Despite Clean Energy Use, Global Warming is Still Projected to Continue (msn.com) 218
The world's use of clean energy "is rapidly growing", reports the Washington Post, "but not fast enough to keep temperatures in check..."
Many experts say it will be the economics of clean energy that defines the future of the planet — and how developing countries choose to meet their growing electricity demands. "What happens in emerging and developing economies in the next decade in some sense is the whole ballgame," said Jason Bordoff, founding director of the Center for Global Energy Policy at Columbia University. Global greenhouse gas emissions could peak as soon as next year, according to the International Energy Agency, but are not on course to drop sharply enough to contain warming. The world would have to cut its emissions roughly in half by 2035 to meet the 1.5 C target, scientists warn, in part because carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for centuries.
Instead, the U.N. projects that nations' current policies will lead to 3.1 C of warming by 2100, or as little as 2.6 C if the strongest pledges are kept. This would represent substantial progress from when the Paris agreement was adopted, when scientists expected a 4 C (7.2 F) rise in temperatures by century's end... Still, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts "dangerous and widespread disruption" on the current path. The Greenland ice sheet might tip into irreversible collapse, according to the IPCC, threatening cities from New York to Shanghai, while extreme heat and humidity could make large swaths of the world effectively uninhabitable. Scientists also expect a growing toll of disease, crop failures and weather disasters. It would likely take thousands of years for Greenland's ice to completely vanish, but other impacts — like the death of coral reefs worldwide and month-long heat waves — could come in a matter of decades. If countries wish to avoid these consequences, they will have to spend vast sums on adaptation. From now through 2030, poor nations will need up to $387 billion per year to adapt to mounting climate disasters, according to a recent U.N. report...
[Much of the progress on curbing emissions] has come from the United States' switch from coal to natural gas and renewables, and the European Union's rapid embrace of wind and solar power... But the demand for power is also rising, complicating these efforts. According to a recent report from the International Energy Agency, countries are expected to add electricity demand equivalent to the entire nation of Japan every year — thanks to the growth of EVs, the rapid build-out of AI data centers, and a surge in a need for air conditioning in developing countries. That growth in demand means that even as clean energy is added to the grid, fossil fuel use hasn't decreased. And unless countries close coal and gas plants and shut down oil drilling, emissions won't start to come down.
"Two things can both be true: Clean energy is breaking almost every record you can imagine," Bordoff said. "And oil use is going up, and gas use is going up, and coal use is going up."
Many experts say it will be the economics of clean energy that defines the future of the planet — and how developing countries choose to meet their growing electricity demands. "What happens in emerging and developing economies in the next decade in some sense is the whole ballgame," said Jason Bordoff, founding director of the Center for Global Energy Policy at Columbia University. Global greenhouse gas emissions could peak as soon as next year, according to the International Energy Agency, but are not on course to drop sharply enough to contain warming. The world would have to cut its emissions roughly in half by 2035 to meet the 1.5 C target, scientists warn, in part because carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for centuries.
Instead, the U.N. projects that nations' current policies will lead to 3.1 C of warming by 2100, or as little as 2.6 C if the strongest pledges are kept. This would represent substantial progress from when the Paris agreement was adopted, when scientists expected a 4 C (7.2 F) rise in temperatures by century's end... Still, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts "dangerous and widespread disruption" on the current path. The Greenland ice sheet might tip into irreversible collapse, according to the IPCC, threatening cities from New York to Shanghai, while extreme heat and humidity could make large swaths of the world effectively uninhabitable. Scientists also expect a growing toll of disease, crop failures and weather disasters. It would likely take thousands of years for Greenland's ice to completely vanish, but other impacts — like the death of coral reefs worldwide and month-long heat waves — could come in a matter of decades. If countries wish to avoid these consequences, they will have to spend vast sums on adaptation. From now through 2030, poor nations will need up to $387 billion per year to adapt to mounting climate disasters, according to a recent U.N. report...
