G7 nations committing billions more to fossil fuel than green energy
By - Akephalos_Agares
Slap a "Net zero by 20XX" sticker on it and you are good to go.
Politicians support companies, companies bribe politicians, net zero
Politicians should be like sportspeople, of they receive donations then they should wear the brands on their clothing etc to show who bought them.
This would be amazing, but I suspect it would all be holding companies no one has heard of.
I mean, that's not a bad outcome...
MISSION WINNOW has entered chat
Brought to you by Carl's Jr.
> “To decide once every few years which members of the ruling class is to repress and crush the people through parliament — this is the real essence of bourgeois parliamentarism, not only in parliamentary constitutional monarchies, but also in the most democratic republics.
> from America to Switzerland, from France to Britain, Norway and so forthin these countries the real business of “state” is performed behind the scenes and is carried on by the departments, chancelleries, and General Staffs. parliament is given up to talk for the special purpose of fooling the "common people”.”
- Lenin, [The State and Revolution](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/)
I don't think that quoting a bloody dictator is a good idea to promote socialist ideas.
I mean, if you believe in ad hominem arguments, sure.
Lenin was never a dictator, there was a collective leadership of Sovnarkom. Not even bourgeois historians seriously think that.
> collective leadership
Lol, ok. Since when do collective leaderships build statue upon statue of a single man?
The cult of Lenin was constructed after his death by Stalin to paint himself as Lenin’s successor.
> “Statues are for birds to shit on”
This is classic lol only wish I could give more upvotes to be the 69th one
Don’t they just try of offset it by planting some trees and calling it a job done?
Or alternatively buying carbon ~~indulgences~~ credits so they can keep polluting and not change anything
Carbon credits are fine if you implement them right. Government calculates that it takes $10m to fix Company A's pollution. Government charges $10m in carbon credits, maybe slightly more. Government fixes pollution with the money.
In theory, the credits go towards fixing the pollution. In reality, they go towards someone's pockets.
> Carbon credits are fine if you implement them right.
If it does not lead to more oil, gas and coal _remaining underground forever_ it does not work.
Wouldn't be better to prevent the pollution than to allow companies to pollute for a fee? Exorbitant fines sounds like it would be better to help curb the issue.
But idk anything so probably reason why they do it this way.
Yes, which is dumb as shit because you’d need to cut the trees down and bury them to ensure the carbon goes back in the ground. Otherwise the next forest fire puts it all back in the air.
Net 0 is not enough. We need net negative. Too much is in the air already.
Planting trees has always been a "feel good" strategy to combat climate change that practically had 0 hope of putting the most unnoticeably slightest dent in the problem.
Planting trees is not enough. Carbon footprint taxing is not enough. Pushing the onus on to the consumer to live less wastefully is not enough.
We need a *vast* restructuring of society if we as a species want to survive the 21st century. We need to tear down the entrenched foundations of fossil fuel economies *this instant* and replace them with vast green energy industries. We need to demand action and *harsh* justice to those who pollute our oceans and cut down rainforests.
We need to make *hard* decisions RIGHT NOW. Do we want a tough decade of transition, or an extinction-level catastrophe in a few decades?
Of course, we're stupid fucking humans and we'll pick the latter because the people in charge won't be alive in a few decades, the fucking sociopaths. They don't care. They do not fucking care even the slightest amount. Their children will be in super yachts designed with rising sea levels in mind. Or in orbital climate-controlled space stations. Or in super bunkers with every amenity they could possibly desire. We can all fucking die, we're sub-human to them.
And it turns out that no one was actually auditing the companies that were selling carbon offsets. Most didn’t plant a single tree; they just acted as brokers to various orgs that sold the same planted tree twenty times.
Got a source on that? Sounds like an interesting read.
[one NPR article of sketchy carbon offsets](https://www.npr.org/2021/04/30/992545255/do-carbon-offsets-actually-work-planet-money-takes-a-look)
NPR has a bunch of articles regarding this subject. This one is about a brokerage that sells offsets based on forests that weren’t being cut down anyway, as well as existing forests that got cut down just the same.
Can't say I'm surprised at all...
I'm doing my part by not having kids
I've started to wonder, at what point would it be rational to go to war with Brazil specifically to halt rainforest destruction, or got to war with China to destroy illegal fishing fleets, and so forth? Like, if we believe (as we should) that the total destruction of tropical and oceanic ecosystems is a major existential threat, then what really is the difference between the military acting to halt all dragnet fishing vs the military acting to halt all expansion of nazi germany during WW2? Either way it's an incredible amount of human suffering on the line.
