If they don't, there is so much demand for the stuff (burning it is so incredibly useful) that it'll all be burned.
edit: Because, they are insulated from the bad repercussions of their harmful policies. Eg. Trafigura polluting the shit out of Ivory coast and poisoning people there. The CEO doesnt live there, he drinks bottled water and lives somewhere else in a gated compound.
Making those destructive choices makes things better for them so they keep making them over and over. If a CEO made a conscientious choice then it would most likely be at the expense of short term profit, which would diminish the extent of his power, sort of self-selecting himself out of the decision making pool.
Makes me imagine some weird distopian future where all people with power and wealth are forced to take some anti-self-deciet drug to prevent crimes against humanity :P
But who would force them?
If you get the conversion efficiency to the same level as photosynthesis (30% nominally) the cost of energy could approach the cost of producing biofuels.
Solar panels also don't wear out soil nutrients, don't need crop rotation, and are probably much less likely to be completely destroyed by weather patterns than the average corn crop grown for biofuels.
You’re both right - there’s lots of room for practical improvement.
Avoid this phrase at all costs. It is a buzzword used by the likes of the clean coal lobby. Global warming isn't tied to emission intensity, but net emissions. The fact that CO2 emissions are down relative to economic growth, but are still climbing, is not useful. It is PR turd-shining.
This is a really good point, clean energy seems to be a luxury at the moment.
No one can blame poorer countries, they aren't all in a position to invest in renewables, for many of them it would be crippling, the argument that renewables is sometimes cheaper only works long term, and long term takes significan't up front investment, burning coal etc takes significantly less.
On a very small scale, that's why you see solar-powered flashlights being so popular in rural areas of the developing world. And my favorite charity (kickstart.org) is currently designing a solar-powered water pump, as a step up from their current human-powered water pumps.
By helping ourselves, we are lowering the barrier for less developed nations.
I assume just the fact that companies (and consumers to a smaller degree) can install solar power and then generate "free" electricity plays a non-insignificant role in getting them to use even more electricity.
However, I don't think that's what causes most of the rise. It's all the planned obsolescence electronics we use and throw into the garbage every 2-3 years and other stuff like that. We simply need more energy to build more stuff. At least if we go 100% renewable power and electric vehicles, that will minimize the impact on the planet, even if we double our energy use over the next 50 years.
There will also be new energy efficiency technologies that will at least slow down our increase in energy use.
Even if the clean energy becomes cheaper hydrocarbons can have comparative advantages and when their price goes down it's creating new uses and new demand.
Even if EROI (energy return of investment) of hydrocarbons turns negative, it may be cheaper to use clean energy to extract hydrocarbons from existing sources than transfer CO2 to back to hydrocarbons.
I make this post assuming you're not in on it.
The good news is: CO2 emission intensity is going down globally and emissions per capita in US, China and EU28 are going down.
The bad news are: Emissions per capita are still going up globally, and hydrocarbon usage and CO2 emissions are breaking records year after year. http://folk.uio.no/roberan/img/GCP2017/PNG/s09_FossilFuel_an... Economic downturn was the only thing causing temporary decline.
It looks like clean energy reduces the demand in developed countries, thus reducing the prices of hydrocarbons. It will not reduce the CO2 emissions globally, it just moves them from the developed world to the developing world. Maybe it slows down CO2 emission growth rate?
http://folk.uio.no/roberan/learnmore/more_warning_signs.shtm...
---
EDIT: Just to point out how complex the dynamics between clean energy, hydrocarbons and policy are, here is nice recent research paper from Acemoglu and Rafey:
Mirage on the Horizon: Geoengineering and Carbon Taxation Without Commitment https://economics.mit.edu/files/14855
>Abstract: We show that, in a model without commitment to future policies, geoengineering breakthroughs can have adverse environmental and welfare effects because they change the (equilibrium) carbon taxes. In our model, energy producers emit carbon, which creates a negative environmental externality, and may decide to switch to cleaner technology. A benevolent social planner sets carbon taxes without commitment. Higher future carbon taxes both reduce emissions given technology and encourage energy producers to switch to cleaner technology. Geoengineering advances, which reduce the negative environmental effects of the existing stock of carbon, decrease future carbon taxes and thus discourage private investments in conventional clean technology. We characterize the conditions under which these advances diminish—rather than improve—environmental quality and welfare.