[Much of the progress on curbing emissions] has come from the United States' switch from coal to natural gas and renewables, and the European Union's rapid embrace of wind and solar power... But the demand for power is also rising, complicating these efforts. According to a recent report from the International Energy Agency, countries are expected to add electricity demand equivalent to the entire nation of Japan every year — thanks to the growth of EVs, the rapid build-out of AI data centers, and a surge in a need for air conditioning in developing countries. That growth in demand means that even as clean energy is added to the grid, fossil fuel use hasn't decreased. And unless countries close coal and gas plants and shut down oil drilling, emissions won't start to come down.
"Two things can both be true: Clean energy is breaking almost every record you can imagine," Bordoff said. "And oil use is going up, and gas use is going up, and coal use is going up."
Well apparently... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, apparently, they aren't calculating the energy required to make and maintain things like solar (lithium mining, which is filthy), etc.
Obviously, they do. This is not some bunch of amateurs, even when the deniers want to style them as such.
Yes, we measure all that (Score:2)
The big problem I have isn't with the science itself but with the way it's presented and how the average person thinks it works. We here all know, or at least should, about solar cycles and other things that affect the Earth's climate that Man has no control over.
We measure solar cycles. We measure solar intensity. We measure the "other things that Man has no control over." None of these have enough variation to account for the current warming trend.
We measure carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We measure the amount of carbon dioxide we put in the atmosphere. We measure the infrared absorption of carbon dioxide. These are enough to account for the current warming trend.
...you end up with the impression that the current warming trends are 100% man made
Right. We have good enough measurements to pretty clearly show that the current warming trends are
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Just for the record:
You fascist cis gender white man! There are no solar cycles.
Of course there are solar cycles. This has been known for hundreds of years. The variation in solar intensity is well known, we measure this continuously; it is about 0.1%, and solar cycles account for about 0.1C variation in global temperature. https://www.climate.gov/news-f... [climate.gov]
There was no climate change before Man destroyed Mother Nature. It took hundreds of millions of years for the tiniest changes.
The Milankovitch cycles of climate change are tens to hundreds of thousands of years, not millions. You are off by three orders of magnitude.
There was no ice age.
An ice age is defined as any period in which a portion of the Earth is
Re: (Score:2)
Well, apparently, they aren't calculating the energy required to make and maintain things like solar (lithium mining, which is filthy), etc.
They do. The wider you cast the net the more complex it is to calculate, though. And it also applies to fossil fuel sources, although I've seen people try to compare the expansive footprint of solar to the narrow footprint for fossil sources
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they are part of the calculation. The reality is our green energy is still a metaphorical piss in the ocean compared to our wasteful use of fossil fuels.
Re: (Score:2)
And 60% of oil goes to derivatives - plastics, asphalt, synthetic fibers, etc.
No.
Check your sources.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinene... [eia.gov].
That's not really the problem (Score:2)
But I mean it's like, do you really think somebody would do that? Just go on the internet and lie?
Re: (Score:3)
The US and EU can not do it alone ... (Score:3, Insightful)
China has to stop pretending it's an impoverished developing nation that needs immunity from pollution / climate change requirements. It's a wealthy modern industrial nation that should and should act as such.
And regarding honest to god developing nations, well, either climate change is an existential threat or it is not. If it is, sorry, even developing nations need to chip in. Immunity from pollution / climate change requirements just says that "existential threat" is just political posturing not reality.
If the existential threat is real, everyone, developed or not, needs to do their part.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is not China that needs to grow up. It is the US.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not China that needs to grow up. It is the US.
US emissions are down, a little behind the EU.
China's emissions are still growing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. A cooperation between these three is about the only thing that could still avoid the really large catastrophe (end of civilization) that is currently being engineered. Of course, because of too many no-insight self-righteous or simply evil-greedy assholes, that is not going to happen. Instead there are efforts to actually make the huge catastrophe (end of the human race) a reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you are just dumb with no clue.
Actually, I'm the one that said everybody needs to do their part, no more exemptions in climate agreements and protocols.
