But that's not the case. America is reducing its emissions greatly by shifting from coal to natural gas (which mirrors what Germany is doing, for example). Coal is ostensibly dead in US. If you look at the charts from Wikipedia [1][2], you'll see the US has cut emissions at about the same rate (or faster) than Europe. That trend will continue. So what will Paris actually do in practical terms?
The problem is that after transitioning away from coal, there isn't a clear answer about the next step. Renewables are not a panacea and may never be able to power a modern economy as they will probably always require fossil fuel baseload ... not to mention that because renewables are a diffuse energy source, they require HUGE land areas which makes no different for CO2 emissions, but makes a huge difference for environmental collapse.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_th...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_th...
In fact, practically the only facilities being built for the last decade have been wind and solar and in massive quantities. If you look in the generation queues of the various RTO/ISOs (organizations that manage which units run and at what level for large parts of the grid) the only thing expected to be built is even more wind and solar along with storage. Multiple GW of wind capacity is being added each year, so it isn't slowing.
Why is this happening? It's complicated, but it's basically economics at this point.
What problems do we face? Well, sometimes wind and solar aren't available. You can solve this in three ways. The first is to have thermal generation respond when the wind/solar dips. This can be tricky as thermal generators (outside of natural gas) weren't designed to move that fast. They were designed to run near max for most of their life. Natural gas peakers are more effective here. Another option is storage, which can hold you over until you get more wind/solar again. However, we would need a massive amount of storage built for this to be effective. A third option would be to increase demand response at the industrial and customer level. Meaning, power isn't generally expected to be 100% available in that scenario. If there isn't enough generation capacity, those that aren't willing to pay the high prices are shut off (or something along those lines). That is generally how supply/demand is supposed to work anyway, but practically speaking, the demand doesn't participate today. In actuality, I expect a combination of all of that to become common place and it is what the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has been pushing for.
You can model this as (cost per kWh of cheapest alternative) / (cost of rentable per kWh) = marginal oversupply you want. So, if hypothetically Solar was 2c/kWh and peaking natural gas was 6c/kWh then you would want to add more solar until 3kWh of new Solar only offset 1kWh of natural gas with the other 2kWh being wasted.
Which does not mean 2/3 of total solar energy would be wasted. Further, storage and energy markets also complicate things. However, it does illustrate why you want an over supply of the cheapest option even if not all of it gets used.
Though when selecting individual locations for wind, different locations favor different time of the day. And of course solar output varies significantly east/west and based on local weather conditions. That all gets modeled ahead of time and in practice get reflected in market rates.
Even then, I do really expect a category of "peak demanders" to appear soon (storage is one kind, but there are other things one can do with intermittent almost free electricity). That will help increasing the spare capacity.
I suspect an outgrowth of oversupply is storage will ramp up based on consistent access to very cheap rates. It makes a huge difference if you’re paying 0.4c/kWh or 4c/kWh to charge, especially when storage is significantly less than 100% efficient.
That said, consistent very low prices will likely result in someone using most of that power for something even if the power plant operators aren’t making money during that period.
I don’t think any of these solutions are viable to prove we can be reliant on renewables, and this one especially would not resonate with a populace.
Just at a consumer level, think of everything you use power for on a daily basis. It’s a cornerstone of modern life, and you can’t expect society to backtrack.
Before I left the UK, the flat I lived in had two electricity rates, with the night rate being significantly cheaper then the day rate [0]. This meant the water heater and the (electric) storage heaters [1] were powered at night, when schools and offices used no power.
[0] I’m not certain, but I think it was: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_7
Also, storage heaters are a real pain to deal with. They're inefficient and not very controllable in terms of the amount of heat they produce.
Not so; when the problem is bad weather rather than the diurnal cycle, even weather forecasting gives more forewarning than emergency stop buttons in power stations, and (given the geographical distribution) the change itself is smoother. On the scale of a continental grid, do you even need to care about anything besides diurnal storage/demand-shifting (as preferred) and seasonal issues?