War releases a lot of carbon into the atmosphere, probably never.
20xx is an excellent Mega Man clone on Steam that I highly recommend.
Is there any greenery left in that nightmarish world?
I think that we could probably manage being net zero by 201010. Most likely by being extinct, but winning by technicality is still winning!
In the year 252525,
Make a 3XXX Sticker out of that.
Not much of a surprise there. They could have said it better fossil fuel companies committing billions more to G7 politicians than green energy companies.
People need to start understanding that there is no going green, the way our society works can't grasp the idea of abandoning growth, most of the materials we use for everything are not renewable, recycling is inefficient as fuck. The world is fucked and people don't seem to care at all
To be fair, I would argue that people care, but feel powerless. Voting? Doesn’t mean fuck all. They’re either corrupt or don’t have a power base. Protest? Yeah, peaceful protest is overlooked, violent protest/blockades are pissing people off and get cops involved and people hurt/arrested/killed - not to mention milked for all its worth by aforementioned corrupt gang.
So what do? Just wait for the boomers to die?
So, Eco-terroism it is.
Ted is that you?
This is the corporatisation of the world. In Capatalism, the people with the most money win and democracy is a scam for the rich to distribute public wealth.
Corporatism != Capitalism. When companies can use money to make policy in favor of their businesses it's no longer capitalism.
Very funny post, I wish I could divorce the mechanisms of capitalism from the problems they cause by using a programing symbol
>. When companies can use money to make policy in favor of their businesses it's no longer capitalism.
It is capitalism. It's literally the end game. How the fuck can you say it's not capitalism when corporations use capital to do this?
People aren't powerless, most of us don't know what's coming, because of they did they would be burning the streets right now, all it takes is the little spark, migrants from Africa in the millions, a drought here and there, it just hasn't started to happen but when it does its all a falling domino. The mistake is thinking climate change itself will kill us but that isn't it, most people will die from riots and wars way before that
EDIT: Down vote all you want if that's how you cope with it, call me a doomer all you want Tesla cars won't save the planet, neither will fusion or some new wondertech you say you on r/uplitingnews, matter of fact the world is fucked, just hope it's fucked past your life (it won't be, remind me 2035 or some shit)
Early on in covid it was revealed how fragile our civilization was. A couple months of losses with uncertainty on the horizon and everything was getting shuttered and people were losing jobs. We're lucky it didn't go on much longer or I fear we'd have had the situation you describe.
I think its actually the opposite way around.
Everything has gone back to normal in vaccinated nations, people are outside socialising in the thousands - and covid is for many people already a thing of the past.
You think covid showed us how fragile our society is? It went back right to what it was before
Yeah before anything can change the entire public perceptions has to and they realized this decades sooner than we did. Now they also control the information flow so it's near impossible to rally behind one cause because they find a way to divide it.
You make it sound like the human population hasn’t undergone serious ‘corrections’ before. Your mistake is thinking that some riots or wars will eradicate our species in such a short time frame. You’re not a doomer but you also miss the forest for the trees.
When people claim that the world is fucked with regard to climate, they very rarely mean that our species will go extinct. Mostly just lots of us and the niceties our way of life provides. Many other species will go extinct, though.
Is that so? Their doom and gloom doesn’t convey that nuance.
I personally think their doom and gloom is well curated to the problem at hand. Perhaps a 'correction' isn't all doom and gloom for you, but for most people who see the scale of the issue, pockets of surviving humanity isn't exactly something to be hopeful towards.
So, the problem with your comment isn't that you're a "doomer", it's that it's really unclear how rioting early will help save us all from dying in riots later.
>most of us don't know what's coming, because of they did they would be burning the streets right now
It just needs one leader with nukes who realizes how inevitable fucked we are within the next few years...
Corrupt, no power base, or laughably stupid and incompetent.
Green party in my country wants to close nuclear and build new subsidised gas plants.
So not only will we be increasing our carbon footprint massively.
Our taxes will also go towards buying gas from putin.
They got this passed as law, now its inevitable.
Greens against nuclear are the worst fucking idiots in the world.