And pointing out the hypocrisy of granting the #1 polluter such exemptions. How this gives the impression of business as normal rather than existential threat.
Re:The US and EU can not do it alone ... (Score:4, Insightful)
The US is rated even below China by Climate Change Performance Index: https://ccpi.org/ [ccpi.org]
China invests massively in renewables and emissions will likely peak now. It has to do much more just as everybody else, but the idea that the US is somehow in a leading position is grotesquely wrong and the "but China" excuse is intellectually and morally poor.
Re: (Score:2)
China invests massively in renewables and emissions will likely peak now. It has to do much more just as everybody else, b
Investing in renewable does not change the fact that they are the largest polluter and desire exemptions from various climate accords by fraudulently maintaining that they are still a developing nation.
If we are really facing an existential threat, such behavior dooms us.
but the idea that the US is somehow in a leading position is grotesquely wrong and the "but China" excuse is intellectually and morally poor.
A straw main, to put it mildly, a lie to be more accurate. No one claimed the US is in a leading position. Just that it has made improvements, unlike China. Its doing its part, unlike China.
The claim made is that the US and EU cannot
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The US and EU can not do it alone.
China has to stop pretending
Oh fuck off. China is spending far more on green initiatives both in absolute as well as per capita terms than the US and EU and are on track to become a wealthiest 1st world nation with with lowest contribution to emissions over its advancement in history.
Stop outsourcing your emissions to China. Stop pretending that you have more of a right to pollute than a Chinese person. Start realising that the US / EU per capita emissions are a global embarrassment made only worse by selfish comments like yours.
Re: (Score:2)
The US and EU can not do it alone.
China has to stop pretending
LOL, clipping the statement to manufacture a false straw man. The actual claim is "China has to stop pretending it's an impoverished developing nation that needs immunity from pollution / climate change requirements. It's a wealthy modern industrial nation that should and should act as such."
Oh fuck off. China is spending far more on green initiatives both in absolute as well as per capita terms than the US and EU and are on track to become a wealthiest 1st world nation with with lowest contribution to emissions over its advancement in history.
Great, you agree China needs no exemptions from climate accords. Now fact the reality that they are the #1 emitter of CO2.
Stop outsourcing your emissions to China. Stop pretending that you have more of a right to pollute than a Chinese person. Start realising that the US / EU per capita emissions are a global embarrassment made only worse by selfish comments like yours.
It is CCP policy to import pollution to gain a price advantage in manufacturing. It's the CCP driving this BS. All China has to do is adopt solution controls and enforce them like the US and EU. But they don't, willingly, to adhere to CCP planning.
Re: (Score:2)
Great, you agree China needs no exemptions from climate accords. Now fact the reality that they are the #1 emitter of CO2.
Actually when you arbitrarily draw a line around a group of people you can make it say what you want, for example if we draw a line around China you can see the rest of the world is suddenly the #1 emitter of CO2.
The world doesn't give a fuck how you draw a line on the ground just so you can blame someone else for your own wasteful emissions. Stop being a entitled arsehole who thinks you deserve to use more energy and emit more than a person in China - which is precisely what you do, - since you want to dra
Re: (Score:2)
Actually when you arbitrarily draw a line around a group of people ...
1. It's not arbitrary. Being the #1 polluter is a fact.
2. It not arround a people, its around a political organization, the CCP. The CCP is deciding to pollute, not the people. The people have no say in the matter, in fact the people will be harshly punished for criticizing the CCP.
Re: (Score:2)
Practically any parking lot I park in has at least one car sitting there idling. I see cars at the gas station where the lone occupant, the driver, is standing outside the car, pumping gas into the car, and the car is running. The guy servicing the lime or whatever scooters leaves the van running while they're switching batteries on a scooter 30' away. People everywhere parked and doing nothing in their cars and leaving the cars running. The U.S. isn't going to fix anything and it deserves whatever trouble
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So why isn't the US doing its part?
