It also prepares people for systematic change which will result in us having to do most of these things anyway.
And they could do similarly for all other products relating to emissions.
The government could achieve that by installing the right taxes of these energy sources destroying the environment.
Canada has recently implemented one federally and it has a lot of pushback in regions where a larger portion of their economy has historically come from bitumen tar sands. Other regions with different economies are more receptive to it.
Taxes to stop behavior are bunk in this context. There's a lot of consumption that's necessary for many in some amount and luxury for other who afford a vast amount. Taxes cut into some people's basic survival and economic activity while not stopping over people's consumption.
What is necessary is the state to dictate to various industries and companies that they must stop CO2 production - by changing their products and production methods.
The simplest thing is that US is to mandate a lot more travel by bus. No one likes that but hey, no like a burning planet.
Says who? I hate driving, I find it the most soul crushing and time wasting activity there is. In comparison I find taking the bus to be relatively relaxing and cheaper.
What I don't like is a shitty bus service that doesn't take me to where I need to go or only comes every hour. Some areas may only have a shitty bus service and this is probably where you got the idea from but lets not pretend that this is just a reality of public transport.
While it is true that carbon emissions are worse for grain fed animals (most of the red meat you see) it doesn't have to be this way. "Regenerative agriculture" claims to you raise carbon neutral (or negative) beef farms by restoring the native plant life and replenishing the soil. This won't feed the entire earth, but I try to support grass fed farms and obtain most of my red meat from them. Chriss Kresser offers some interesting points on this topic.
This is the only thing that actually matters. Everything else you’ve listed is a rounding error compared to this.
Although I’m curious how you came up with two as your threshold.
I wouldn't say this is necessarily true, it's more that they have other things to care about. We can't criticise developing nations for enjoying the same luxuries we did a hundred years ago. It should be our (first world) job to ensure they get the same benefits from fossil fuels as we did, such as transport freedom and easy access to electricity, but using environmentally friendly technology. Unfortunately, we can't even get ourselves away from fossil fuels quick enough, so this is likely not going to happen.
Also, developing countries emit far fewer emissions per capita when you look at consumption-based emissions [0]. This isn't necessarily a problem with the number of people, it's a problem with the type of lifestyle people want and expect. Even if population increase stopped entirely climate change would get far worse if everyone on Earth had a 1st world lifestyle of red meat, SUVs and yearly holidays.
Population increase is obviously a problem but it's an overstated one. If everyone went vegetarian, which is going to have to happen at some point, the planet can sustain 10 billion people [1], which we're only forecasted to hit in 2100, if we even a) make it that far and b) don't see a reversal in population growth, which has been predicted.
[0] https://ourworldindata.org/global-inequalities-co2-consumpti... [1] https://www.livescience.com/16493-people-planet-earth-suppor...
Well, no.
The only means of survival for the human species going into the 20-40 seems to be coming up with energy-efficient ways for everyone to enjoy a decent standard of living.
Also, developing countries emit far fewer emissions per capita when you look at consumption-based emissions [0]. This isn't necessarily a problem with the number of people, it's a problem with the type of lifestyle people want and expect.
Yeah, emphasizing population is ineffective and kind of misanthropic. The thing is, the large population of the third world certainly reach the point of consuming to first world standards and first-world inefficiencies. Then we'd be more even more doomed than now.
That's how I feel about India's impact on global warming.
Germany, OTOH is over 1/3rd less than the US and similarly rich, and Japan is quite efficient too.
Figures in kg per PPP $ of GDP
China: 0.561
Germany: 0.189
India: 0.304
Japan: 0.243
US: 0.3
To answer the question, 38.6% of Germany's CO2 emissions are from power generation [1], and around 70% of those are from coal power plants [2]. That's 27% of total emissions from burning coal.
[1] https://www.tagesschau.de/faktenfinder/co2-emissionen-103.ht...
[2] Figure 10, https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/14...
Today Germany announced:
Chancellor Angela Merkel's government and Germany's four coal-producing states unveiled details of their plan to phase out coal at the latest by 2038 on Thursday.
The plans outline a timeline for decommissioning lignite-coal power plants in the states of North Rhine-Westphalia, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt and Brandenburg as well as easing the financial transition for the states and energy firms involved.
Energy firms will receive a €4.35 billion ($4.85 billion) payout to compensate for the coal phaseout.
https://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-pay-energy-firms-billions-i...
Loudly touting that we're the first to bindingly exit coal with a 2038 target when France's target is 2022, they just haven't enshrined it in law, and Britain's power generation was coal-free for nearly half of 2019 (3665 out of 8760 hours), with a shutdown target of 2025 and coal accounting for just 2% of their electricity generation compared to 40% for Germany's, is just sad. That statement is incredibly carefully crafted to avoid being an outright lie, while still being extremely misleading.
"Coal supplied 2% of UK electricity in 2019, down from 30% in 2014." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_coal_fired_powe...), and 40% in 2012, sounds a lot better to me.
https://cotap.org/per-capita-carbon-co2-emissions-by-country...
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PP.GD?most_...
Climate Pledge
To protect all of humanity globally now and for the future of our posterity I am committing to the following.
I pledge to limit eating red meat. I will restrict intake of cows and lambs etc. If I choose to have children, I will have 2 or less. I will try to use cycling or mass transit options whenever possible and to participate in efforts to expand transit. I will restrict flying to only when necessary and try to limit flying to only when no other choice is available. If I do fly I will try to offset all emissions. I will try my utmost to conserve energy and minimize use of heating and cooling appliances. I will try my best to limit energy use to renewable sources when I have the choice. When I cannot choose I will fight for the ability to have this choice. I will try to help those close to me understand these choices and the need for those able, to also join the pledge. I will only consume what I need. I will not perpetuate extravagance and will only support companies who champion sustainable efforts. I will do my best to strive for and support sustainable and minimalist technology. I will stay involved in the public discourse on environmental issues and stay engaged on efforts to mitigate climate change.