Good to know that nuclear energy fear-mongering is alive and well in other countries as well. It is amazing to watch people cry for green energy and then also say no to nuclear energy.
[Non violence is a tool of the state and serves only to further legitimate ongoing racialized violence.](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-how-nonviolence-protects-the-state)
It will always be a challenge to overcome the inherent issue with a "problem of tomorrow" in that it is abstract. People don't see/understand how it effects them so how they don't have a capacity to "care". This is what must be overcome.
They will start to care and make changes precisely when the world is fucked.
The earth is fine, the people are fucked. -George Carlin
There definitely is going green. We went leaded-gas free. We went CFC-free. We went world war free. We will soon be Covid-free. We will definitely go fossil-fuel free.
What comments like yours don't appreciate is that social change takes time. A lot of time, it always take more time we want, and almost always more time than we expect. But eventually we get there.
I was also going to write how defeatist comments like yours are doing as much harm as right-wing pro-oil people do, but then I read your username.
We will never be fossil fuel free. That's a pipe dream.
Well, we certainly will be fossil fuel free one day. The question is whether it will be by choice or not, and whether we will be alive at that point. They will run out, no matter how deep we dig for them.
But even in short term, we don't have to be fully free of them. We can reduce their use by 2/3 without any technological or societal change, shouldn't that be a worthy goal? We can replace electricity generation with 100% non-fossil-fuel source right now, we have the techonology.
Well said. It is nice to see a non-defeatist, non-ideal statement on this topic. Thoughtful and measured. People's extreme attitudes and emotional responses just add to the convolution and leave the core untouched. This seems to be the only productive and viable positive response.
I think people expect things to change in their own life time and view problems through a narrow lens of their own life. Ironic when the solution requires a much wider lens and much longer lifespan than 1 human being.
Quite literally, by definition fossil fuels will run out if we keep burning them.
Do you want to live in a society that NEEDS them when they run out, or not?
especially since "green energy" heavily relies on fossil fuels for production and maintenance
If you think there's ever going green is because you never seen a factory or a logistic center, there really is no way, how do we replace the plastics, all the big trucks what do we fuel them with? Then there is the biggest flaw in your logic, you say that it takes time, unfortunately we have had time to fix this since the 60s, our time has run out, soon our luck will too
Trucks will go electric. It's actually one of the easiest applications, due to very predictable loading and routing. As it is, most trucks run at volume capacity, as opposed to weight capacity. They have the capacity to carry that extra battery weight. Plastics are a non-issue when it comes to climate change. Most other industrial processes (aside from steel production, concrete production, and similar things) rely on electricity, not on fossil fuels directly. Get the fossil fuels out of the electrical grid, and a major chunk of industry becomes "green" overnight (in regards to climate change. Other pollutants are a separate issue).
Small minded to say the least, like there arent solutions.
Yeah these kids are begging for a Tesla so they can "do their part". It's nuts how we've been sold this lie that we're going to buy our way out of this nightmare
Some bold statements you have there . Just 10 years ago solar was incredibly expensive and inefficient.
The article mentions that it takes up to a year for a solar panel to cancel the CO2 emissions it took to produce it, while it lasts for 30 years. That's pretty fine? In any case, the [CO2 in production gets reduced from going toward a decarbonized economy](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0032-9).
With respect to the effect on the land beneath: we could put solar panels on rooftops or as canopies across other surfaces we already use like parking lots and streets. At the same time, the shading effect can even be used as an [advantage in agriculture](https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/publications/studies/APV-Guideline.pdf).
The [recycling is also worked on](https://www.veolia.com/en/solution/recycling-photovoltaic-panels-technology-unique-france) and recycling is required by regulators, at least in europe.
What's bold about it? The temperature keeps rising and emissions have barely been affected. Also no one who can do anything really cares cuz many of us in the first world realize for our lifestyle to stay similar we basically have to destroy the lives of the global south. Hell our rhetoric in the us has already pushed so hard to the right a huge portion of the country is already ok with murdering the inevitable millions of refugees we're gonna see. The apocalypse is here but it's just sad and ugly can cruel.
Are we all supposed to be acting surprised?
Governments: WE CARE ABOUT NATURE ! ^^^^aslongasit'seconomicallyfeasable.