It has, emissions have been reduced, unlike China.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I know, the
Re: (Score:2)
Also you seem to be manufacturing a straw man that the argument is that the US and EU are done. That would be erroneous. The US and EU will continue to improve, but the greatest improvement is required by China.
The real point that was made is that if there is an existential crisis there can be no exemptions. Everyone needs to step up. China is not due to CCP industrial policy and is the
Re: (Score:2)
But yes,
Re: (Score:2)
This just sounds like (previous comments from others included) a whole lot of finger pointing, blaming, & divisive rhetoric.
To solve a problem you have to accurately identify and describe it.
In what ways can the biggest polluters make it easier for each other to transition away from fossil fuels. To date, much of the transition to renewables in both production & consumption is being facilitated by Chinese manufacturing
Supplementing coal with solar, rather than displacing coal, is not really transitioning to renewables. If they could dig coal faster they would.
Would the USA & EU be able to make such headway without Chinese cheap solar & battery technology & production, for example?
The headway, the solar and wind equipment, would be made in an environment where pollution regulations are enforced. Unlike in China acceptance of pollution is acceptable to attain lower costs and gain supremacy in the market.
But yes, I think everyone can agree that ALL the biggest polluters need to step up & work harder to reduce greenhouse gas emissions of all kinds, from energy generation, to energy efficiency, to building out zero emissions infrastructure. For example, China can meet the demand for electric cars in the USA & EU faster than US & EU manufacturers seem capable &/or willing to & yet they're both imposing barriers & engaging in trade wars.
You offer greenwashing. Those Chinese EVs come with pollution and labor iss
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to play the finger-pointing & blaming game, why not accuse the USA & EU of exporting their manufacturing to other countries so, rather than reducing global CO2 emissions they've increased them but from different countries?
Again, actually doing something to reduce greenhouse gas emissions requires good will & cooperation.
Re: (Score:2)
You're claiming that the EU & USA have made headway in reducing CO2 emissions without acknowledging that this has been facilitated by Chinese manufacturing.
Technology selected due to lower cost, lower cost achieved by pollution and labor abuse. Pollution tolerated by the CCP just for such a goal, as per CCP plan.
Which by the way supports my claim that China warrants no exemptions regarding climate agreements and protocols. That they need to do their part. Thank you for this support.
If you want to play the finger-pointing & blaming game ...
I am not, that's your dissembling. My game is how to avoid an existential crisis. There is one isn't there? So everyone needs to do lall they can, right?
Re: (Score:2)
It's obvious you're just trolling ...
Nope. China is supplementing, not replacing, coal with renewables. Coal use has been increasing, not going down. China burns coal as fast as it can dig it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Still the biggest polluter per person. Stupid idiot.
Sorry, the idiocy is yours. China's pollution is not generated on a per capita basis. It is largely the result of CCP industrial policy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's spending more on solar than the rest of the world combines.
It's spending more on wind than the rest of the world combined.
And it, China, is emitting more pollution than anyone else in the world.
What's your far richer America doing?
Decreasing our emissions, unlike China which is still increasing them.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
China emits a tiny fraction of US and EU emissions per capita, the only reasonable measure assuming you don't think killing off billions of people is an acceptable solution.
What's more, last year China installed more solar and wind generation that the US has in its entire history, and it is accelerating.
It really is the US and EU that need to do more. The really frustrating thing is that we have solutions, we just need to implement them. There are some areas where a bit more work is needed, so maybe we coul
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
My own view, fwiw, is that every country can and should be doing much more, with a twofold focus on building out net new low carbon energy and shuttering existing high carbon energy. The thing that might just save us is that the costs of solar, wind and storage in particular have fallen so much and are continuing to fall that they provide their own incentives, eg sub Saharan African economies are importing solar and “skipping ahead” instead of building out fossil-based infrastructure in much the
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed, every country needs to do more. China is the world leader, but even they could ramp up faster, and the government could be a bit clearer about ending fossil fuel use for electricity generation, rather than just relying on the free market to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
China emits a tiny fraction of US and EU emissions per capita,
Thank you for the greenwashing attempt. The reality is that emissions are not generated on a per capita basis. They are generated by CCP industrial policy.
last year China installed more solar and wind generation that the US has in its entire history, and it is accelerating.
