Submitted by altmorty t3_124zxmk in technology
Tearakan t1_je35xhs wrote
This is great but humanity literally had revord CO2 emissions in 2022 as well. Renewable energy being used in greater numbers only helps if CO2 emissions start to decrease.
Right now it looks like it's just adding more power on top of traditional carbon emitting sources.
luckyscars t1_je3xu5h wrote
It’s a huge, long term investment. We’ve only seriously been doing this shit for about a decade.
Carbon emissions being high currently is obviously concerning, but it really doesn’t belong in a conversation about renewable power and I caution you against the conflation since deniers are liable to use it in bad faith. “Look! See! Doesn’t work! No better!”
Tearakan t1_je3y63j wrote
That's not my argument. Mine is clearly our current economic and government systems are failing to slow climate change. Technology wont save us from civilization collapse alone.
It will require drastic changes now. WW2 levels of international effort in a very short amount of time.
We already had issues with farming in a huge number of significant regions last year. If that continues we will end up seeing the largest famine in human history in a decade or two.
El nino is coming this summer and it'll supercharge the warming we already see.
luckyscars t1_je3ynfv wrote
Well yeah and I am pretty sure 99.99% of the people on this subreddit know all that.
Nevertheless there is no need to counter every utterance of positive news, which this is, with a “it’s not good enough”.
Like, nobody here is saying it is good enough, but by constantly hammering home the point that it’s not good enough you aren’t going to encourage investment in solutions but give rise to arguments like “there’s no point in bankrupting ourselves for something that is out of our control”, which is the current position of most right wingers.
What I think would really help is for people to see the encouraging signs for what they are, become positively engaged with increasing those successes (by better insulating their houses, investing in solar stocks, etc) and just generally not being so fucking negative. If nothing else, it’s terrible for mental health.
Tearakan t1_je3yzfp wrote
Yes there is. Far too many people don't seem to understand what happens during massive famines. They forget the war and horror that quickly follows regardless of how "civilized" a country used to be.
People need to be scared and frightened. Or they won't change.
That "investment" thought is part of the problem. There won't be any worthwhile investments if countries end up tearing each other apart for food and water.
As for mental health yep I agree it sucks. But that's pretty much an expected symptom of our fucked up civilization at this point.
luckyscars t1_je3z692 wrote
Okay, well best of luck converting them through Reddit posts and downvoting immediately any dissent.
CMDRStodgy t1_je4ckqe wrote
> People need to be scared and frightened. Or they won't change.
People who are scared and frightened don't tend to change. They horde, they embrace authoritarians, they try to go back to the good old times, they fight - mostly with each other. The one thing they do not do is fix the problem.
People who are hopeful and optimistic tend to embrace change. They work with others for a better future instead of fighting over what ever is left.
Tearakan t1_je5jh3d wrote
Lol. No they aren't. The people who are currently hopeful and optimistic are okay with slow progress, which isn't nearly fast enough anymore.
The people who started the french revolution vs their king were scared and had hatred for their rule, MLK and his followers were scared and hated the oppression.
Hopeful and optimistic people don't want change because the status quo is working great for them.
There is the threat of falling into authoritarianism. But that's always a threat as the US government is showing now with our shitty recent Supreme Court decisions.
_WardenoftheWest_ t1_je42e2s wrote
You’re really trying hard to be edgy aren’t you.
trevize1138 t1_je598jt wrote
It's easy to feel all wise-to-the-game having your "wake up, sheeple!" moment when you're only arguing against the strawmen you created.
haraldkl t1_je3y9jp wrote
> Right now it looks like it's just adding more power on top of traditional carbon emitting sources.
Here is what the IEA observes on 2022:
>In a year marked by energy price shocks, rising inflation, and disruptions to traditional fuel trade flows, global growth in emissions was lower than feared, despite gas-to-coal switching in many countries. Increased deployment of clean energy technologies such as renewables, electric vehicles, and heat pumps helped prevent an additional 550 Mt in CO2 emissions. Industrial production curtailment, particularly in China and Europe, also averted additional emissions.
Or in other words: we are not "just" adding power on top of traditional carbon emitting sources. Rather, the deployment of low-carbon sources has reached a point, where we are very close to a balancing point at which those low-carbon additions cover the increment in global energy consumption completely.