The result for individuals: many people just subscribe to a flat rate from the electricity companies to avoid the uncertainty and pay the same predictable price each month (but of course, this predictable price comes at a significant markup with respect to the "free market" price). The rest of us go with the fluctuating price but just don't bother, because we are not going to spend substantial amount of time every day looking at how the prices evolve to decide when we turn stuff on or off. So we just read the bill every two months, not even making an effort to understand it, grumble a bit and go on with our lives. I suppose there may be some people who actually try to optimize, but I don't know any - from what I know, people short on income tend to go with the flat rate because they can't afford the uncertainty.
I don't know how it works in industrial applications. I do know that some industries (e.g. steel) complain about the fluctuating prices because they operate 24/7, and basically they reaction is that if the government doesn't subsidize their electricity bill, they'll just close and go to some other country. So my guess is it's not really working either.
You say that like it's true, and it's not. Anyway, the climate doesn't care. Human emissions will reach equilibrium with what's compatible with life on Earth, one way or the other. Figuring this out is preferable to massive loss of life and degraded standards of living for the survivors.
I find it particularly telling you exclude nuclear as a baseload and specify it has to be fossil fuel baseload.
I'm not.
>which have already demonstrated their viability in southern Australia.
They didn't. They replaced natural gas in one specific use-case, namely to provide grid stability. Those batteries (no batteries) are capable of bridging renewable variability.
When the wind is blowing. If the wind isn't blowing, you're not getting any power and you're going to have to fire up those coal/natural gas plants.
>when their new synchronous capacitor projects are completed they won't need stand by gas power plants.
How much power can these 'synchronous capacitors' store, and for how long? Can they even store enough to power a small city (~250k) for more than few mins? Let me spoil something for you, there is no battery technology that can scale to run a modern economy and hard industry. Not now, and not upcoming. If you have favorable geography, you may be able to do pumped storage, but that's about the best you can do.
Keep in mind that EVEN if you miraculously had something to store grid-scale power over a long-term, you need to greatly overprovision renewables because those 'batteries' need to be charged (with lots of energy loss) during peaks enough to bridge daily, seasonal and inter-year variability. And of course, land-use requirements for renewables is MASSIVE (from mining to deployment to decommissioning) - so renewables are very heavy on the environment. They aren't going to work.
There's a reason why no developed region relies on renewables without either fossil fuel backup (or if geography allows, geothermal or hydro). There's a reason why Germany is spending billions to build pipelines to ship natural gas from Russia for decades to come. What do they know about renewables, that you don't?
The problem is, that change didn't effect anyone negatively, and thanks to cheaper gas imports it was essentially free.
Now that we are off coal, future cuts are going to be a lot harder.
Fossil fuel to .. fossil fuel. Sigh.
https://www.volker-quaschning.de/datserv/CO2-spez/CO2-spez_e...
Unfortunately there are methane leaks in the systems, and it is quite possible that when accounting for the methane releases, natural gas has equally bad climate effect (emissions of CO2 and CH4 combined) as coal.
--
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#cite_ref-C...
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#Atmospheri...
I think fixing leaks is an easier task than reducing the coal CO2 footprint. We'll have to figure this out somehow anyways, because a lot of methane will be going into the atmosphere from thawing permafrost, both on land and in the seas.
In practice, doing either of those will spike the price of the energy, and the only reason to use them over renewables is their being cheap, so it won't happen.
Sure ... and how do we do that? Nuclear is dead in the developed world (very few new nuclear projects and lots of existing plants being decomissioned)... so what's left? What do we replace natural gas with?
But the gas infrastructure synergizes extremely well with a shift to a hydrogen based energy economy, as is not just the goal in Germany, but pretty much an EU wide ambition [0].
It has nothing to do with the German nuclear phase-out that started in the early 2000s, just like European reliance on Russian resources it not anything new, nor is it bound to change, it's the consequence of geographical proximity and thus realpolitik.
Particularly considering the alternatives: LNG shipped from the US to Europe in tankers is an net-energy negative. It would be a pointless and expensive exercise of creating even more pollution all for the sake of satisfying US foreign policy ambitions to antagonize Russia and keep it as separated from the EU as possible.
[0] https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/dutch-pin-hopes...
Look at the numbers: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-c...
Yeah, there is a slight increase in natural gas over the years (with large fluctuations), while coal is in slight decline. By far the largest share of the nuclear phaseout has been replacing it with renewables.
One can discuss the pros and cons of german energy politics (of which there are both plenty), but that should start by knowing the facts.
