Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Colombia hosts talks on exiting fossil fuels as global energy crisis deepens

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 140 posts

Re: Colombia hosts talks on exiting fossil fuels as global energy crisis deepens

#51

Post by mc32 »

cmxch wrote: post #27
MattGrommes wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of that comment is not that the talking is happening, it's that the hope of action isn't going to be blocked by industry-captured and plain moronic countries like Saudia Arabia and US, respectively. Even if these countries are a smaller part of the climate affecting processes, any forward motion is good at this point. They can also help build economies of scale, and take advantage of the myriad economic ben…

The US still has enough power to stop it though, thankfully. We aren’t captured by environmental activists that force the poor to shoulder the compliance burden while the rich get to defer and delay.

Many people don’t realize the IPCC walked back (refined as they put it) some of its most dire scenarios… others may choose to ignore the walkback. Akin to the rocket and feather phenomenon that affects pricing.

Re: Colombia hosts talks on exiting fossil fuels as global energy crisis deepens

#52

Post by sofixa »

leonidasrup wrote: post #33
adrianN wrote: post #3

We‘ve had talks about this topic decades before I was born, but progress is a bit underwhelming.

There is no progress in CO2 reduction, we are still emiting more CO2 each year. " Global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes increased by +0.7% within 2025." https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-026-00780-4

But the growth of CO2 emissions is slowing, even though the global economy is growing and many more countries are industrialising and becoming wealthier (both proxies of CO2 emissions).

So we're working on it. Not as fast as we need, but progress is being made.

Re: Colombia hosts talks on exiting fossil fuels as global energy crisis deepens

#53

Post by lukan »

scottious wrote: post #9

> “The mere fact that the conference is happening is already a success,” said Claudio Angelo, senior policy adviser at Brazil’s Climate Observatory, a network of environmental, civil society and academic groups The bar has been set so low that talking about it is seen as success now. Sometimes I think the only way we'll really make meaningful progress is if we simply run out of fossil fuels. Unfortunately, we're just…

"if we simply run out of fossil fuels. Unfortunately, we're just too good at getting them and too motivated to do so."

Less oil, more wars about it.

Re: Colombia hosts talks on exiting fossil fuels as global energy crisis deepens

#54

Post by adjejmxbdjdn »

Maybe Trump isn’t a Putin Manchurian candidate.

Maybe he has been installed by the renewable energy sector actually to get the whole world onto renewables as soon as possible.

Of course, they had to give up on or delay America’s renewable future, but that may be a small Price to pay, and anyways renewables are growing in the U.S. despite the administration’s frankly insane efforts to block it

Re: Colombia hosts talks on exiting fossil fuels as global energy crisis deepens

#55

Post by bluGill »

busterarm wrote: post #37
jl6 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ethanol is quite a useful thing to have though, as a multi-season stable store of energy. We will need to synthesise it (or other synfuels and feedstocks), to fully transition away from fossil sources, and that 10x efficiency factor will be essential, as synthesis is highly energy-lossy.

> Ethanol is quite a useful thing to have though, as a multi-season stable store of energy. Am I missing something? Ethanol is hydrophilic and hygroscopic. In concentrations used as a fuel (e.g., E85), it acts like a desiccant and spoils quickly. In a closed system this ends up with phase separation and the freed water causes engine corrosion. I'm not sure we want people running a still or molecular sieve in their ho…

> In concentrations used as a fuel (e.g., E85), it acts like a desiccant and spoils quickly

Citation needed. (hint you won't find one because it isn't true). Be careful here - this myth has been repeated enough that a search will find plenty of claims that don't check out.

High concentration alcohol doesn't spoil. Even lower concentrations don't spoil, but they mix with poor quality gas that does spoil. Well when you get very low it will, but alcohol is poison to living things and so it won't spoil. (I'm not sure how ethanol stands up to UV - but we generally keep it in a tank so that isn't an issue)

Ethanol will absorb water, but it doesn't take it out of the air anymore than anything else.

Re: Colombia hosts talks on exiting fossil fuels as global energy crisis deepens

#56

Post by jmyeet »

xp84 wrote: post #47
jmyeet wrote: post #13

I've seen this succintly and accurately described this way: "No One Goes to War Over a Solar Panel" [1]. If you think about it, once you build a solar panel, it just produces power for the next 20-30 years. Then you buy another one and replace it. To get oil or natural gas, you need to drill a well. That well requires constant labor. What many don't seem to know is that oil wells decline in production over time. It's…

> "No One Goes to War Over a Solar Panel" Doesn't China have most of the exotic rare earths and stuff that you need in order to build solar panels and systems? I am not anti-solar, but I also don't think China is some guaranteed-friendly party that the whole world can trust not to wield their power once they have it. I assume anyone who doesn't immediately recognize their planned takeover of Taiwan next year will hav…

As another commenter put it, a solar panel is a drill bit not oil. What's the alternative here? Are you arguing we maintaint the dependence on fossil fuels, which can be switched off any day, because of some hypothetical future where China might stop selling "drill bits" (that last 30 years)? That's why this argument is so silly.