More observations from the IEA:
>A strong expansion of renewables limited the rebound in coal power emissions. Renewables met 90% of last year’s global growth in electricity generation. Solar PV and wind generation each increased by around 275 TWh, a new annual record.
>China’s emissions were relatively flat in 2022, declining by 23 Mt or 0.2%.
>The European Union saw a 2.5% or 70 Mt reduction in CO2 emissions despite oil and gas market disruptions, hydro shortfalls due to drought, and numerous nuclear plants going offline.
>US emissions grew by 0.8% or 36 Mt. The buildings sector saw the highest emissions growth, driven by extreme temperatures. The main emissions reductions came from electricity and heat generation, thanks to unprecedented increases in solar PV and wind, as well as coal-to-gas switching. While many other countries reduced their natural gas use, the United States saw an increase of 89 Mt in CO2 emissions from gas, as it was called upon to meet peak electricity demand during summer heat waves.
>Emissions from Asia’s emerging market and developing economies, excluding China, grew more than those from any other region in 2022, increasing by 4.2% or 206 Mt CO2.
Tearakan t1_je3yefr wrote
None of that matters since emmisions literally hit record highs last year. So clearly we are failing.
The time for incremental changes was 2 decades ago. We can't afford to do this slowly anymore.
Caleth t1_je54o8f wrote
It does matter and you're sea lioning. We don't turn the global economy on a dime it takes years. We've spend literally decades digging this hole we're in and we've spent maybe one trying to dig out, not even a whole decade really as for example in America we just got over Trump who was working on bringing back clean glorious beautiful coal.
Remember that? Now we're all in on IRA and cars are electrifying, solar and wind are starting to make up nearly all of our new installed production. We don't scream at the baby when it starts crawling demanding it be an Olympic level athlete the next day.
We had shit like like Russia act up so the gas they were burning got down converted to coal by many EU countries. Even with that we've seen a near tipping over to emmison reductions.
So be gone shill we're moving forward and as things get worse the urge to improve will become stronger. But as it stands right now you're in the way of saving the species. Spreading FUD to act against this creates despair and harms all our futures. So stop.
Tearakan t1_je5ijqu wrote
My argument is the whole idea of "take it slow" would've been fine 2 decades ago. We past that point. We need drastic changes on the level of WW2 now.
Not this slow plodding shit.
Yep the economy would be drastically changed and frankly that needs to happen.
The US just authorized even more oil drilling in alaska and the gulf of Mexico.
I'm a pessimist now though. I don't think we get our shit together until a majority of humanity dies due to starvation and war.
Caleth t1_je5yei1 wrote
Again see my point about truning the world economy around we are moving at a rapid pace for a world of 8 billion with all that commercial and political inertia.
Now you're right we're not moving fast enough, but as I pointed out as things worsen our inertia will change.
There's a strong likelyhood we'll see a wet bulb event. Probably somewhere like India millions will die and people will be shocked enough to effect real change. It's an ugly thought but it's a reality I've resigned myself to we as a species don't do forward planning well.
But after that things will shift into high gear it'll be the economic and political equivalent of the climate dropping a nuke on us.
Tearakan t1_je6rvvx wrote
I hope it's only that small. I figure we will see large scale modern war with small and medium size nations fighting for what's left of arable land and water resources in their territory within 5 years.
A big one would be Ethiopia vs Egypt. Both rely heavily on the nile and have issues with food already stoking conflict.
I just hope it wont spread like wildfire across the planet.
haraldkl t1_je678v7 wrote
> My argument is the whole idea of "take it slow" would've been fine 2 decades ago. We past that point. We need drastic changes on the level of WW2 now.
I think you are mistaking my comment. It wasn't meant as we are doing enough. Only that we are not "just" adding more energy ontop of old fossil fuel burning. There is change going on and denying that won't help you to figure out, what needs to be done, and what has to be sped up to help the transitioning effectively.
danielravennest t1_je6t0ji wrote
> Not this slow plodding shit.
You are not describing reality. Solar energy doubled from 2016 to 2019, and doubled again by 2022. That's not plodding, it is exponential growth.
Since 1992 solar increased by a factor of 10,000. It just took time to get the prices down and production up. Right now, solar manufacturers are building up their supply chain for another doubling of production rate.
