Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

aRationalMoose OP t1_iwgar8d wrote

SS: The Global Carbon Budget, a forecast of the sources of greenhouse-gas emissions and the sinks which absorb it, showed that growth in carbon emissions is slowing (see chart). In the early 2000s the rate at which humans produced these pollutants increased by about 3% a year. In the past decade it has fallen to 0.5%.

33

Oldjamesdean t1_iwgj68g wrote

I worked on an existing commercial office building in 2006 (it took about 18 months) and lowered its natural gas and electricity consumption each by about 40% and consulted for other companies how to do the same. A large amount of older tech is just burning up resources for no reason. HVAC is one of the largest waste areas.

35

walterhartwellblack t1_iwh45aa wrote

people cite AC specifically as problematic for the climate, and a circular problem since more AC is needed in a warming world, but the tech seems wildly inefficient compared to what's possible with modern technology - I'm glad people like you are reducing consumption through sensible adjustments

I wish there were systemic efforts to make these changes

14

AlexHanson007 t1_iwgb709 wrote

Question. There was a big drop in emissions during the pandemic. Is that the primary driver for this reduction over the last decade or is the signal still strong when you exclude those edge cases?

12

kalimabitch t1_iwgcb0b wrote

It is. Funding of clean energy is taking everything in a new direction. Is it still too slow for now? Yes. But we have without a doubt avoided apocalyptic warming.

Not that many of the geniuses on this sub care, being consumed completely by misanthropy.

14

AlexHanson007 t1_iwgcsd6 wrote

Then it is indeed good news. It seems like at least some of the biggest polluters (billionaires) are now taking this seriously and funding advancements that can help. I just hope big asset management funds and politicians follow suit now. Feel like this COP is such an important one (obv the all are, but we've already blown past +1.5 and want to try and keep it below +3 now).

9

OriginalCompetitive t1_iwgveym wrote

I know we’re all required to hate billionaires, but it’s not true that they are the biggest polluters.

−2

kalimabitch t1_iwgy1g9 wrote

Eh per individual they absolutely are. The wealthier the worse. That some of them want to course correct does not change that.

3

AlexHanson007 t1_iwh2907 wrote

https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-richest-1-percent-more-double-emissions-poorest-half-humanity

The top 1% emit twice the total amount of emissions of the bottom half of the human race.

I'm not even hating on them here. I'm stating a fact and then saying that it's encouraging that they are realising work needs to be done and are, it would seem, putting their money where their mouth is. This is a good thing.

2

Gagarin1961 t1_iwh3bhu wrote

Politicians run the military, the largest polluter on the planet. Yet many see them at the solution.

Maybe things aren’t totally black and white?

1

oiseauvert989 t1_iwgdqhs wrote

Thats because electricity is only about 25% of our current energy needs

  1. The transition of the electricity sector is indeed impressive and looks likely to continue strongly.

  2. The transport sector is sort of doing something but is definitely way behind the electricity generating sector. eBikes are one aspect that will by the 2030s have a much higher impact than most people think, especially in developing countries where the choice was previously a very expensive to maintain moped that sits in traffic at 10mph or walking at 5mph. eCars are going well but have a lot of questions around battery materials and other limiting factors. Realistically they will not be a one2one replacement for ICEs.

  3. Industrial energy production is a mixed bag. Some improvements and some stagnation.

  4. Home heating however is making almost zero progress and uses a lot of energy. Heat pumps have received too little investment for far too long. Insulation and heat pumps knocking 75% off the worlds heating bills would be a real game changer.

2

____cire4____ t1_iwgnbeu wrote

Yea, I sub to r/collapse which I also enjoy, but that sub and this one sometimes feel like the same place (I actually scrolled back up before replying to make sure I wasn't already on there)

2

Baz_EP t1_iwgeoqz wrote

“Without a doubt”? Where is this supported by data?

1

kalimabitch t1_iwgwryc wrote

Without a doubt as long as we don't reverse course, it is likely to peak at 2-3 °C. Which is of course a disaster, but hardly an apocalypse. We are clearly not doing enough, and are not there yet, but signs are surprisingly hopeful considering the last decade. There are reasons to be hopeful.