[1] https://i.imgur.com/KgcCyWu.png
[2] https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE...
This is completely fallacious. There will always be outliers but the overwhelming majority of power needs, both residential and commercial, can be addressed with renewable energy and battery solutions.
> not to mention that because renewables are a diffuse energy source, they require HUGE land areas which makes no different for CO2 emissions, but makes a huge difference for environmental collapse.
Can you cite anything backing that up? Hydro electric does dramatically impact the environment but other renewable sources have no such impact. Wind is negligible despite the fanatic ravings of one fat orange lunatic who doesn't like it's aesthetics. Solar is easily deployed on rooftops and along transit corridors which has zero impact. You don't have to consolidate all the renewable energy sources in one location.
I have a solar array that covers less than half my roof, produces 1.5x my energy needs annually, it stores reserves in a battery, and back-feeds excess into the grid. The cost to operate the array is less than the cost of grid power, and my excess production results in a payout from the power company.
The excess production from residential and commercial arrays can be captured and distributed to outliers who are unable to directly leverage renewable energy and completely offset the need for polluting energy sources.
How about, at the very least it is symbolic of the fact that the US will fully take part in one of the most important global programmes there is. That it will set targets and be transparent, reporting on its efforts to reach those targets. It will share know-how and expertise with countries that are trying to solve a problem that is an existential threat to civilisation.
And if, as you suggest, the US is actually beating the progress it needs to make to keep global temperature rise to within 1.5C, then that's great - it can get the global plaudits it deserves, with no further action needed.
The graph in [2] is subtitled:
Since 2000, rising CO 2 emissions in China and the rest of world have eclipsed the output of the United States and Europe
The graph in [1] is subtitled:
Per person, the United States generates carbon dioxide at a far faster rate than other primary regions.
Of course a country of 1 billion people, like India or China, is going to produce more emissiosn than a country of 330 million, in total, even if each of the smaller country's citizens produces about twice as many as the citizens of every other country in the world.
If we are serious about tackling climate change then we need to decarbonize these other sectors by moving them off of fossil fuels and onto clean electricity. We are going to need to generate a lot more energy, not less.
Because reducing energy use reduces quality of life at constant dollar income (at least medium term), and reduces economic growth (energy's an input in all economic activities), with all the social negative consequences that produces. It's a third rail, politically. No one's going to get elected by saying "your children have to live worse than you".
The Western world is already (slowly, over decades) reducing this (look at per capita energy use dropping nicely since the 90s), and there's significant pushback even at this rate (gillets jaunes, cost of living protests). All future energy use growth is elsewhere (Africa, China, India) with no plans to stop and if the Western world tries to impose their views on them, it'll look a lot like neocolonialism for environmental reasons.
Cars are more fuel efficient than ever. I own an SUV and average 30.1 MPG. Imagine that in 2000. Light bulbs are overwhelmingly LED these days. New homes are much more insulating than ever. Smart homes are less wasteful.
Smarthome might theoretically work, but as of right now most people are just throwing even more IT and IoT devices, constantly drawing power, into their homes. As these come from a myriad of different vendors, there is no unified platform to utilize and manage all that for electricity efficiency, it's just going on, drawing additional power.
But is it obvious? Let's say that fusion becomes commercially viable and vast amounts of emission-free energy become available cheaply. Would reducing the usage of it still matter? I would say the driving factor is the side-effects of energy production by current methods, not the energy itself.
I think this is because energy consumption is directly related to our ability to manufacture things, and the ability to manufacture things is directly connected to both wealth and military power.
(I’m half-remembering someone else’s explanation, so I assume this is an oversimplification).
And that's ignoring the reality that if you make something 10x efficient, it tends to become used more - sometimes much more, cancelling the gains. Our economy is self-regulating; altering one factor only makes all others readjust to compensate. Permanent change will require more complex approach.
Energy efficiency is definitely a very important part of dealing with climate change, but it isn't a silver bullet.
We need to get off this exponential! Any modification of Capitalism is painted as an attack on basic human freedoms so that the rich can go down with the ship, rather than pass it on for the rest of humanity and the world.
How do we change what we optimize for? Because it currently isn't working.
> 10x efficient, it tends to become used more
It doesn't require coordinated action to move away from coal and gas at that point.