Tearakan t1_je6tnil wrote
That would've been good 2 decades ago. We can't wait for that now.
Realistically we should be nationalizing most industries, completely shutting down useless ones, removing all non essential travel, ripping up roads and putting in massive rail networks in place with massive increases in nuclear plant construction.
Moving people from suburbs into either high density cities or rural areas used to support said cities, like we had before cheap oil.
And also providing people with the essentials to prevent mass civil unrest.
This is similar levels of effort that WW2 required.
Anything less at this point is just inviting disasters on a scale our species has never seen.
Edit: having renewables are great but they have a limit. They are good auxiliary power but cost compared to battery plants vs nulcear power favors nuclear fission. We can even add in further breeder reactors to get more energy out of previously spent fuel.
Rentun t1_je78ujq wrote
Lol ok well good luck with that.
Where are you going to get the political capital to do that?
Close to half this county doesn’t even think climate change is real. The other half mostly will not be willing to significantly disrupt their lives for any reason, climate change or not.
Forcibly relocating people from suburbs? What planet are you living on?
The stuff you’re proposing wouldn’t even fly in China. There’d be a revolution before people accept their lives being so radically altered. How in the hell would that work in any democratic country?
Tearakan t1_je8e639 wrote
Yeah we won't. I honestly think most countries will fall to chaos 1st sadly.
Maybe a few billion dying will wake up the remaining people in time.
danielravennest t1_je6zdaf wrote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQzH_j1-FjE
None of that is going to happen. Renewables will take over because the profit motive is the most powerful force in our modern world.
And you are wrong about battery plants. Look up the Moss Landing plant in California. They replaced 5 of 7 natural gas units with two battery farms (one in the turbine hall, and the other in what was the parking lot). The two most efficient NG units were kept as backup/peaker units.
haraldkl t1_je5zgqp wrote
>We can't afford to do this slowly anymore.
I agree with that, and I certainly didn't want to imply otherwise.
>None of that matters since emmisions literally hit record highs last year.
Yet, this is a kind of bad conclusion from that urgency. Exactly because of this urgency it is important to register the changes we do make, and observe what works. It most certainly does matter what progress we make. This is not changed by the fact that it took us too long, or that it is a only a slow turning around so far. I think there is a good chance that we do peak emissions this year, and we need to speed up the efforts to reduce them quicker.
Tearakan t1_je6rltg wrote
I hope you're right. But I'm afraid I am. With el nino coming this summer it'll wreak another toll on our agricultural regions across the globe. We already had issues last year.
Just one more year of that and wars will start popping up in poorer nations across the planet. Lack of food creates insane amounts of political instability.
moofunk t1_je4mybp wrote
Carbon capture using renewable energy should be a factor too.
There are some projects coming along here, for example the Danish Greensand project, but it needs to scale up.
Tearakan t1_je5j0cz wrote
Only works when we are actively lower emmisions period. Otherwise we hit basic thermodynamic limits.
danielravennest t1_je6qkp0 wrote
We are close to the turning point. In a few years, new fossil-powered vehicle production will fall below old fossil vehicle retirement. That means the total fossil fleet will start shrinking.
It takes a while to ramp up production of new technology, but we are getting there.
Tearakan t1_je6r7lg wrote
Which would've worked had this happened a decade or two ago.
It's too late for this slow shit now. El nino is coming and it'll supercharge the warming in key agricultural regions. We already had issues with farming yields last year. Another bad year or worse and we will see wars popping up all across the planet. Especially in poorer nations.
danielravennest t1_je6z17u wrote
> Which would've worked had this happened a decade or two ago.
Imagining an alternate past is a waste of time, unless you have a time machine. The future is all we can affect.
OriginalCompetitive t1_je58whu wrote
By humanity, you mean China. Emissions have been dropping for years in the U.S. and EU.
Boreras t1_je63ltx wrote
Chinese and EU emissions fell in 2022, American emissions rose. This is despite the US dwarfing the others in per capita emission especially if you account for scope 3 which is a logical necessity.
OriginalCompetitive t1_je65ryi wrote
That’s because the US recovered from abnormally now emissions due to COVID, whereas China spent 2022 still trapped in a massive COVID downturn. Year over year trends can sometimes be misleading, but the big picture is clear as day. Chinese emissions are now higher than all other developed countries combined.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments