7 ms·

It is always interesting to see graphs like this, I am curious how much something like a new green deal would move the 2100 temperature line. A common argument

It is always interesting to see graphs like this, I am curious how much something like a new green deal would move the 2100 temperature line. A common argument against it is that everything depends on China and India. I don't suspect this is true. The USA is one of the highest per capita emitters, it doesn't seem right that we would get to live like that while we take away resources from these other countries who are not as capable of switching over. At least we should get to a point where we all have equal per capita emitters, preferably we should be investing in the technology that would allow them to never have to use carbon-emitting technologies and even potentially profit off them.

perfunctory 7y ago
And since we outsourced our industry to China, a fair share of China's emissions are also our emissions.
- legitster 7y ago
  According to the data, consumer electrical demand is a larger and faster growing source of emissions.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
black6 7y ago
> I am curious how much something like a new green deal would move the 2100 temperature line The Green New Deal ( at least in the USofA ) is a resolution, not a law or spending appropriation, and contains no action items. It’s a feel-good set of “Rah! Rah! We should do <something>.” And as such, I do not see it moving the line at all.
- frankbreetz 7y ago
  I was under the impression the new green deal included something like going carbon neutral in the next ten years.
  - McWobbleston 7y ago
    It does, and even if it didn't there is a need for a rallying cry. We've been well aware for years the threat climate change poses yet we can't even get a carbon tax to be a major talking point in the US, let alone enacted. We need to shift the discourse because right now it's lately wedge issues pushed by two parties trying to maintain their big tents above all else
nostromo 7y ago
> A common argument against it is that everything depends on China and India. This is true though. If you're concerned about absolute fairness, then yes, it makes sense that China should be able to emit as much as the US and Europe does per capita. But if you care about the environment, then this is a disastrous idea. The US needs to continue to reduce its carbon output, and China needs to dramatically slow it's increase in carbon output. Remember, when the US and Europe industrialized, renewables were nonexistent (other than hydro) -- so I think it's fair to expect China and India to leapfrog fossil fuels as much as possible. They've leapfrogged the west on many other technologies -- like telecom and transportation -- so why not energy?
- frankbreetz 7y ago
  If this is the case we should be investing heavily in research cheap renewables that would allow them to leap the carbon emitting phase. This seems like something even a Republican Congress could get on board with.
briandear 7y ago
However, correlate per capita emissions with per capita economic output and the calculus changes. The US also has one of the highest per capita economic outputs of the world. Suggesting that a million people in Yemen (producing very little) should have the same CO2 allowance as the US is just strange. The question isn’t about per capita output of CO2, but of per capita economic value created from that output. If a Yemeni farmer outputs x and an American farmer outputs 10x, but the American farmer is producing 15x the amount of food, we that means that 10x CO2 is a net gain, because we are getting significantly more food per x output. That would mean the Yemeni farmer should produce less CO2 since they are using it so inefficiently compared to an American farmer. In other words, fossil fuel buses produce more pollutants than a car, but they move move dramatically more people per unit of pollution. Suggesting per capita CO2 should be equal across the world is saying that a bus should emit the same as a car, despite a bus being more efficient per passenger than a car.
Glench 7y ago
I think Otherlab's analyses talk about this a little: The Green New Deal: The enormous opportunity in shooting for the moon. https://medium.com/otherlab-news/decarbonization-and-gnd-b8ddd569de16 https://medium.com/otherlab-news/decarbonization-and-gnd-b8d... (electrifying everything with clean generation will reduce energy needs by half even without any changes in lifestyle) How do we decarbonize? https://medium.com/otherlab-news/how-do-we-decarbonize-7fc2fa84e887 https://medium.com/otherlab-news/how-do-we-decarbonize-7fc2f... (A fairly balanced take on how realistic various solutions are, from engineering, policy, and economic perspectives)
- perfunctory 7y ago
  > electrifying everything with clean generation will reduce energy needs by half even without any changes in lifestyle This is pretty cool
- frankbreetz 7y ago
  I'm really a fan of the new green deal, I am afraid that them trying to couple it with a jobs guarantee and universal healthcare will make it easy for the Republicans to make it look like a power grab. I am a fan of both a jobs guarantee and universal healthcare, but those items are not nearly as important as decarbonizing as quickly as possible.
  - ZeroGravitas 7y ago
    Seems like if part of the political resistance is people losing jobs in dirty indstries (and since healthcare and employment are bizarrely conjoined) then addressing all three together makes perfect sense.