Solar is great for marginal additional output, but to make it useful as a primary energy source it requires massive investments in storage technology. Solar doesn’t work at night or on cloudy days, so you still need other power sources. At least as long as storage solutions are rare.
Frankly, I think the Paris Accords does more harm than good by giving anyone the notion that we were solving the problem.
The optimal strategy to combat Global Warming is to bring manufacturing back to the EU and US and regulate emissions strongly.
This is not true. From 2001 to 2011 China almost tripled their emissions, but after 2011 they haven't grown almost at all. It's stable. Maybe you haven't looked at the data in the past 10 years?
But now that the US basically proven to be untrustworthy, even towards allies, these kind of deals are just undoable anymore.
This will end in tears
Developing nations have a claim. It's deeply unfair that wealthy nations who have emitted a lot of carbon get permission to keep emitting more as a result. But also.. if developing nations fully stake this claim by increasing their emissions or even flatlining then the game is lost.
This is the problem with thinking in absolutes. The alternative is making some concessions and moving forward regardless because of belief in the mission. Europe is already in the same per capita ballpark as china. If the US/Australia/etc had gotten themselves near this per capita level, the politics of developed/developing economies would have softened somewhat. The fairness issues aren't as sharp once emissions are similar.
Realistically, we are not politically structured (as a world) to deal with carbon reduction well. Nationalism is the dominant paradigm both structurally/politically and ideologically. It's a weak paradigm for global action.
I emphasize the politics over the economics, though obviously both intertwine. Long term, there are economic upsides as well as downsides to carbon reduction. As a blind (long) bet, I'd always bet on new energy paradigms being a good thing. The long tail upside is especially interesting. Within a functioning polity, that's something you can work. The world isn't.
It’s a deal that’s been hijacked by business interests; just like the Cali proposition written by Uber that’s “for drivers”.
You will never get a hundred countries to voluntarily agree to prioritising climate change over prioritising business interests.
Was the US ever trustworthy?
China has shown time and time again that China will do what China feels like doing.
Meaning them committing to doing something 10 years doesn't mean they will do it at all.
We clearly don't really care about climate change or stuff like this would be about taxing pollution through tariffs and other means. Rules like this just move the manufacturing and thus pollution to different countries. Which is pointless when the goal is to reduce climate change.
They actually know, understand, and to some degree care, that they're basically 1/5th of the world's population and if they don't get pollution under control the entire world will burn.
That is a reality under pretty much any regime in the truest sense of the words meaning, which contrary to popular use is not negative but rather descriptive.
They care in the sense that: the whole world burns - China is part of the world - China will burn - their citizens will riot making 1989 look like child's play - the CCP will go up in flames, too. Cynical logic, but logic nonetheless.
They don't care in the "care bear" sense.
Yes you can. The world's problems are not really personified entities, where hypocrisy is a valid concern. China is a problem.
Think about it, they have more people than the US, Canada, the EU, UK, Russia and Australia combined. That's some major need for energy, which everyone else just blames on "China".
I think they're doing pretty well in comparison.
While I'm at it, I need to mention their one child policy basically stopped hundreds of millions people from ever existing. A whole lot of pollution that never happened. Something no other country has done, and I think China should have some recognition for that.
Wouldn't it be better to instead let the developing world leapfrog fossil fuel energy generation, and go straight to renewables (and possibly nuclear)? By e.g. donating technology, IP and expertise, and otherwise incentivize them to skip the dirty tech, at no loss in QoL improvements of their citizens?
There is a question of follow through as they are still building new coal power plants, but China is making noises that its going commit to changing. The US is not a leader on this issue any more.
But how? The manufacturing that went overseas did so for cost reasons. If you make it even more expensive then there is even less incentive to have it here. Dismantling the economies of the east from afar is not an option for a ton of reasons.
In the current system, however, a country who keeps their population low will have small allowances; It clearly incentives overpopulating its land. This inverse-incentive effect may provoke countries into doing nothing against evergrowing population, keeping cost of life too affordable, and thus, ensuring that the next generation will be overpopulated, and thus, extenuating the land.
Is this factual? They committed to peaking in 2030. Stopping at the stop sign is a radically different concept from starting to brake at the stop sign.
