Comments
YWAK98alum t1_itqm9oa wrote
Sometimes the first step to curing the patient is stopping the bleeding.
ialsoagree t1_itr2e7z wrote
We're not even to the point of slowing the bleeding yet. The bleeding is still getting faster, it's just not getting faster as quickly.
Pointing that out isn't doom and gloom, it's fighting complacency. We still have a lot to do, and every year what we have to do is getting bigger because we didn't do enough the year before.
JustWhatAmI t1_itr5fm8 wrote
>Pointing that out isn't doom and gloom, it's fighting complacency.
I saw it more as pointing out that EVs and green energy were what led the charge
ItsAConspiracy t1_iu414ts wrote
More like they led the slow crawl. We're way behind and climate change is extending its lead. We're just not falling behind quite as quickly as before.
I guess that's progress but business-as-usual but with EVs and renewables is not going to win this race.
Single_Pick1468 t1_itqv8tj wrote
Yes and like stop killing animals for food and products which are so devastating for the climate and more. Much bleeding in the literal sense to be stopped.
cybercuzco t1_itx7ahy wrote
It’s still bad. They yearly increase is still within the estimate for the total sequestration capacity for earths natural processes.
Leprechan_Sushi OP t1_itqdrdq wrote
The IEA said the rise in global CO2 emissions this year would have been larger – more than tripling to reach close to 1 billion tonnes – were it not for the major deployments of renewable energy technologies and electric vehicles (EVs) around the world.
Even though Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has propped up global coal demand in 2022 by making natural gas far more expensive, the relatively small increase in coal emissions has been considerably outweighed by the expansion of renewables, IEA said
grundar t1_ittfxiz wrote
Renewables and EVs prevented about 70% of the CO2 emissions increase:
> "The rise in global CO2 emissions this year would be much larger – more than tripling to reach close to 1 billion tonnes – were it not for the major deployments of renewable energy technologies and electric vehicles (EVs) around the world."
Given that renewables have been growing at 25%/yr and EVs at 50%/yr, a 70% reduction is likely to turn into a >100% reduction (i.e., a decrease in emissions) within just a few years.
Note that 2022's rise of 300Mt will leave energy-related emissions about 0.7% below their 2018 peak, as emissions in 2021 were still 500Mt below 2018's level. There's a reasonable chance that will be exceeded in 2023, but also some chance it will not. Either way, it looks like energy-related emissions -- 3/4 of the total -- will end up being basically flat from 2018 to about 2025, and then will enter a permanent decline.
Roughly speaking, then, the world hit peak energy-related emissions about 4 years ago, will continue on its current plateau for another couple years, and then will see ongoing emissions declines. That decline will drive a peak and decline of total emissions as well, which as a result will likely slowly increase until 2025 or so before also declining. Fairly big news.
IamChuckleseu t1_itueskn wrote
Decrease in emissions is not really possible as of now is it? CO2 is not going anywhere. We would have to start "harvesting" it.
% decrease in emissions is incredibly flawed metric. If you have 1000 imaginary units of CO2 and increase it by 100 then it was increase of 10%. Next year you have 1100. You now increase it by 105. Increase of only 9.5%. So growth slowed down right? Except that not really because 105>100. CO2 grew more than last time, only "slower" relative to total sum.
grundar t1_itv8gqp wrote
> Decrease in emissions is not really possible as of now is it? CO2 is not going anywhere. We would have to start "harvesting" it.
I think you're confusing a decrease in emissions with a decrease in levels.
CO2 emissions are the amount the world pumps out every year. If we replaced all coal-fired power with non-emitting power, our emissions would fall dramatically.
CO2 levels are the fraction of the atmosphere that is CO2 molecules. If we replaced all coal-fired power with non-emitting power, but kept using gas-fired power and ICE vehicles, CO2 levels would still increase.
CO2 emissions are highly likely to start decreasing this decade. That means CO2 levels will still be increasing, but -- for the first time -- more slowly. That change -- yearly emissions flipping from increasing to decreasing -- is a necessary step towards net zero emissions.