perfunctory 7y ago

And since we outsourced our industry to China, a fair share of China's emissions are also our emissions.

legitster 7y ago
According to the data, consumer electrical demand is a larger and faster growing source of emissions.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

black6 7y ago

> I am curious how much something like a new green deal would move the 2100 temperature line The Green New Deal ( at least in the USofA ) is a resolution, not a law or spending appropriation, and contains no action items. It’s a feel-good set of “Rah! Rah! We should do <something>.” And as such, I do not see it moving the line at all.

frankbreetz 7y ago
I was under the impression the new green deal included something like going carbon neutral in the next ten years.
- McWobbleston 7y ago
  It does, and even if it didn't there is a need for a rallying cry. We've been well aware for years the threat climate change poses yet we can't even get a carbon tax to be a major talking point in the US, let alone enacted. We need to shift the discourse because right now it's lately wedge issues pushed by two parties trying to maintain their big tents above all else

nostromo 7y ago

> A common argument against it is that everything depends on China and India. This is true though. If you're concerned about absolute fairness, then yes, it makes sense that China should be able to emit as much as the US and Europe does per capita. But if you care about the environment, then this is a disastrous idea. The US needs to continue to reduce its carbon output, and China needs to dramatically slow it's increase in carbon output. Remember, when the US and Europe industrialized, renewables were nonexistent (other than hydro) -- so I think it's fair to expect China and India to leapfrog fossil fuels as much as possible. They've leapfrogged the west on many other technologies -- like telecom and transportation -- so why not energy?

frankbreetz 7y ago
If this is the case we should be investing heavily in research cheap renewables that would allow them to leap the carbon emitting phase. This seems like something even a Republican Congress could get on board with.

briandear 7y ago

However, correlate per capita emissions with per capita economic output and the calculus changes. The US also has one of the highest per capita economic outputs of the world. Suggesting that a million people in Yemen (producing very little) should have the same CO2 allowance as the US is just strange. The question isn’t about per capita output of CO2, but of per capita economic value created from that output. If a Yemeni farmer outputs x and an American farmer outputs 10x, but the American farmer is producing 15x the amount of food, we that means that 10x CO2 is a net gain, because we are getting significantly more food per x output. That would mean the Yemeni farmer should produce less CO2 since they are using it so inefficiently compared to an American farmer. In other words, fossil fuel buses produce more pollutants than a car, but they move move dramatically more people per unit of pollution. Suggesting per capita CO2 should be equal across the world is saying that a bus should emit the same as a car, despite a bus being more efficient per passenger than a car.

Glench 7y ago

I think Otherlab's analyses talk about this a little: The Green New Deal: The enormous opportunity in shooting for the moon. https://medium.com/otherlab-news/decarbonization-and-gnd-b8ddd569de16 https://medium.com/otherlab-news/decarbonization-and-gnd-b8d... (electrifying everything with clean generation will reduce energy needs by half even without any changes in lifestyle) How do we decarbonize? https://medium.com/otherlab-news/how-do-we-decarbonize-7fc2fa84e887 https://medium.com/otherlab-news/how-do-we-decarbonize-7fc2f... (A fairly balanced take on how realistic various solutions are, from engineering, policy, and economic perspectives)

perfunctory 7y ago
> electrifying everything with clean generation will reduce energy needs by half even without any changes in lifestyle This is pretty cool
frankbreetz 7y ago
I'm really a fan of the new green deal, I am afraid that them trying to couple it with a jobs guarantee and universal healthcare will make it easy for the Republicans to make it look like a power grab. I am a fan of both a jobs guarantee and universal healthcare, but those items are not nearly as important as decarbonizing as quickly as possible.
- ZeroGravitas 7y ago
  Seems like if part of the political resistance is people losing jobs in dirty indstries (and since healthcare and employment are bizarrely conjoined) then addressing all three together makes perfect sense.