Agreed. It is possible to simultaneously believe "we need to cut emissions" and "the Paris accord is a bad way to do it". But it seems many people think Paris is the only way to do it.
The issue is rather that nobody really brings up any valid alternatives when they disagree with Paris.
Saying "bring manufacturing back" is not an valid alternative, it's wishful thinking that ignores how this current situation came about, while offering zero actual actionable advise how to reverse that development and fix the problem itself.
Manufacturing went to China because of laxer regulations there making it more cost-effective, how are you gonna convince it to come back to the US and EU with even harsher regulations?
Easy. Tariffs on Chinese imports so its cheaper to manufacture cleanly back home.
If that works at all, it only works in disincentivizing manufacturing in China.
That doesn't bring manufacturing "back home", it only brings it to other countries similar or even lower in standards as China, are you gonna tariff those too?
Err, yes, obviously. There aren't an infinite number of countries in the world. You could quite comfortably track all the countries that do and do not comply with Western environmental laws in Excel. Or declare a free trade area the conditions of entry to which are compliance. This is a very very easy problem to solve... once we wean ourselves off the cheap tat China produces.
It's not really that obvious because an escalating global trade-war is rarely good for anybody, and tariffs only end up costing the consumers.
That's also why even after years of Trump tariffs on China, and all kinds of other countries, there was still no major shift of manufacturing back to the US.
> This is a very very easy problem to solve... once we wean ourselves off the cheap tat China produces
That "cheap tat" is by now a globally unique industry [0] that took decades to be built, by a government that can centrally plan in the decades. You can't just replace something like that from one day to another, and it most certainly wouldn't be easy.
[0] https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china?country=~CHN
My country’s ambitious plans are shot down by members of parliament going for the kneejern ”but India and China...” response, and the net result would be no action if they were in power. Luckily we at least have people some people in the government who are willing to make sacrifices. It’s about time the US as a developed country caught up (not just on the state level).
In other words there are externalities (polluting the global environment) that aren't priced into the cost of labor when you're comparing the two countries. Tariffs and similar things can help price in that externality.
The only way we will substantially reduce CO2 emissions is to develop a source of energy that is carbon-free (or incredibly low carbon) and cheaper and easier to deploy than coal and gas. Reductions without that are politically impossible. There is no other way. If we don't succeed in doing so, we should plan for significant climate change as a certainty and begin planning our adaptive response.
That's like saying that cleaning my house means moving the dirt to somebody else's house.
> There is no other way.
That is not true. The other ways are:
1. Reduction of energy use per person.
2. Control of population growth - at the very least, stabilizing the Earth's population and theoretically a reduction.
3. Using Energy sources which are low-carbon, but expensive and/or difficult to deploy.
of course your way makes it a lot _easier_, but since reduction of greenhouse gasses is necessary regardless of the availability of a convenient energy solution, these are also relevant, and gradually are becoming necessary.
By the way - (1.) is already progressing relatively well in lots and lots of countries.
No, it's more like moving your cooking and garage wood shop work to someone else's house, taking the results home, and leaving the mess.
The dirtiest parts of the production chain required to sustain our lifestyle have largely been offshored, not only because of cheaper labor but because less developed or more totalitarian countries will tolerate the pollution.
Yes these things can be done cleaner, but that adds cost that people don't seem to be willing to pay.
Americans want all of: (1) high paying good jobs, (2) clean air and water, and (3) cheap manufactured shit. Sorry, but it's worse than a trichotomy. If you pick 3 you have to pass on 1 and 2.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china?country=USA~IND...
If we want 8 billion people living in comfort, we need more energy. As always, I think we should have been building more nuclear plants back in the 90s. And again in the 2000s. And the 2010s. Maybe now we can go wind and solar. But we need lots of something.
But nature also has little regard for per country statistics. Splitting China into two countries, isn't going to lower their polution.
Using per capita statistics at least allows us to focus on those that are emitting excessively more than others.
Of course, Americans are very wasteful, and we can’t scale that amount of wastefulness to the entire planet.
Making people's standards of living go backwards make them shoot you.
Holding down people's standards of living makes their kids or grand-kids shoot you.