Not gonna write an essay, but I show this video to kids who are feeling down. They have more in the description box.

https://youtu.be/LxgMdjyw8uw

0

Baz_EP t1_iwh3jr7 wrote

Ok, thanks. Good vid, but I don’t think it is “without a doubt”. Runaway warming is still a possibility if not a high probability. Too many bad actors with too much power still imv.

1

cornerblockakl t1_iwi79g4 wrote

No. Kalim said there is no doubt we have eliminated the possibility of apocalyptic climate change and even linked a children’s video for proof.

1

KraiterHolz t1_iwgmcxh wrote

CITATIONS NEEDED

0

kalimabitch t1_iwgxonm wrote

Here for starters, not gonna do it for you.

https://youtu.be/LxgMdjyw8uw

They have more info in their descrition box.

2

KraiterHolz t1_iwgyqxz wrote

Reiteration of the assertion is not proof of the assertion. And yes, when you make wild claims that "without a doubt" we've averted "apocalyptic warming", you are going to 'do it for me' or be dismissed as stooge.

1

kalimabitch t1_iwh06tw wrote

Soooo ignoring my link...

Ok, enjoy the unnecessary and outdated existential angst that is so trendy now!

1

KraiterHolz t1_iwh0dqt wrote

Nope, I watched that YouTuber video months ago.

1

kalimabitch t1_iwh2s3d wrote

Ok, I take it you disagree with their assesment. Fair enough!

1

cornerblockakl t1_iwi87o7 wrote

I think we’ve reached the bifurcation of global warming thinking. Old fogeys like you need to get on board with the new current “we’ve averted a real climate change disaster” thinking. This will be the main meme by 2030. I’ve started seeing it pop up here and there.

1

KraiterHolz t1_iwi8h74 wrote

If anything, we've delayed glaciation. So, sure, I can get on board with that narrative.

1

Z3r0sama2017 t1_iwgnq0i wrote

They really didn't drop much, only 2 billion tons and that was with manufacturing going into hibernation and lockdowns plus all that entails. That was basically the biggest thing we've ever done to combat climate change and it was basically chump change.

2

AlexHanson007 t1_iwgpmkl wrote

Thanks. I don't suppose you have a link to the figures at all do you? If not, I'll have a Google later (not trying to be lazy!)

1

kalimabitch t1_iwgya1f wrote

Not really true. Things have happened the last ten years, not just two. Like climate change itself, the resolutions will be slow and intangible. An introduction to other narratives backed by research.

https://youtu.be/LxgMdjyw8uw

1

louieanderson t1_iwgtxec wrote

> In the early 2000s the rate at which humans produced these pollutants increased by about 3% a year.

That's a doubling rate of about 24 yeas which is rather insane when you consider the harmful effects and immediacy of climate change. It's perhaps a bit misleading to present percentages here when people are not generally adept at grasping their consequences. Is 3% a lot, or a little? Is 0.5% a good rate, or did we already have too much?

>The amount of energy required to produce a unit of GDP has fallen by 26% since 2000. Unlike in earlier periods of growth, increases in prosperity no longer require a similar rise in global energy use. Slower growth in the use of fossil fuels to supply that energy (especially coal, the dirtiest one) has further helped curb the growth of emissions.

I get the point but this would be more clearly presented in terms of GHG relative to GDP. What's interesting is this shows a slowing rate of decline with the past decade assuming a rather linear trend.

>The second factor concerns emissions due to land-use change. Getting rid of carbon sinks, by cutting down forests for farmland or digging up peatland for fuel, has a big impact on global emissions: a farm absorbs less carbon than does a rainforest. The Global Carbon Project, the outfit that calculates the budget, estimates that deforestation produces about 7 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide each year. Although the pace of deforestation continues unchanged, reforestation elsewhere has stepped up. New forest growth is absorbing nearly 4 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide annually, up from about 2 gigatonnes in 1990.

This misleading because it represents the harmful affects of deforestation in their direct, one time impact rather than long term ongoing source; for example deforestation of the Amazon rainforest has turned it from a carbon sink into a net producer of carbon (source: The Economist).

Edit: Also this trend in emission rate will likely continue to slow without drastic action as early improvements favor low hanging fruit i.e. we make the easy changes first which boosts the initial impact but overtime more difficult changes are needed to reach required negative emissions.

2

m4nu3lf t1_iwh587r wrote

Are these natural sinks? The article is behind paywall.

2