Rich western nations abandoning nuclear energy because of NIMBYism and green fearmongering did so much damage to this planet its just crazy.
edit: lol at all the people replying telling me how 50 years later renewables finally starting to become close to being a viable option compared to half a century old technology that wasnt further developed for political reasons proves that abandoning nuclear was a smart idea while we trippled our worldwide cumulative co2 emissions.
Not In My BackYard.... ism. Basically, anytime any infrastructure ever gets proposed, in this case nuclear (but also wind turbines = cancer/dead birds or solar panels = stupid shit), people want it just not near them.
Historically, this led to situating things like waste dumps in areas with less representation due to race and/or poverty
This also happens with drug shelters and community housing .Everyone wants them but not in my backyard because living there automaticly means a lower house value.
Friend worked at a soup kitchen in San Francisco. Neighborhood gentrified, soup kitchen is still there.
They got a letter from some resident that basically said "it's great you are taking care of the homeless, but yuck, can you maybe teach them to be less homeless?" It was unreal.
Reminds me of the "be born rich" meme
And a lower house value means less property taxes, which is where the vast majority of public school money comes from, thus making the local schools worse and reducing the house's value even more (and perpetuating the cycle of poverty in the bargain). Hurray for the free market.
Hey atleast its more room for the Chinese to build their fancy investment houses there, driving the rent up higher. Yaay free market
That at least makes some level of sense. Housing values decrease because historically those centers are run like shit and the drug activity leaks into the surrounding community. If our drug laws weren't so shit, I wouldn't mind as much having a drug shelter next door.
Oppising solar or wind, is just straight out vanity.
NIMBYism has also helped prevent density in much of America, thus enabling car dependency. Car dependency leads to higher emissions and waste.
There's also the fact that a significant number of Americans dislike living in areas with high population density and actively avoid doing so. City life isn't for everybody.
That is largely because of the stigmatization of cities as noisy, car-filled, polluted places... all because people live in the suburbs and have to drive into the city. Sorry, but the USA and Canada are a self-fulfilling prophecy of unsustainability.
I think there's more nuance to it than that.
I've been food insecure in my life. Land means food.
In the city, there's just no land for a garden.
That's because of the way North American cities are built.
Other countries manage to have walkable suburbs with mixed uses, amenities, and outside space for those who want/can afford it, with access to public transport links into the main hub areas.
In NA, it's usually illegal to build anything other than single houses for miles and miles of development. You have to get in a car to access basic amenities.
That's a choice.
How many people in the suburbs with large lots actually farm crops? No, their lots have lawns that serve little purpose other than looking pretty.
My apartment had a fully managed garden on its roof. Building manager grew one hell of a pepper.
Your imagination is limited if you think there isn’t any land for a garden in a city.
Buildings really should be built to support rooftop gardens. Though, you want to make sure it is safe before doing that as many building are not designed for the added rooftop load of gardens.
Car dependency also leads to bankrupt suburbs because they can't keep urban infrastructure at suburban tax rates.
Couldn't nuclear plants be placed far from population centers? Here in Quebec we get our power from hydro electric dams that are in some cases many hundreds of km away. I feel like we could have our cake and eat it too on this one, but I'm no expert so I'm sure there's some reason why it isn't done that way.
Good luck finding such remote spots in (western) Europe. Too many people here.
Another problem that popped up in Germany, nobody wants to have the power lines run by their house above ground. Wind turbines can be built in the north, but a lot of manufacturing is further south, so it is not much use to have green energy without a method to transmit it.
My understanding is that many existing plants in the U.S. currently are, barring a few exceptions (and which have been operating for awhile). In particular, Calvert Cliffs and the North Anna generators in Maryland and Virginia are pretty close I believe. People swim in the North Anna coolant lake even - Lake Anna, which has something like 120 communities surrounding it.
Oh I see, yeah that's so annoying when nuclear could solve a lot of the world's energy problems
Nimbyism is a result of cheap energy. Prepare for more of it, and from more people, if energy continues to be cheap.
I know this has already been explained but I saw a really good example of it yesterday. A person applied for a permit to build an indoor sports complex, i.e. a big metal Morton building essentially, and he got denied. There were some legitimate issues like capacity and infrastructure but many of locals complained because "this just isn't the right area for that or the architecture won't look like anything else nearby." That's NIMBY-ism in action.
Thanks, that's a good example I think
"What's NIMBYism?" -China
This argument is essentially 'If only people weren't afraid of nuclear, then the G7 would be investing in new plants' which I haven't seen any indication of that being true. The problem is money, not technology. Solar and wind have come down so much in price that FFs should look like a bad investment, but yet here we are.