They are still using coal as fast as they can mine it. Again, you attempt greenwashing with misleading stats.
It really is the US and EU that need to do more.
And they are, and will, but there is diminishing returns. China is where the big potential to reduce emissions exist. They warrant no exemptions in climate accords.
Re: (Score:2)
The bottom line is that China will peak in the next year or two, well below where the US and EU peaked, and then fall much faster than we did. They are cleaning up way faster than we are already, they are just further back on the curve.
Using China as an excuse for being shit is greenwashing.
Re: (Score:2)
The bottom line is that China will peak in the next year or two, well below where the US and EU peaked, and then fall much faster than we did. They are cleaning up way faster than we are already, they are just further back on the curve. Using China as an excuse for being shit is greenwashing.
Straw man, no one is making an excuse. That's just you reading things between the lines that are not there.
My point is that said everybody needs to do their part, no more exemptions in climate agreements and protocols. Plus pointing out the hypocrisy of granting the #1 polluter such exemptions. That this gives the impression of business as normal rather than existential threat.
China's problem is not starting from behind. China's problem is CCP policy to continue to pollute to drive industrial producti
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And it, China, is emitting more pollution than anyone else in the world.
China isn't emitting anything. It's an arbitrary line drawn around a group of people. Let's call them "Chinese". Let's draw another line around another group of people and call them "United States of America".
Now let's compare a person within that boundary.
Chinese person: Emits less than the American
Chinese person: Has less access to energy than the American
Chinese person: Produces things for the American because the American pays them to.
American person: Is a raging hypocritical self righteous giga-arsehol
Re: (Score:2)
It's about population. You're just ignorant to claim otherwise.
Wrong. Nearly 80% of China's CO2 emissions are from burning coal. That's CCP industrial policy.
Re: (Score:2)
200 countries in the world and the American thinks he's clean because he's number 2 and not number 1 ...
Sad how dumb people can be.
Well, smarter than you. Work on that reading comprehension. All that was said was that the US has reduced emissions, China has not, and to avoid an existential crisis China we have to do its part.
Re: (Score:2)
GHGs don't care about individuals. Sea-levels rise for everybody!
Re: (Score:3)
And they're still cleaner than Americans...
The primary source of CO2 emissions in China is fossil fuels, most notably those that burn coal.
A Chinese person emits 6t from coal. An American emits 6.5t from oil. But it's the Chinese person and the coal, not the American or the oil to blame... You can start being serious any time you like...
The facts are the facts, China emits more. China has not reduced its emissions like the US. Your fraudulent use of per capital stats does not change this. Also, China's emissions are more industrial in nature than stemming from individual behavior. In other words, CCP policy, not individual behavior. So your per capita ploy is double fraudulent. China has to do its part.
It's not just about emissions today, the history of carbon emissions also matters. Since 1850, China has emitted 284 billion tons of carbon dioxide while the USA that industrialized far earlier has emitted 509 billion tons of carbon and, what's far worse, seems in no hurry to stop emitting carbon. China on the other hand, added more solar panels in 2023 (217 GW) than US did In Its entire history (200 GW). Meanwhile coal power plant construction in China is plateauing and they are solidly on track to replace
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just about emissions today, the history of carbon emissions also matters.
Wrong on both. You are making a sunk costs argument. The only thing that can be done is to reduce emissions going forward.
Re: (Score:2)
A typical American is emitting 10x more CO2 than a Chinese.
Until America is waking up and doing its part China will just develop as they see fit.
No idea why you are such an idiot.
90% of the CO2 in our atmosphere (above base level): is emitted by America over the last 100 years. And you do nearly nothing to address that.
Re: (Score:2)
A typical American is emitting 10x more CO2 than a Chinese.
China's CO2 emissions are largely a result of CCP industrial policy, not some per capita basis.