As for rare earths, they aren't as rare as the suppliers would seem to suggest. The difference is that China has invested in rare earth extraction and processing and really nobody else has. Likewise, the solar investment was an intentional policy goal. Imagine where the US might be if the $8T+ spent on the so-called Global War on Terror had been spent on renewable infrastructure instead.

As for China behaving in such a belligerent fashion, I'm sorry but let's just compare. Here's a list of US military actions since 1945 [1] and a history of US-led, backed or supplied regime change [2]. The fearmongering around China is just so... manufactured.

[1]: https://www.transcend.org/tms/2023/04/timeline-of-united-sta...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...

Re: Colombia hosts talks on exiting fossil fuels as global energy crisis deepens

#57

Post by bluGill »

mikece wrote: post #32

Interesting that Colombia is currently powering more than 70% of their electrical consumption on hydropower. They currently have about 65 TWh of hydropower capacity; the total feasible generation potential is around 200 TWh. Makes then an interesting country to host such talks.

Good for them, but for most of the world there are no good hydropower locations left. And even when they exist building them is a local ecological disaster.

Re: Colombia hosts talks on exiting fossil fuels as global energy crisis deepens

#58

Post by wat10000 »

xp84 wrote: post #47
jmyeet wrote: post #13

I've seen this succintly and accurately described this way: "No One Goes to War Over a Solar Panel" [1]. If you think about it, once you build a solar panel, it just produces power for the next 20-30 years. Then you buy another one and replace it. To get oil or natural gas, you need to drill a well. That well requires constant labor. What many don't seem to know is that oil wells decline in production over time. It's…

> "No One Goes to War Over a Solar Panel" Doesn't China have most of the exotic rare earths and stuff that you need in order to build solar panels and systems? I am not anti-solar, but I also don't think China is some guaranteed-friendly party that the whole world can trust not to wield their power once they have it. I assume anyone who doesn't immediately recognize their planned takeover of Taiwan next year will hav…

China currently provides a the great majority of that stuff partly because nobody else has bothered to produce much. China doesn't have a majority of world reserves (although the USGS says it's close), just a majority of production.

Re: Colombia hosts talks on exiting fossil fuels as global energy crisis deepens

#59

Post by bickfordb »

jmyeet wrote: post #13

I've seen this succintly and accurately described this way: "No One Goes to War Over a Solar Panel" [1]. If you think about it, once you build a solar panel, it just produces power for the next 20-30 years. Then you buy another one and replace it. To get oil or natural gas, you need to drill a well. That well requires constant labor. What many don't seem to know is that oil wells decline in production over time. It's…

FWIW, a number of the panels I've looked at are rated for 50 years

Re: Colombia hosts talks on exiting fossil fuels as global energy crisis deepens

#60

Post by alephnerd »

MattGrommes wrote: post #14
scottious wrote: post #9

> “The mere fact that the conference is happening is already a success,” said Claudio Angelo, senior policy adviser at Brazil’s Climate Observatory, a network of environmental, civil society and academic groups The bar has been set so low that talking about it is seen as success now. Sometimes I think the only way we'll really make meaningful progress is if we simply run out of fossil fuels. Unfortunately, we're just…

The point of that comment is not that the talking is happening, it's that the hope of action isn't going to be blocked by industry-captured and plain moronic countries like Saudia Arabia and US, respectively. Even if these countries are a smaller part of the climate affecting processes, any forward motion is good at this point. They can also help build economies of scale, and take advantage of the myriad economic ben…

> Even if these countries are a smaller part of the climate affecting processes, any forward motion is good at this point

China, The US, and India all turned down invites despite generating 34%, 12%, and 7.6% of global emissions respectively [0]

If the world's 3 largest polluters (even if two of them are heavily investing in GreenTech) who represent ~54% of global emissions are not interested in the conversation, it's all for naught.

None of the attendees are in the position to pressure the big 3 polluters. And it doesn't matter - the larger countries know they can eat the cost of climate change. It's the poorer or smaller countries that face the brunt of the impact.

And it's only going to get worse. India turned down hosting COP33 in 2028 [1] because India is deciding to to double down on coal [2] as the Iran Crisis has shown China's bet on Coal Gasification that began during the Iraq War [3] was correct.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

[1] - https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/cop/india-withdraws-b...

[2] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-12-05/india-mul...

[3] - https://usea.org/sites/default/files/022011_Coal-to-oil,%20g...

Post reply on HN