The loss is because we invent half-solutions that only delay the inevitable(reducing/storing/filtering emissions instead of removing sources), but are more profitable for the industry/economy in the short term vs renewables.
The world is losing the war against climate change
141–150 of 325 posts
Re: The world is losing the war against climate change
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if future generations will think people were even serious about solving the problem. In this respect the war was lost long ago. The vast majority of people who believe climate change will have large negative consequences make no major changes to their lifestyles. As someone who rides bike for transportation largely to save money and stay in shape (I think climate change is a lost cause), the environmental cr…
> ...seems to me that their environmentalism is not entirely sincere. That's my problem with the entire political side of climate and environmentalism. The simple fact that Al Gore flies in a Learjet while simultaneously claiming the "Earth has a fever." Makes it impossible for me to take that movement seriously. Even if he buys "carbon credits" -- that carbon he's generating is still being generated. You can't dump…
Even if he buys "carbon credits" -- that carbon he's generating is still being generated.
The point of carbon credits is offsetting. For example, suppose I plant a bunch of trees to earn carbon credits. I then sell Al Gore my carbon credits. Thus, Al Gore is able to fly about in his jet, I am able to make money planting trees, and in the end no net carbon has been added to the atmosphere.
Re: The world is losing the war against climate change
#143Is there even a "war" against climate change? If there is, it's barely gotten started. For the most part, politicians are at best apathetic and at worst, actively hostile to the idea of "fighting" such a war.
The politicians largely reflect the people they govern. I don't think we can expect much better from them as compared to the general population...not to mention of course the vested interests and lobbying capability of corporations. And again corporations have shareholders, employees, etc...
I think a more precise statement is that politicians reflect the people who got them in office.
In theory that means the voters. In practice in the US, because election spending is so huge and effective, it means the wealthy.
Re: The world is losing the war against climate change
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not in the US. The majority of the country isn't to the point of believing that climate change poses a serious threat, and among non-Democrats attitudes towards climate change are actually regressing: https://news.gallup.com/poll/231530/global-warming-concern-s...
Weather or not the majority believes in climate change is irrelevant. The simple fact is: while the US reduced its total carbon footprint by ~0,4% in 2017, it increased in the EU and China. No reason to point fingers at the US.
It is quite a lot easier to reduce when you are using > 2.5 times as much as the ones you are comparing to (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_...)
Re: The world is losing the war against climate change
#145If you look at global power sector emissions from 1998 to 2018, you'll see that while we have dramatically improved upon the energy intensity (energy/capita) and even are making improvements on carbon intensity (carbon/capita), but the sad reality is this: we are still using around 35% coal power in 2018, the same as we did in 1998. And the power sector is the easiest sector to decarbonize, by the way. If you look at…
I've been looking into carbon capture recently because it's going to be vital to slowing down the warming (and buying us another 50 years for the transition). What surprised me is that I can cover double my two-car-owning European family's carbon footprint via planting trees in the UK at an annual cost of around $400. It'll cost half that to do the same in a developing country. We need a global carbon tax and we need…
>What surprised me is that I can cover double my two-car-owning European family's carbon footprint via planting trees in the UK at an annual cost of around $400. It'll cost half that to do the same in a developing country.
Then what happens when the trees are fully grown? Processing them for industry would just reintroduce the carbon back into the environment. Letting them stay in the forest is nice, but you would quickly run out of room. There needs to be some sort of way to bury the biomass in order to put that carbon out of the atmosphere for good.
Re: The world is losing the war against climate change
#146If you look at global power sector emissions from 1998 to 2018, you'll see that while we have dramatically improved upon the energy intensity (energy/capita) and even are making improvements on carbon intensity (carbon/capita), but the sad reality is this: we are still using around 35% coal power in 2018, the same as we did in 1998. And the power sector is the easiest sector to decarbonize, by the way. If you look at…
I've been looking into carbon capture recently because it's going to be vital to slowing down the warming (and buying us another 50 years for the transition). What surprised me is that I can cover double my two-car-owning European family's carbon footprint via planting trees in the UK at an annual cost of around $400. It'll cost half that to do the same in a developing country. We need a global carbon tax and we need…
It's disappointing to me that planting trees is the best we can come up with. One would hope that we could work on a 10x, technological solution.
Re: The world is losing the war against climate change
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you post information about this, especially the math? According to US stats I've seen it requires an acre of growing forest to offset 100 US gallons of gas per year.[0] We have a long commute (which I'm working on cutting) so we need about 8 acres to offset fully. [0] https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calc... Edit: added missing units.
I used one of the carbon offset sites, this one: carbonfootprint.com
Thank you. Their numbers match the EPA numbers.
Re: The world is losing the war against climate change
#148If you look at global power sector emissions from 1998 to 2018, you'll see that while we have dramatically improved upon the energy intensity (energy/capita) and even are making improvements on carbon intensity (carbon/capita), but the sad reality is this: we are still using around 35% coal power in 2018, the same as we did in 1998. And the power sector is the easiest sector to decarbonize, by the way. If you look at…
"For an energy realist, I recommend checking out Vaclav Smil, who has long been predicting 21st century as the century of natural gas" My very recent reading on this topic has lead me to believe that while burning natural gas is quite an improvement in carbon emissions vs. burning coal or oil, unburned natural gas traps quite a bit more heat than carbon dioxide does. It was even suggested that pipeline leaks, manufac…
"Natural Gas" is primarily methane. In terms of Greenhouse effects, we would do vastly better to "burn off" any leaks than let them leak.
Re: The world is losing the war against climate change
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
Laws are a reasonable (thought still incredibly difficult) solution in the parts of the planet that have the rule of law. Large parts don't, and we need different solutions in those places because this is a global problem. As an example, see this report about cheating on an international agreement about CFCs ( https://www.nrdc.org/experts/david-doniger/chilling-news-spo... which) were supposed to have been phased out…
If Trump was waging a smarter trade war, and EU helped, we could be taxing China and the rest of the "lawless" countries more effectively - e.g. tax all goods (local and imported) based on their carbon footprint - and thus effect global change.
Unfortunately for us, Trump doesn't think climate change exists, so he would never do this.
Re: The world is losing the war against climate change
#150If you look at global power sector emissions from 1998 to 2018, you'll see that while we have dramatically improved upon the energy intensity (energy/capita) and even are making improvements on carbon intensity (carbon/capita), but the sad reality is this: we are still using around 35% coal power in 2018, the same as we did in 1998. And the power sector is the easiest sector to decarbonize, by the way. If you look at…
I don't think any amount of innovation can have close to the impact of de-tabooing nuclear energy for the next few decades.
Too late. If you start planning nuclear plants now, they'll take 10 years to build.
Also, I'm not sure that the an to build nuclear reactors across Africa, South America, and the middle east will be popular; the proliferation risk hasn't gone away.