> % decrease in emissions is incredibly flawed metric. If you have 1000 imaginary units of CO2 and increase it by 100 then it was increase of 10%. Next year you have 1100. You now increase it by 105. Increase of only 9.5%. So growth slowed down right?
I think you're confusing a decrease in emissions with a decrease in growth of emissions.
Fundamentally:
- CO2 levels drive warming.
- Emissions are the first derivative of CO2 levels.
- Growth of emissions are the second derivative of CO2 levels.
If you imagine a curve, the second derivative declining and falling below zero is a necessary precondition for the first derivative to decline and fall below zero, which is itself a necessary precondition for the curve to start dropping to lower values.
Growth of emissions is the second derivative; it has been declining for years, and will drop below zero around 2025.
Emissions is the first derivative; it still start declining around 2025, and will drop below zero if/when we reach net zero.
CO2 level is the curve itself; it will not start declining until after net zero.
Clear?
FuturologyBot t1_itqjhxa wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Leprechan_Sushi:
The IEA said the rise in global CO2 emissions this year would have been larger – more than tripling to reach close to 1 billion tonnes – were it not for the major deployments of renewable energy technologies and electric vehicles (EVs) around the world.
Even though Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has propped up global coal demand in 2022 by making natural gas far more expensive, the relatively small increase in coal emissions has been considerably outweighed by the expansion of renewables, IEA said
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/yd7f0e/global_co2_emissions_to_grow_less_than_1_on_green/itqdrdq/
MrSirrr_ t1_itrngrm wrote
Power grid in 1st world countries unable to sustain the use of EV vehicles nationwide
JustWhatAmI t1_itrpuc6 wrote
Yes, assuming everyone charges at the same time, all the time. If they charge enough to cover the miles driven, it's more than enough. Forbes did the math, https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmorris/2021/11/13/electricity-grids-can-handle-electric-vehicles-easily--they-just-need-proper-management/?sh=61c2c0f87862
MrSirrr_ t1_itsa5qb wrote
Cali is already saying they expect rolling blackouts
JustWhatAmI t1_itsip7u wrote
Not this year, https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/07/california-avoids-widespread-rolling-blackouts-as-heat-strains-grid.html
By using a distributed network of batteries, and asking customers to reduce demand (like charging EVs off peak) they kept the lights on
There's another potential issue coming up this week, high winds may knock down power lines, so the power companies shut off power to prevent forest fires. But that's not so much a supply/demand issue, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-21/california-faces-weekend-blackouts-as-utilities-brace-for-gusts-and-fire-danger
MrSirrr_ t1_itsivm2 wrote
Lol....so asking people to not use electricity, maybe they will keep the power on? And then they mandate by a certain year to stop production of gasoline vehicles ..reeeeeal smart
JustWhatAmI t1_itsjf25 wrote
That's right. A smart grid. We used to only have control of the supply side of the grid. We're beginning to have control of the demand side
A responsive grid is less expensive (peaker plants are the most expensive power source) and cleaner (peaker plants are some of the dirtiest sources of energy)
Redditwhydouexists t1_itworqw wrote
I think some rolling blackouts while production increases is ok in the short term when the alternative is doing absolutely nothing to stop the end of the world
urmomaisjabbathehutt t1_itsm6on wrote
The goverment comisioned studies several years ago and concluded that EVs will result in an additional 10% increase impact in Britain, and they considered the grid capable to sustain that without any problem, not only that, the grid is ongoing sustaining development as we speak and money being invested on it because renewables or not smart grids are beneficial for a number of reasons
and if britain grid can sustain it, I bet my arse that Germany and France aren't any far behind
YpsilonY t1_itqkjed wrote
I guess after decades of bad news, it could be worse. It's certainly a step in the right direction. But let's not forget that we'd need CO2 emissions to be rapidly declining by now, if we want to stick to no more than 2°C of warming by the end of the century.