction is the truly anti-intellectual
Re: (Score:2)
Well except Germany of course, fuck you and your massive increase in coal burning by shutting down nuclear power.
You do not even know how much (because it was not much, lol) nuclear power Germany shut down.
And: you do not even know that it mostly got replaced by renewables.
Idiot!
Re: (Score:2)
rich western nations, which at this point cannot producing meaningful CO2 reductions *snip* Well except Germany of course, fuck you
CO2 (metric tons in 2020) per capita: [destatis.de]
Germany's: 7.72
US: 13.68
Australia: 15.22
Singapore: 9.45
But Germany gets the fuck you? I don't think I'd hire you for your critical thinking skills.
False Argument (Score:3)
Yeah, cause countries that can barely keep the lights on as is can totally be trusted to run nuclear reactors.
Excuse me but I thought CO2 was an important issue? Are we not willing to sacrifice some expansion of nuclear weapons, which will probably never be used, over it?
However for SMRs it not really much of a factor since most modern designs you can't really get nuclear grade material from.
Cognative disonance with "CO2" figures (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
Our Approach... (Score:1)
...is most likely unsustainable.
Achieve CO2 reduction by the amount needed, and force prices of everything up so high it ends up killing millions of mostly poor people much sooner than alternatives,
or
Ignore CO2 and explore geoengineering solutions. This may or may not end up killing millions of people, regardless of their wealth and sustainability unknown,
or
Do nothing, and lose Florida and dozens of very large coastal cities. The question is, does that kill people, or are the people smart enough to pick
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.bbc.com/news/world... [bbc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It would affect millions, of course, but I don't know the mechanism by which it kills people to have to move coastal cities inland. It doesn't happen like a tsumani, but more like high tide invading coastal citizen's living room more and more often. Finally they get fed up, and leave for places interior to the country. How's that kill them? Its not like in a lot of the US, where having to move and find onesself without shelter for a while will cause you to freeze to death. More likely they get eate
Re: (Score:2)
And the winners are... (Score:2)
... those nations that choose to let others sacrifice and punish their citizens, while they charge on undeterred.
And you need not ask which nations are ignoring emission agreements. Since this and the linked reports don't bother to identify the worst offenders, these must be the favored or feared nations. Not a very long list.
Whether climate change and warming are real problems or not, we can expect some nations to refuse to join in and even try. They seek not climate recovery, but dominance and power at th
The fact we need a study at this point (Score:1)
sure. (Score:2, Insightful)
2009 "75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years"
1970 "The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years [by 1980].â
2000: "Children won't know what snow is"
2008 "Arctic will be ice-free by 2018"
Kilimanjaro will be snow free when, again?
Re: (Score:2)
2009 "75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years"
1970 "The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years [by 1980].â
2000: "Children won't know what snow is"
2008 "Arctic will be ice-free by 2018"
Kilimanjaro will be snow free when, again?
true enough. But also:
1990 - there is no global warming
1991 - there is no global warming
1992 - there is no global warming
1993 - there is no global warming
etc/
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
No idea who here is the bigger idiot.
You or the idiot who modded you insigtful.
The Kilimanjaro has lost 85% of its ice. So? Close enough to "ice free" for you?
The northern ocean/aka north pole, was several times ice free recent years.
You must live under a kind of rock or something.
Re: (Score:2)
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mi... [mit.edu]
I like when someone calls others "idiots" but doesn't understand what the term 'ice free' means. Typical leftist ecomarxist "if I exaggerate absurdly, nobody will notice!"
It's NEVER been "ice free in recent years".
https://www.geomar.de/en/news/... [geomar.de]
The last time it was ice free was 5000-10000 years ago.
Clearly, people were driving too many SUVs and not listening to Greta Thunberg at that time?
Re: (Score:2)
And sorry you think this is an apocalypse in the first place!
I mean, sure -- let's drum up more fear. That's how we handle everything these days.
Climate change is real and it's only logical that man-made endeavors are affecting it, too. I think it's insane to think you can impose some sort of global "carbon budget" and expect all the nations on the globe to obey it, even if doing so means huge outlays of funding to drastically change the power generation infrastructure they're currently relying on.
It's not
Lookey there, Silas! (Score:2)
We're a danger to ourselves and others,
Screw the earth an' steal our mothers.
Leave us in the woods an' we're just fine.
We're a danger to ourselves an' others.
Good livestock makes better lovers.
I stay out in the rain all the time!
Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.
We need more nuclear fission power. (Score:3, Insightful)
This problem of CO2 emissions has been studied over and over with the same conclusions but they don't like the conclusions so they study it some more. We need nuclear fission power to lower CO2 emissions. We'll also have hydro, onshore wind, geothermal, and others but the vital part of this is nuclear fission. Once we get to that point then we will have to find some other bogeyman to scare humanity.