Until America is waking up and doing its part China will just develop as they see fit.
No idea why you are such an idiot.
90% of the CO2 in our atmosphere (above base level): is emitted by America over the last 100 years. And you do nearly nothing to address that.
Sunk costs fallacy. All that matters is what is emitted today. And the biggest polluter, China, can not longer be allowed to seek exemptions in climate accords and protocols. Can no longer use pollution as a tool for low costs manufacturing designed to capture markets.
Re: (Score:2)
A typical American is emitting 10x more CO2 than a Chinese.
1.5 times more, according to the numbers I see.
13.83 tons per person per year (America)
9.24 tons per person per year (China)
This is according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] , but other numbers are similar, and none show anything like a 10x difference in emissions: https://ourworldindata.org/gra... [ourworldindata.org] https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
If you're going to keep having this same argument every time climate change is mentioned, at least get the numbers right.
Re: (Score:3)
So if China divides itself into 4 different countries then it will be OK? Your logic is distorted because it's based on politics. It would make more sense to compare Western countries as a whole to China.
Of course, if one does this, then it's obvious how bad the US is when comparing it to fellow Western countries. It's easier to do better when you start out so bad. The US has a long way to go.
Re: (Score:2)
So if China divides itself into 4 different countries then it will be OK? Your logic is distorted because it's based on politics.
Then you need to re-read. My logic is that everyone needs to do their part. That no one should receive exemptions in climate accords and protocols. Least of all the #1 polluter, a wealthy nation using pollution as a tool for low costs manufacturing, a tool for capturing markets.
It would make more sense to compare Western countries as a whole to China.
Not really. Jurisdiction, governmental policies, drive many of the problems. China is not such a massive polluter due to size of population, rather it is because of CCP industrial policy.
Re: (Score:2)
No, your logic is that ever country needs to do it's part, but that makes no sense when trying to decide a fair share. As I said, by your logic, if China divided into four countries, it would magically solve their problem from the perspective of a country.
Again you say no one, but you really mean no country. It's easy to show how absurd this is by looking
Re: (Score:2)
No, your logic is that ever country needs to do it's part, but that makes no sense when trying to decide a fair share.
I defined no fair shares. I merely said no exceptions to pollution agreements and protocols. And that granting exemptions to the #1 polluter undermine the notion that there is an existential crisis.
As I said, by your logic, if China divided into four countries, it would magically solve their problem from the perspective of a country.
Nope, that is your illogic. However to entertain your fallacy, image three of those countries NOT run by the CCP or its equivalent. Rather 3 nations with a rule of law that enforced pollution and labor laws, and that fully signed on to climate agreements and protocols. The problem is not the population, not the g
Re: (Score:2)
So your argument is that it creates a negative perception that hurts the cause. I agree it does allow people to put a spin on things to hurt the cause, but those people would find a spin no matter what the energy policy as long as the policy is against their interests. I'm not sure why this spin is so bad...
Re: (Score:2)
I agree it does allow people to put a spin on things to hurt the cause, but those people would find a spin no matter what the energy policy as long as the policy is against their interests.
Untrue. People are willing to accommodate inconvenience in proportion to danger.
Also, Western industry has historically benefited by emitting much more greenhouse gas over the last 100 years.
1. Sunk cost fallacy. All we can do is prevent today's and tomorrow's emissions.
2. One wrong does not justify a second wrong.
3. The threat is existential or it is not. If it is, all need to do all that is possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Only the #1 polluter because you drew the lines in the right places.
Nope, it's about CCP policies. Not the populace. The people have not control over CCP policy, and would be punished for criticizing the CCP.
Re: (Score:2)
No, as I said in the beginning. I want everyone pulling their share.
But you don't want America to pull its share.
Wrong everyone includes America. What I said is the US and EU cannot do it alone. China has to do its part, has to stop claiming it needs exemptions from climate accords and protocols.
