3 ms·

In the BP World Energy statistical review for 2018, they showed that though renewable energy had fantastic falls in prices, there wasn't enough addition to meet

In the BP World Energy statistical review for 2018, they showed that though renewable energy had fantastic falls in prices, there wasn't enough addition to meet new energy demand, especially in China and India for industry, and for the USA regarding its huge growth in natural gas. They then asked the question, how much faster would renewables need to grow to JUST meet this new energy demand (nevermind decarbonizing existing demand). They found renewables would have to grow over 2X as fast (from 800 TWh up to 1,800 TWh). Let this sink in: We are literally adding half the renewables we need just to keep the emissions curve flat. We probably need to go 4X faster to bend the curve downwards on emissions. Can engineers solve that? They are a piece of the puzzle, but their most fundamental innovations will take years to kick in. We need policy, we need individual behavioral changes, we need everything we can get.

rayiner 7y ago
According to IPCC projections we need to hit zero emissions worldwide within the next decade to avoid a 2C increase. Can politicians do that?
- PeterisP 7y ago
  Of course not, even a totalitarian fascist regime would not be able to force their population to such a large downgrade in their lifestyles to achieve zero total emissions; any government trying to do that would get violently overthrown by their people. The only conclusion that can be made from these IPCC projections is that we will not avoid a 2C increase because there's no chance that people would be willing to "pay the price" to achieve that.
  - pathseeker 7y ago
    It actually wouldn't require a large downgrade if nuclear was used.
    - PeterisP 7y ago
      Switching 100% of electricity production to nuclear would be very hard (though maaaybe possible) and very expensive to do within a decade (the mean time to construct a reactor is 7.5 years, so we'd have to launch immense construction projects right now), but that's not a solution that brings you even close to zero emissions. Electricity is just a small part (roughly 25%) of them. To get close to zero emissions you'd also need to: 1) replace or remove all non-electric vehicles worldwide. That third world farmer with a thirty year old tractor who can't possibly afford to replace it with anything, much less with something new? That twenty year old pickup truck for a small storeowner? All those vehicles would have to stop being used. They would have to be pried out of their hands long before they become useless, meaningfully harming their livelihood (as replacements won't be affordable to them - they can't buy a ten-year old used truck/tractor because that's also fossil fuel based), which doesn't seem plausible without violence. 1a) Also, replace almost all ships worldwide. 1b) Also, replace all the fossil fuel based house heating systems. Poor regions without a centralised supply heating their homes with firewood? You're not allowed to burn that anymore, you need to build infrastructure to supply you with nuclear electricity. 2) Stop concrete production unless you also sequester enough carbon to compensate. That pretty much means destroying large parts of construction industry by making it prohibitively expensive, especially in poorer countries. 2a) Also, revamp all worldwide steel production. 3) Have everyone worldwide stop eating beef. These three things won't be sufficient, but are required to even approach zero emissions. Does it seem plausible to suceed in somehow forcing everyone worldwide to implement such policies within a decade?
      - wolfgke 7y ago
        > These three things won't be sufficient, but are required to even approach zero emissions. Does it seem plausible to suceed in somehow forcing everyone worldwide to implement such policies within a decade? So governments should better finance mitigations for the consequences of climate change.
        PeterisP 7y ago
        There's no magic external source of resources. The wallet of "governments" is the wallet of the people. If people don't vote for a huge increase in taxes to finance mitigation or prevention (I mean, that's the whole point - the scale of resources needed for preventing climate change is very, very large, it's not like you can just increase the budget deficit by 1% and fund that), then governments can't and won't finance large scale mitigation or prevention. Of course, people will eventually be forced to finance mitigations or suffer the consequences unmitigated - but that's not now, that's later. Prevention is likely to be much cheaper and more effective, but as the people aren't willing to pony up the enormous resources for prevention, well, then they'll pony up enormous resources (or take enormous suffering) when the time comes. But apparently not much earlier. And the fact that causes and effects aren't equally distributed doesn't mean that countries (both governments and people) who suffer less will be willing to finance mitigations for the countries who bear the worst of the consequences.
- simonh 7y ago
  Can engineers? Even if we identified the ideal plan, it would still need funding.
- hd5eoih 7y ago
  Of course they can, but the radical bleeding-heart environmentalists oppose the idea of nuclear power, they'd rather see this planet boil than accept this as a realistic solution.
- tzs 7y ago
  How about avoiding 4C, or 6C, or worse? If the US, which is the largest emitter per capita, and the EU, and the other first world countries can get to zero emissions while maintaining a good standard of living, that at least can provide a longer term template for the developing countries that gets is to some stable level, even if it is above 2C. We can tell developing countries that they have 50 years where they can emit at current first world per capita levels while they raise their standard of living, but then they have to go to zero like the first world has, or they will be subject to sanctions, high carbon tariffs on their products, and things like that. Throw in good aid packages to help them develop and build their zero emissions infrastructure.

rayiner 7y ago

According to IPCC projections we need to hit zero emissions worldwide within the next decade to avoid a 2C increase. Can politicians do that?