Policy sticks are a time bomb. Social solutions (convincing people to behave in a way that reduces their environmental footprint) only get you so far. We need technical solutions (more efficiency in the entire economy) such that people can eat fish or beef and drive in cars (or have access to functionally equivalent or superior analogues) at lesser environmental cost. The "western lifestyle" (moving target, I know) needs to scale because even if the west manages to reduce consumption enough to have a good impact the masses in developing nations are certainly not going to settle for the status quo let alone a reduction in consumption.
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate#country-by-country...
https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/demographics-of-a...
It's much easier for the planet to support a high standard of living for four or six billion people than eight or ten billion.
The developing world population growth is peaking soon or looks to be. But standards of living growth there is exploding so their impact will peak at some unknown point in the future. The already developed world is staying roughly static in terms of population and environmental impact per person is declining slowly there. To use a metaphor, it's like we've got a half full bucket, are very slowly siphoning out water and are also half way through rapidly pouring in an unknown amount of water. Will it overflow? Nobody knows. It would be prudent to try to remove more water and pour in less though.
Edit: Anyone care to tell me why I'm so wrong? Is genocide back on the table or are people just annoyed that this is a hard problem with no shovel ready silver bullet?
More depth can explored using keywords like “global footprint” and “ecological footprint”. What’s your source (“last time I checked”)?
It's high time we give up on the fantasy of an ever growing population as a ponzi scheme to boost the economy and finance public spending. We need to face the reality that we ought to have at the very least a stable population and reorganise society accordingly.
In relation to developing countries, any healthcare-related aid should be conditional to implementation of birth control policies.
Globally we really should have a target to reduce population by a few billions if we want to all enjoy life in comfort (~Western country level) on a thriving planet.
Edit: Judging by the reactions, the penny has not dropped yet for some... Hopefully it will before it's too late.
This is not true. It is possible for 8 Billion people to live in comfort (of course, for a reasonable definition of comfort, which isn't typical US lifestyle at the moment), with the amount of Energy produced right now. _If_ production and distribution, political and economic structures, transportation and habitation systems etc. were to change significantly.
(This is regardless of the Nuclear yes/no discussion.)
"We want" is language that hides reality. Who wants this? How many people?
As the Trump election (and many other elections around the world) show there is no "we want". Different people want different things. Sweeping that fact under the carpet again and again leads to Paris type meaninglessness. Paris fails because there was never any "we".
All the narratives of fear and blame, guilt and shame that have been tried did not make a dent.
Those who want to do something will do it and those that don't want to wont.
Reconcile to that reality and things will actually move forward.
It acts as both an efficiency measure as well as an indication of whether those most able to solve the issue are doing so.
If one is to ask "whom's individual citizen way of living is contributing most" we would look at per capita C02. If the question is "Who is at risk of increasing their pollution" you would look at living standards and growth rates. If you ask "Who has the beast means to invest into climate change preventing technology" you would look at GDP. If you ask "where in the production chain pollution is created" then looking at trade gives that. If the question is whom is to be blamed historically for getting us into this situation then the historical global cumulative CO2 graph shows that, through I am a bit skeptical that it actually gives a correct picture since ww1 and ww2 were very central in ushering us into the age of fossil fuels.
So if China were to spin off each province as a separate country and the US were to spin of each state as a separate country with each of the new countries emitting exactly as much CO2 as it had before it was a separate country, this would be an improvement?
If we go by per capita, the country that contribute the most to the world pollution is a island country with 300 islands and 1700 people. At the same time there are a bunch of oil countries which list as the most green countries in the world because per capita they got close to nothing in pollution per person. If we go outside of countries, the international space station and antarctic would have insane amount of CO2 per capita since only a very small number of highly specialized people living there.
If we want to stop climate change, going to Palau and Luxembourg with remedies will have zero impact. Their numbers at top of the table is only relevant in terms of statistics.
So we are doing nothing. And eventually it's going to catch up with us all.
I can't believe that a country wanting to have a "comfortable standard of living" is seen as a "risk". Almost suggesting as if those countries don't deserve them and a comfortable standard of living should be reserved only for a select few countries.
I just can't fucking believe what I just read.
Risk doesn’t mean emotional judgment or anything about who deserves what.
Long term it isn't. Reducing emissions is going to cost a lot of money. There is less money available for that after economies shrink and governments print money to support their people. Covid helps emissions temporarily but harms the overall path.