You have no understanding of the industry whatsoever.
FFs are an amazing investment, Oil stores energy with extremely high capacity.
Wind and Solar cannot be effectively stored.
They do not serve the same purpose.
Natural gas and coal are still used in baseline production of power and they can be replaced with wind and solar. Their 'storage' properties have little value in that context and directly overlap and compete with green energies usage.
No, you cannot replace all natural gas with solar and wind. Because not everyday it's sunny or windy. On a day with low sun and low wind you will get a blackout.
At this time, baseload can’t be replaced by wind and solar because of the storage issue. Nuclear and hydro on the other hand can, but (might be wrong here) nuclear is bad at peaking. If there’s a big breakthrough in energy storage technology, wind and solar become much more viable as the problem of maintaining baseload is eroded
>At this time, baseload can’t be replaced by wind and solar because of the storage issue.
I disagree but if you had a source I would read it.
>Nuclear and hydro on the other hand can, but (might be wrong here) nuclear is bad at peaking
That is because they are really large turbines that you would never bring down unless for maintenance. Natural gas is used for most peakers now although wind turbines are very much an option.
>wind and solar become much more viable as the problem of maintaining baseload is eroded
Wind and solar should be greatly invested since we are no where close to worrying about storage. Everyone is afraid of giant swings in wind and solar production, but with large fields it is reliable.
One of the biggest topics in engineering research today is energy storage for green energy, for which many feasible solutions are being worked on. For example, thermal energy storage is extremely promising for meeting variable grid demand. Solar-thermal energy, or [concentrating solar power](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power) (as opposed to photovoltaics, which is the only type of solar most people are familiar with), is especially well-suited to thermal-storage applications, since it directly generates heat (compared to photovoltaics, which directly generate electricity, which is much less efficient to store). Furthermore, concentrating solar power has potential to decarbonize medium temperature industrial processes as the heat generated can be directly used for processes up to and even exceeding 400°C.
When it comes to high power density, transportable energy, there exists options such as ammonia ([which could decarbonize shipping](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666792421000019)), compressed hydrogen (which I'm not a fan of since it's so explosive, but has lots of attention), and obviously, batteries as we've seen with EVs (although batteries aren't especially clean and aren't as viable for things like heavy duty shipping). A really fucking cool high energy density technology being worked on by a lab at my University is metal fuels, which you can read about here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360128518300327
That is all to say, there's a lot of promising research out there and I can only imagine the progress which could be made if even a fraction of $189b was devoted to this research, instead of back into existing industries. When anyone tells you that it's necessary we invest hundreds of billions into fossil fuels because it's the only thing that's viable, just remember that they're full of shit.
Batteries can store energy.
What happens when the oil gets too expensive to extract?
They can't with 1/10th the efficiency of fossil fuels
It's not true, it's just another of reddits circlejerk.
Nuclear isn’t the most cost effective anymore though; (since 2010, the cost has actually risen by about 50%) solar and onshore wind are by far the cheapest per kw. (Not including geothermal, for obvious reasons)
Nuclear is becoming a thing of the past; solar and wind Have already overtaken it; it’s cheaper, more abundant and people are more accepting of it. (Especially when you consider aging reactors, that aren’t likely to be replaced) - it’s being grandfathered out.
The only thing that I’d argue that nuclear still has going for it - is it reliability; like it doesn’t need conditions to be met to meet supply (which is obviously important) but it seems like something that is becoming increasingly overcome; with things like hydro, and geothermal becoming much more prominent worldwide at suppling those drops.
Nuclear isn’t going to save the world, not anymore anyway.
The big problem is that solar and wind aren't adaptable to the demands.
In power production you need to be able adjust output to demands really quickly, or you get flickering power grids. Nuclear can do that, wind can't really unless you have gigantic amounts of overhead production and solar can't even. Hydro is perfect, but very dependent on geography.
The problem is energy storage. Batteries are a thing, but we'll run out of lithium, and hydrogen is probably the future, but we don't have ways to produce it from solar and wind easily and efficiently enough.
There has been a lot of pushing to use hydro as batteries i.e lakes where you pump uphill when its cheap, and use gravity when you need the energy back.