Re: (Score:2)
It's proving that the problem isn't the 'industrial policy' causing China to be 'the biggest'
Nearly 80% of CO2 emissions are from burning coal. That is industrial use.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop twisting things to lie by cherry picking what you want. Leaving off what you don’t want to show from these charts is convenient, but anyone can select “countries” and check China again, or any of the rest of the world.
https://ourworldindata.org/gra... [ourworldindata.org]
https://ourworldindata.org/gra... [ourworldindata.org]
Can we please just stop? (Score:2)
I wish we could please not keep having the exact same discussion with the exact same people making the exact same points every time anything to do with climate change comes up.
An average American person produces about 1.5 times as much carbon dioxide per year as an average Chinese person.
The total carbon dioxide emissions from everybody in China are about 2.8 times the total emissions from everybody in America.
Both of these facts are true.
Now, can we please stop having the argument "But America produces mor
Re: (Score:2)
Well you would expect to more CO2 emissions since its the US about 8669 times more people its only about 3.4 times worse.
A better comparison is per capita and China emissions are lower that way. Of course its not perfect (like any metric) for example Liechtenstein is only 160km^2 as opposed to 9,833,520km^2 so travel emissions are probably significantly less per person. 160km^2 the longest distance(google maps) across the country is 24.75 km, Hell bike to work and back more that crossing the entire countr
Re: (Score:2)
Chinese people are doing their part by being cleaner than Americans. Why aren't Americans doing their part?
It's not about the population, it's about the government. It's about CCP industrial policy. CO2 emissions are largely industrial policy related, not per capital effects.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL China's CO2 is a result of China being a much bigger country.
Wrong. Nearly 80% of China's CO2 emissions are from burning coal.
Draw a few lines and make 4 'countries'.
It's not about people. Its about CCP policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really such an idiot? China has 4 times the population of the USA.
Nope, you are the idiot here. CO2 emissions in China are largely a results of CCP industrial policy, not some per capita basis.
You are decreasing? Well technically you are ... good job!!! You can be proud.
LOL. More proof of you idiocy.
"The total population of mainland China was 1.409 billion at the end of last year, the National Statistics Bureau said, down more than 2 million from 2022. That compares with a decline of 850,000 from 2021 to 2022, China’s first population decline in six decades."
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/w... [nbcnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
>It's industrial policy times the number of people.
Wrong. There is also the CCP policy of capturing markets by lowering the cost of exports by tolerating pollution and labor abuse. Such industrial use is the majority of the pollution, as you say, the Chinese people themselves are only modest users of power. Its CCP industrial policy that is the problem.
I wonder how bad things will need to get (Score:5, Insightful)
A system in which each national government gives priority to its own country, and only focuses on issues that will show results in the next 3 or 4 years, is not well suited for a problem like climate change which demands a whole world unified response. It tends to leave those sorts of problems too late.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think we've done enough R&D in prolonging elections as it is. The AP still hasn't declared California's District 13 [no relation to the dystopic movie District9 or Panem] as of 7:27AM PST Dec2, nearly a month after the election.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear only replaces 1 form of pollution with another, I do not trust the government/humanity to manage nuclear waste for 50 years let alone thousands. Its another kicking can the down the road solution. Same goes with electric vehicles, strip-mining the ocean for lithium will have consequences later. The proper solution requires pain, it requires us to learn to consume less. Our thirst for consumption seem endless. It requires us to do this until we develop real way of ways of dealing with our pollution.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How could I have been so blind to the Vast Scientist Conspiracy? Thank you, climate change denalists funded by benevolent oil and coal, for enlightening me!
Christ almighty, the absolutely unbelievable shit right wingers believ
Ho hum. (Score:2)
Ho hum. Humdy hum hum. Anything new?
It is hard to warm a planet (Score:5, Insightful)
This paper makes it very clear that temperature is a lagging indicator: https://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/i... [fau.edu]
Around 1950 we pumped the atmosphere full enough of greenhouse gases for an equilibrium temperature of +2C. In order to not reach +2C in the next 25 years we would have to have not only stop adding more greenhouse gases each year, we would have to figure out how to rapidly scrub the atmosphere of greenhouse gases back to 1950 levels.