If we could just... (Score:1)
...get people to stop eating beans!
Would you like plastic with that? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Zillions of PC's have already been created but we need a shitton more. They need to all be "upgradable" to Windows or MacOS (but only the absolute newest versions with "security" && "updates"). If they aren't they are VERBOTEN (hold onto that old core2duo and we'll kill you!). Old PC's and Unix boxes must be destroyed. They don't allow for easy TPM or EFI based infection or other government buttplugs to be easily inserted and so must be terminated with extreme prejudi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Don't worry, you ain't see nothing yet!!! (Score:2)
Once the permafrost melts, tons of locked up greenhouse gases will be released, furthering the cycle. Instead of hand wringing over how to stop it, get with the program and start planning on mitigating the effects, because it's happening regardless of our best efforts to try and stop it.
Some countries that have lots of water front properties and other areas that regularly get submerged under water are already working on changing how they build so stuff rises with the tides. If we work on both becoming more
Not news (Score:3)
For anyone a bit serious about keeping track of climate related stuff, this is not news.
The problem is that people and the media like to pat themselves in the back with useless metrics:
- Look, renewables generate a record 12% of global electricity! [slashdot.org]
- Look, germany solar power generation hit record high during the weekend! [slashdot.org]
Climate change doesn't care about xx% of greenhouse gases reduction. It doesn't care about how much electricity you generate from renewables. It doesn't care about your deployment rate for renewables. Only one thing matters: how much CO2 has been emitted into the atmosphere. It is not even really about CO2 we will emit later: CO2 is inert, and stays in the atmosphere for a long time (basically, in 1000 years, we will still have ~25% of the CO2 we have emitted until now still in the atmosphere.
Germany is a perfect example of a country that directly made and makes things worse for the climate, while having a communication policy that says otherwise, and make people believe that... Just take a look at their french neighbors: the french have been using low-carbon electricity since 50+ years now, through their fleet of nuclear reactors and hydro capabilities. They stopped burning coal in the 80s. They have been (slowly but surely) deploying more renewables too, like solar and wind. The end result? Less than 50g of CO2eq/kWh for France.
On the other hand, at the same time, Germany has been burning coal for the past 50 years. Spent 500 billions on solar/wind, closed their few remaining nuclear plants while they could have kept them running longer, didn't invest into nuclear at all. Their communication about coal is that they plan to not burn any more coal after 2035. Or is it 2030? Honestly, it doesn't matter, they are 50 years late compared to France! And what they are not saying, at least not until you start reading the small print, is that they want to retire coal usage, but increase natgas usage... Natgas is better than coal, because it emits about half as much CO2 per kWh. But it is still a fossil fuel, and still emite 40 times more than nuclear... The end result? ~400g CO2eq/kWh for Germany. And the worse side effect is that they are lobbying Europe and other countries to follow on their footsteps. When people will study this part of history, they will think we were crazy to let those countries do that for so long, when we had solutions at our disposal for so long.
Can we go back in time? Nope. But as the saying goes: the best time to plant a tree was 30 years ago. The second best time is today.
Increase renewables deployment for short term, start building nuclear plants now, increase funding for Gen4 reactors deployment, increase funding for fusion reactors. Some countries are doing that, and those will be the winners in the world of tomorrow. One of them is China, and this is madness that the west is not seeing that, or at least chooses to let itself become obsolete.
Re: (Score:2)
Only one thing matters: how much CO2 has been emitted into the atmosphere.
Yeah, but if we manipulate perception (say, through dividing by population using imaginary lines relating to administrative concerns), we don't have to actually deal with the problem now... and the problem later is someone else's problem.
Re: (Score:2)
closed their few remaining nuclear plants while they could have kept them running longer, ... again.
No we could not. And you know that perfectly well.
So no idea about what you are ranting
And what they are not saying, at least not until you start reading the small print, is that they want to retire coal usage, but increase natgas usage
That is a blunt lie. And you know it. So? What is your stupid goal in spreading such idiotic lies?
Re: (Score:2)
closed their few remaining nuclear plants while they could have kept them running longer,
No we could not. And you know that perfectly well. ... again.
So no idea about what you are ranting
Facts don't lie.
Germany could have kept their nuclear plants running longer. German engineers are not more stupid that the french ones, or the ones from almost any country currently operating nuclear plants... They could have ran those nuclear plants for at least 60 years. This is called LTO, or Long-Term Operation of Nuclear Plants [oecd-nea.org], and all countries who care about CO2 emissions know that.
To give you some examples, some nuclear plants in Germany were closed after ~35 years of activity, which is a stupidly
Slashdot Submission Heading. (Score:1)
I heard Thanos.... (Score:1)