>The problem is energy storage. Batteries are a thing, but we'll run out of lithium
I'm also pretty confident we aren't going to "run out" of lithium (at least not on any scale we recognize)- there was an article put out in /r/science [yesterday that went into a lot of this](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/ntbz4r/scientists_develop_cheap_and_easy_method_to/) - basically the ocean has about 3500x what the land reserves do. and they are developing ways to pull it out (and trying to be cost effective about it) I mean its pretty early days - but a shortage of lithium isn't really the problem.
a shortage of lithium via traditional mining - maybe. - but then for industrial levels/grid storage you would't probably use lithium batteries anyway; currently I think they are more likely compressed air, or [the previous mentioned pumped water.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Jx_bJgIFhI&ab_channel=TomScott) - if they have to use a traditional battery sodium-ion.
You might very well be right about the lithium, all my sources are worded in a way that could be interpreted to only apply to mining, but it also might be that extracting lithium from the sea might be cost prohibitive, and by that route exclude it from the running. That's just pure speculation from me though. I was told in a lecture given by the energy science department of my local engineering college that if every car produced was an electric car with a battery the size of a tesla, we'd burn through the lithium in the crust in under 5 years, but I'm not too sure on the source. Looking up some numbers now, the figure seems to vary [quite a bit](https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/09/15/how-long-will-the-lithium-supply-last/).
This is just false.
Nuclear doesn’t adjust to demands at all. Nuclear is good for base load, Not for peak demands.
Nuclear has been historically paired with fossil fuels to deal with peak demands/ demand fluctuation.
Also, both wind and solar are just fine for peak load/ fluctuations.
In general, this comment has it exactly backwards.
You just throw more glowy pellets in the hot fish tank and pull them safety rods out a bit, more peak power! Just keep the little knob to the lower side of Chernobyl.
Source: Watched the Chernobyl series
While you are very correct in that nuclear is best for base load, every nuclear reactor in the EU must [be capable of daily load cycling operation between 50% and 100 % of its rated power, with a rate of change of electric output of 3-5% of rated power per minute](https://www.nuclear-power.net/nuclear-power/reactor-physics/reactor-operation/normal-operation-reactor-control/base-load-vs-load-follow/), which at least is something. That's dependent on factors we control, not on the weather. Looking at Germany, which is one of the leading countries in the world in regards to solar power, they're using natural gas to meet fluctuations. Its one of the political issues they have, since they're importing it from Russia.
Sure, it’s possible. But it’s expensive and inefficient and so most don’t do it.
Which is why at the top of the source you just linked… it shows that peak load is handled almost entirely by solar.
And nuclear is entirely base load.
Did the supposed green fearmongering actually achieve anything, I doubt it because barely anything has been done about climate change which has been pushed way more.
Not as much damage as the big oil and gas have caused by constantly lobbying for over half a cenyury to maintain a status quo where they remain the biggest player in the worlds energy comsumption. They we're also the biggest original adverseries for the nuclear industry along with coal producer.
Yup, climate change snd the enviroment have never been an issue for any government ever.
Now taxes, thats what they like, just slap green in front of it and job done
It's like Walmart and Pride flags all over again.
It was always like this. All propaganda.
I feel like people forget that oil isn't just used for energy.
If you came into contact with something made of plastic today, that's oil. Green energy just produces energy, and not very efficiently.
If we embraced the nuclear option, we could move a big chunk of cash away from the energy side of fossil fuels and put it into green energy. It would be a great stepping stone, but everyone's afraid of another Chernobyl even though nuclear tech is literally decades ahead of what it used to be.
Without a huge push for nuclear, the notion that we'll be 100% green in 10, even 20 years just doesn't make any sense.
Yes, because the world currently runs on fossil fuel, and if we do not put enough money into this industry to keep it afloat, the world literally stops.
The fact that we are spending almost as much on green energy is actually pretty good.
Still opportunities lost:
>In most cases, money provided for fossil fuel industries was given with no strings attached, rather than with conditions requiring a reduction in emissions or pollution. The analysis found that eight in every 10 dollars spent on non-renewable energy came without conditions.
>Only one in every 10 dollars committed to the Covid-19 response benefited the “cleanest” energies such as renewables and energy efficiency measures.
The fossil fuel industry is 300 years old. It's rife with bureaucracy and inefficiencies with very little incentive for oversight.
It's also tied at the waist with our military industrial complex and the political rat race.
I hate it.