If we just flat-lined greenhouse gases at today's levels are going to eventually reach +3.5C
The incredibly slow process of heating a planet is lulling people into the misconception that the current greenhouse gas concentrations are not as bad as they really are.
No surprise (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You misspelled "propaganda lies". I hope you got at least paid for your evil deed. Thirty pieces of silver is the usual price, I believe.
Re: (Score:2)
You misspelled "hallucination". No surprise, you are clearly having one.
Re: (Score:2)
It is the thought that counts. Even a cheaply hired evil fuck is still an evil fuck.
Re: (Score:3)
Stuff that is true. We have an extensive infrastructure based on oil; many of our materials are oil based.
Things that are not true or misleading.
Wind turbines release more carbon in their construction than the save.
We will run out of oil before we find an alternative (perhaps we should stop burning it!).
Transmission lines will take thirty years to build (we do need to change the shape of the grid, but infrastructure is never done).
This is a TV drama is it not?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
A 2021 study comparing EV and ICE emissions found that 46% of EV carbon emissions come from the production process while for an ICE vehicle, they ‘only’ account for 26%. Almost 4 tonnes of CO2 are released during the production process of a single electric car and, in order to break even, the vehicle must be used for at least 8 years to offset the initial emissions by 0.5 tonnes of prevented emissions annually. https://earth.org/environmenta... [earth.org]
How is it that boiling water with some form of energy (natural gets, etc) which converts to mechanical energy in turning a turbine, which converts to electrical energy via a generator set, then power transformers, power lines, more transformers (house current, then DC for the EV), then another 20% loss in heat when stored in
Re: There is no free lunch (Score:3)
Good news, with newer tech the payback is even faster.
An average EV produced in the U.S. in 2023 will close the gap in about 2.2 years or 25,000 miles. https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]
Re: (Score:2)
An EV is the same as an ICE, except for engines an battery.
So: assuming it costs more CO2 to produce is: idiotic
Considering that they are not necessarily produced while emitting any CO2: it is double idiotic
Re: (Score:3)
Its also about 3x the weight.
A Tesla Model 3 extended range is 4000 lbs [tesla.com]. That is only slightly more than a Toyota Camry [carspecs.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Li is not rare -- there are 350 billion tonnes of earth, or millions of years of supply. What you mean is that current supply capacity is less than demand; even that isnt so true as five years ago; this is why the cost of lithum has dropped.
Li is not recycled because, despite the predictions of doom, the batteries last well so that are not enough of the around to be recycled; there isn't anything fundamentally complicated about it, though, and we can see industry gearing up to do this as it gets relevant.
So
Re: (Score:2)
It is unsurprising that an electric car releases more carbon as a percentage from manufacturing, as they don't use so much afterwards. The time for carbon pay back is very dependent on the source of energy where ever they are manufactured. As the percentage of electric supplied by renewables increases, around the world that payback time decreases; this is aside from the overall pace of development with EVs.
Why are electric cars more efficient than petrol? That's because an internal combustion engine is just
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is largely untrue. There might be some old, small turbines where it might be, but modern turbines offset their carbon release from build within a year or so.
Perhaps it is different in the US, but in the UK if we didn't build roads in places where it is consistently windy, we wouldn't be able to get to half the country.
Re:There is no free lunch (Score:4, Interesting)
The claim about windmills in this big-oil propaganda speech that he delivers is completely wrong.
https://www.factcheck.org/2018... [factcheck.org]
Career counseling for liars? (Score:2)
Politics? Or advertising? Or marketing politicians?
Actually I'm wondering about the thermodynamic implications of clean energy. But the story had some potential for Funny...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends. Do you want facts and truth or do you want lies that make you feel warm and comfortable?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well then it's even more important that we reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, isn't it?
Demolishing returns. The US and EU cannot avoid the existential threat themselves. Either everyone works towards it or we all fail.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)