PeterisP 7y ago
Of course not, even a totalitarian fascist regime would not be able to force their population to such a large downgrade in their lifestyles to achieve zero total emissions; any government trying to do that would get violently overthrown by their people. The only conclusion that can be made from these IPCC projections is that we will not avoid a 2C increase because there's no chance that people would be willing to "pay the price" to achieve that.
- pathseeker 7y ago
  It actually wouldn't require a large downgrade if nuclear was used.
  - PeterisP 7y ago
    Switching 100% of electricity production to nuclear would be very hard (though maaaybe possible) and very expensive to do within a decade (the mean time to construct a reactor is 7.5 years, so we'd have to launch immense construction projects right now), but that's not a solution that brings you even close to zero emissions. Electricity is just a small part (roughly 25%) of them. To get close to zero emissions you'd also need to: 1) replace or remove all non-electric vehicles worldwide. That third world farmer with a thirty year old tractor who can't possibly afford to replace it with anything, much less with something new? That twenty year old pickup truck for a small storeowner? All those vehicles would have to stop being used. They would have to be pried out of their hands long before they become useless, meaningfully harming their livelihood (as replacements won't be affordable to them - they can't buy a ten-year old used truck/tractor because that's also fossil fuel based), which doesn't seem plausible without violence. 1a) Also, replace almost all ships worldwide. 1b) Also, replace all the fossil fuel based house heating systems. Poor regions without a centralised supply heating their homes with firewood? You're not allowed to burn that anymore, you need to build infrastructure to supply you with nuclear electricity. 2) Stop concrete production unless you also sequester enough carbon to compensate. That pretty much means destroying large parts of construction industry by making it prohibitively expensive, especially in poorer countries. 2a) Also, revamp all worldwide steel production. 3) Have everyone worldwide stop eating beef. These three things won't be sufficient, but are required to even approach zero emissions. Does it seem plausible to suceed in somehow forcing everyone worldwide to implement such policies within a decade?
    - wolfgke 7y ago
      > These three things won't be sufficient, but are required to even approach zero emissions. Does it seem plausible to suceed in somehow forcing everyone worldwide to implement such policies within a decade? So governments should better finance mitigations for the consequences of climate change.
      - PeterisP 7y ago
        There's no magic external source of resources. The wallet of "governments" is the wallet of the people. If people don't vote for a huge increase in taxes to finance mitigation or prevention (I mean, that's the whole point - the scale of resources needed for preventing climate change is very, very large, it's not like you can just increase the budget deficit by 1% and fund that), then governments can't and won't finance large scale mitigation or prevention. Of course, people will eventually be forced to finance mitigations or suffer the consequences unmitigated - but that's not now, that's later. Prevention is likely to be much cheaper and more effective, but as the people aren't willing to pony up the enormous resources for prevention, well, then they'll pony up enormous resources (or take enormous suffering) when the time comes. But apparently not much earlier. And the fact that causes and effects aren't equally distributed doesn't mean that countries (both governments and people) who suffer less will be willing to finance mitigations for the countries who bear the worst of the consequences.
simonh 7y ago
Can engineers? Even if we identified the ideal plan, it would still need funding.
hd5eoih 7y ago
Of course they can, but the radical bleeding-heart environmentalists oppose the idea of nuclear power, they'd rather see this planet boil than accept this as a realistic solution.
tzs 7y ago
How about avoiding 4C, or 6C, or worse? If the US, which is the largest emitter per capita, and the EU, and the other first world countries can get to zero emissions while maintaining a good standard of living, that at least can provide a longer term template for the developing countries that gets is to some stable level, even if it is above 2C. We can tell developing countries that they have 50 years where they can emit at current first world per capita levels while they raise their standard of living, but then they have to go to zero like the first world has, or they will be subject to sanctions, high carbon tariffs on their products, and things like that. Throw in good aid packages to help them develop and build their zero emissions infrastructure.