I also think their might is what holds those countries that profited most of them back, leaving prosperity and future economical advantages to those countries that are not so deeply entangled. This may be an inevitable, natural development, but it's still kind of short-sighted by the G7 nations.
Seriously. People are so quick to despair and give up. All giving up does is help fossil fuel companies. Things are looking much better than they did 10 years ago.
* Renewables are now the cheapest energy ever
* Nations are making real changes in infrastructure to fight climate change
* Businesses are going green
* Acceptance of nuclear energy is on the rise.
This doomer attitude is getting old.
The most baffling part of all this is how existential a crisis so many people consider this (and it is) yet are almost physically repulsed at the possibility of using nuclear energy as a clean energy source.
>In economics, the Jevons paradox (; sometimes Jevons' effect) occurs when technological progress or government policy increases the efficiency with which a resource is used (reducing the amount necessary for any one use), but the rate of consumption of that resource rises due to increasing demand. The Jevons paradox is perhaps the most widely known paradox in environmental economics. However, governments and environmentalists generally assume that efficiency gains will lower resource consumption, ignoring the possibility of the paradox arising.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | Credit: kittens_from_space)
Jevons paradox isn't 100% in this case. And this is also where a CO2-tax shines: increasing the price of fossil fuels and fossil-fuel dependent services (flying, for example) will keep demand in check, preserving the savings, and aiding the energy source transformation.
We have carbon pricing here. It sucks, because it drives up the price of everything. So much for saving for an EV. Food/fuel and everything else is becoming unaffordable.
We have a carbon tax in Sweden and it doesn’t suck. Where are you?
Exactly! Predictions says that by 2050 "only" 23% of energy will be produced by fossil fuels (compared to 80% today), which sounds great. But they forget to mention that the total amount of energy produced from fossil fuels will actually increase in the same time span... Renewables will grow much faster but so will demand which is expected to triple by 2050.
> Yes, because the world currently runs on fossil fuel, and if we do not put enough money into this industry to keep it afloat, the world literally stops.
Where is the invisible hand to run the world on fossil fuels without trillion-dollar government subsidies?
It will still use fossil fuels, but use less fossil fuels because the subsidy isn't there.
Flip the subsidy switch off and oil dies…for two weeks. Then the price of refined products goes through the roof due to shortages. Then the price of crude goes through the roof. Then it all starts back up again, except this time you and me pay more directly rather than through taxes (subsidy). They don’t subsidize it for no reason you know.
The subsidy switch doesn’t turn oil on or off. It just changes the prices you see on everything.
Good. That means
1. I see the real price of oil, including whatever external costs like transport, carbon credit offsets, and whatever else there is that I don't even know about.
2. I can decide to not support that industry with my money.
It's not an overnight flip switch.
And not correctly pricing in externalities like the pollution.
This is analysis, not news. They havent met yet.
Sigh. Thank you.
Side note .
We as a world have a lot of infrastructure built around the fossil fuel industry. I wonder what will become of all these pipelines we have built after we stop using oil and gas. Will they just be left in place to rust away ?
They already get abandoned when resources are exhausted, so yes they will
— if I may to squeeze one thing into your statement. The entire world system runs on fossil fuel. The economic growth that started in 18th century with industrial revolution led to the system under which entire global population lives.
If and when we either ran out of fossil fuel or willingly or unwillingly, the entire system will be in ruins.
(The system is infinite economical growth)
There are alternatives and tech will fill the gap as to infinite growth the global population is projected to start to decline and be an issue in less than 80 years, We will have to make changes when that happens.
I mean, they can't just switch to green like it's flipping a switch. World runs on fossil fuels and alot of important things would have to be replaced. It's a slow process.
Yeah, if only we had found out about this shlamozzle like, I don’t know, 40 or 50 years ago...
Those solar panels were for heating water and were removed because the roof needed maintenance
Oh look, guess who's trying to fix things for the benefit of the people.....and who goes out of their way to ruin things for the benefit of the wealthy.
What would we have replaced fossil fuel with 50 years ago?
Wrong question. If we had taken it more seriously, we could have added co2 scrubbers/sinks and the like to our development program as well as renewable energies and we could have slowed the impact significantly.
Instead, the fossil fuel industry pumped insane amounts of money into smear and disinformation campaigns, not only wasting those resources but effectively killing people.