Calling some countries a "risk" isn't a value judgement. It's pointing out that focusing on US, EU and China is looking at less than half of the picture.
It is unlikely there is political capital to make significant changes to reverse the damage.
Do you not think it is a responsibility of the already developed nations to solve this crisis first?
At least some of them have woken up to the realisation that exporting your pollution/nasty stuff to other parts of the world doesn't really solve all that much, but even so, they're still a minority, the great majority still believes in silver bullets like recycling, "clean tech" etc.
This so called natural self-regulation will be ugly and painful. I don't envy the generation that will have to go through it.
Natural self-regulation means hitting resource limits, followed by sudden and drastic mass dying off, through wars and starvation.
(It's just a shame that renewables and other tech (plus the required behaviour changes) are coming in to maturity a couple of decades too late. Surely we just need to bridge the gap between demographic changes and adoption of cleaner tech. I might be overly optimistic on this front)
We'll see drastic climate change happening everywhere. It'll probably have little effect on "us" in the west; probably limited to local tragedies because of extreme weather and a price increase in food. But elsewhere it'll cause famine, mass death, and mass migration.
Sure if you zoom out enough, humanity will manage and survive just fine. But at what cost? You can try to be utilitarian about it, but you shouldn't shrug at the prospect of millions dying and getting displaced.
I believe this is a very dangerous misconception. In our globalized interconnected world nobody will be spared. "We" might suffer a little less then other parts of the world, but effect on "us" will still be huge.
COVID-19 gives solid evidence that there is no playbook involved: in terms of political and business processes, the pandemic happened in a flash. And yet every country mismanaged the reaction in roughly the same way, for roughly the same reason. This wasn't coordinated, it's the default way we fail to solve global problems.
Unstoppable severe climate change is coming, if not already here. Emissions continue to go up and up and up every year, the best you get is a slight pause in a year, while we need emissions to go to zero, fast. At this point the only slight hope is geoengineering, and even then I wouldn't bet on it.
What is true that none of the presidential candidates is taking the crisis seriously: Trump denies it, Biden pays a bit of lip service to it but has done very little about it with Obama, and will probably not do much about it if elected.
Stop worrying about the US and stand on your own feet!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
Apply linear extrapolation, and USA would go below Germany in 20 years. Extrapolating with exponential decay, in 40 years.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states?country...
Germany is significantly lower in per capita emissions so their reduction is (I'm assuming) a lot harder to achieve. It's like comparing fat loss between someone who starts overweight vs someone who is starting neutral bmi.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states?country... and add Germany.
Happy to hear why I'm wrong, I'm certainly not an expert in stats or emissions.
Using the same data source you can truly see how much of an outlier the US carbon footprint is:
https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states?country...
Basically the large majority of countries sit below the 10 tonne per capita cut-off, with the outliers of US, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Luxembourg above the 15 tonne cut-off (with Qatar being basically off the charts). I am not sure if it is just consumer behaviour differences or energy source differences and I am sure there will be multiple factors depending on the country and regions but these outlier countries are effectively emitting anywhere between 50% to 300% more emissions than any other population on Earth.
The main issue here is population size:
Luxembourg : 600k
Qatar: 2.897M
Saudi Arabia: 34.997M
Canada: 37.885M
US: 331.669M
If you stop thinking per capita and actually take into account total population, you quickly realize that all other nations on Earth are dependent on US market carbon correction in order to avoid environmental collapse. Far more than any other foreign policy ineptitude from the current adminsistration it's the environmental inaction and downright resistance of US lobby driven policy that scares everyone else around the world.
We are still on track for an inevitable major environmental collapse but it could still be vastly mitigated, if US politicians and citizens would get with the program.
[0] If you are from elsewhere in the world, it might be hard to imagine how few threats of natural disasters we have in central Europe: there are basically no earthquakes, no tsunamis, no bush fires, no (real) hurricans (we call them 'storms'), no real tornadoes (it is such a rare thing that it usually makes it to national news if there is one), no (terrible) floods (well, every few decades there is a large flood somewhere here but that's it).
Germany has a much larger per-capita manufacturing and export sectors of their economy, I would expect their emissions to slow more slowly.
But where do they come from? From the optimisation of our energy consumption? Or from the relocation of some of our companies abroad?