Imagine what our energy technology portfolio would look like now if we had invested that money in research. Look up a German project, for example, the Growian, from 1984.
Nuclear, wind, hydro, geothermal.
The question should rather be: Why didn’t we take this seriously enough 50 years ago and adjust our standards of living accordingly? Then we now wouldn’t be in this “spoiled society on a dying planet” conundrum.
We could have switched over to far more nuclear power generation but fear-mongering ruined the chance of that happening.
Do you wanna go back in time now?
What do we want? Timetravel!
When do we want it? Irrelevant! :D
Honestly, though, I just like that joke. I don't get what you mean.
It wouldn't be that slow if it didn't keep getting slowed and hindered by people in power.
Well ya. World needs energy that's reliable. And most green isn't right now.
They are if they are in areas that can utilise it well, it's really frustrating for me in Australia because we have plenty of coastlines and wind, and tons of space for solar. More investment needs to be put in to actually utilise green energy properly.
neither of those can run a grid tho. you still need a baseline.
Where I live, energy demand is highest winter nights. winter solar generation is 10-20% that of summer. Wind is intermittent. So you need a MASSIVE investment in storage that can last weeks.
Hydro is basically at capacity globally.
So your choice is nuke, or carbon based. As power demand is increasing, nat gas it is.
It isn't an energy production problem it is an energy storage problem. We need both if we want renewables to actually work. You can cover the entire continent of Australia with solar but as soon as the sun goes down your power goes out. Solar and wind NEED energy storage if we want to use it. It is a package deal but everyone seams to be ignoring that fact.
I have yet to see a proper grid energy storage solution that has been used in the real world at scale. There are some really cool idea out there but I don't know of any that have been implemented in the real world at scale. Tesla's powerwall and Elon battery farm in Australia is probably the closest that has been main stream. But personally I really don't think Lithium Batteries can scale up to what we need them to be at. They are great for mobile devices and maybe car batteries but that is about it. We need something else for grid storage. Maybe I am totally wrong about that but from what I know of the technology and the supply of it I don't see it as a good choice.
This is fine.
So many smartase 'oh of course' comments. Nothing (top of threads) with any useful information.
We all know of course, but the few with concrete info and how we can help should be upvotes more. We have to change, at least stop upvoting bullshit comments guys.
Now just watch those governments create new taxes for green energies so everyone pays for it while they subsidize dirty industries with your tax money
If you expected otherwise in 2021 you gotta come back to reality
That's how much our leaders care about us, our health, our planet, other creatures. They only care about money, and prove this daily. Please, stop buying as much as you can. Try to drive and fly as little as you can. If they don't care, we should.
What a slap in our face. How much longer will we just stand still while they destroy our world and the future of our children?
We're sooo fucked.... ughhhhh.
Do you mean to tell me that the richest corporations all use fossil fuels and would incur a lot of costs and risk in switching to green energy and also the richest corporations control the governments?
I am out, fuck politicians, it all goes to shit anyway because nobody does anything about those mobsters.
there is no climate plan, they will deal with it how they dealt with Covid, the "poors" will die and the rich will build underground bunkers and dome cities... this is capitalism
These same countries are also hypocrites for blaming developing countries for lack of emission control.
Lemme go take the electric plane to fly across the country, oh wait
Technological development had never before changed something that was deemed unlikely or impossible before, oh wait
The reality is that nothing will effect “global warming” until China and India change. All you bums are crying because the entire world isn’t using inefficient, unreliable, expensive energy sources right now. Not everybody has $70k to spend on electric cars and the “green” technology simply hasn’t been developed enough.
Carbon neutral by 2050 tho 🙏
Just like me promising to be cake free by 2070
In 50-ish years... Chances are relatively high you're dead by then. So I'd say the chance of you being cake free is larger than that of carbon neutrality, unfortunately.
Weird. Almost as if the world as a whole, sucks.
Somehow it's 2021 and the statue of liberty isn't under water
Yeah man but soon they'll totally ban plastic straws. Very soon.
thank you capitalism for advancing greedy, stupid and short sighted people into positions of power. they sure must feel arousal at those numbers going up in their bank account. if they just avoid to look outside the window, everything is well.
Nah, just stay in and turn the AC on.
Kinda misleading but alright.
Somebody needs to blame Trump or China for this.
Stuff like this just makes the future seem so bleak. We're really not acting fast enough on climate change, imo.