France has the benefit of large-scale nuclear power. Any given day, my home province of Ontario, is at around 85%-95% fossil-fuel-free emissions because of nuclear and hydro [1]. If instead we decided to go with solar and wind, then we'd be waiting until 2060 to cut CO2 emissions and burning much more natural gas until then ... just like Germany.
Which is primarily due to Obama era regulations that Trump has done everything he can to roll back. Had the price of gas not skyrocketed and the mortgage crisis not hit, we would've had almost no improvements from 2000-2008.
If you look at the data available from 2016-2018 we went BACKWARDS. You can't extrapolate the data from Obama's regulations that have rolled back and say: look it'll take care of itself.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-....
That didn't reduce emissions and may have actually increased them.
The NOAA tracking global methane has literally nothing to do with tracking methane output from individual wells - which again, we don't do. Moving the goal posts doesn't make you right. We DO actively track emissions from coal fired plants. We DO know that fracking has absolutely increased methane emissions:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/08/frack...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/02/03/clim...
If the US evaporated from the planet, nothing would change. In fact, atmospheric CO2 levels would continue to rise.
Humanity cannot solve this problem by subtraction.
If ALL of humanity left the planet, it would take 100,000 years for a 100 ppm drop in CO2.
That means we can’t solve it by eliminating fossil fuels, cars, trucks, planes, etc. We can’t solve it with solar panels. And we sure as heck know the Paris accord can’t solve it either.
It is astounding to me to see see how we continue to talk about this problem from the perspective of a premise that is completely false.
Source: 800,000 years of ice core atmospheric data.
In fact, even Obama seems to agree: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36013703
Obama:
* Started a military campaign in Syria.
* Supported diplomatically and militarily, and armed, Saudi Arabia in its genocidal war on Yemen.
* Supported diplomatically and militarily, and armed, Saudi Arabia in its occupation of Bahrain.
* Supported diplomatically and militarily, and armed, Israel in three military campaigns in Gaza.
* Started military intervention in Somalia.
* Started involvement in hostilities in Uganda.
Now, you could argue that only two or three of these count as "starting a war", but still.
> spent 8 years trying to close Pandora’s box?
More like 8 years keeping them open, or prying them open (e.g. vis-a-vis China).
But there's one notable exception: Iran. Even though he bears responsibility for illegal and unjustified sanctions, the JCPOA agreement was a tolerable compromise all around.
Obama has been at war longer than any president in the history of the country.
That's the wiki summary anyway, which doesn't directly implicate the US or any particular president.
That said, general unrest in the middle-east can be attributed to meddling from the US that has been going on for decades, from the founding of the State of Israel in 1948, the US funding the Afghans during the Soviet/Afghan war, to the first and second gulf war, the Saudis, etc.
While I don't like Obama's policy when it came to the conflicts down there, he inherited it from decades of policy.
Were you referring to China? They are still building coal plants at a record pace.
Science, Capitalism and entrepreneurship will be the unstoppable force that will solve our energy crisis, if western governments let them.
Africa, India and China will be the biggest factors going forward.
UPDATE: To be clear, I'm not arguing for laissez-faire capitalism. Government incentives are required to develop markets, as Germany did with PV, and US does with EV. My point is that the US being part of the Climate Accord or not won't matter much, the move away from coal and ICE cars is inevitable due to already existing market forces. A bigger lever would be to de-regulate nuclear where it makes sense, as that is where the biggest cost lie.
Yes, everybody knows that EVs received precisely zero government subsidy in terms of R&D, business loans, and consumer rebates. That free market did it all by itself. And we've got what... 1% of the cars on the road running on electric?
Take those away and the "green" companies would have NO incentive to push their work. They'd be working with people wanting to do better first and foremost, and then they would - ironically - be competing with petrol and energy companies, who also have "green" all over their marketing.
Renewables and EVs could not compete without government incentives.
Of course, that is the ideal success scenario, in the failure scenario, you subsidize the thing until it fails, or until you can no longer afford to subsidize it.
EDIT: grammar
1. Tesla's impact on global emissions is minimal.
2. Government intervention in EVs has been there from the start.
The charitable conclusion is that governments and markets can work together. The pessimistic conclusion is that markets are only capable of putting lipstick on pigs.