3 ms·

> Its about a 4% drop each year for 30 years. Or a Coronavirus every 2 years. This is an incredibly misleading way to put it... there's no compounding effect t

> Its about a 4% drop each year for 30 years. Or a Coronavirus every 2 years. This is an incredibly misleading way to put it... there's no compounding effect to be had here. If a coronavirus drops by 4% from pre-coronavirus times the first year, it's still going to be only 4% lower than pre-coronavirus times after 30 years.

mysterydip 7y ago
So if everyone staying home and only driving when necessary* only reduces emissions a fraction of what's necessary, is it even possible? *I know not everyone is staying home
- pteraspidomorph 7y ago
  There are a lot of major emissions sources not very affected (or even negatively affected) by people staying home, such as fossil fuel power plants, cargo ships and trucks, cattle farming, certain industries, etc.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- CalRobert 7y ago
  Move somehere you can ride a bike, walk, or take electrified transport, heat and cool your extremely efficient NZEB timber-frame home with a solar or wind-fuelled heat pump, eat little meat (restore the grazing land to peatland, forest, etc. too), have 2 or fewer children, and take holidays via rail instead of plane, and you're mostly there.
  - pharke 7y ago
    That's both sad and funny that you think all of those things are possible in the same location in the US. I count 4 major infrastructure projects and 3 massive tax incentives that would need to be implemented in order to convince most people to do all of that. Not possible nation wide within a time frame of less than 30 years. Suggesting the majority of a large country's population move to regions where this is possible is also a non-starter without huge economic incentives and would have many unintended side effects due to depopulation of some areas and massive immigration to other areas. The only approach I see working in the US is a decentralized one that takes into account the unique geography and population distribution. Move the efficiencies out to the edges, electric vehicles, rooftop solar, small scale nuclear, more fibre rollout for remote working, incentives for local farms and land management. Work with the existing infrastructure and culture rather than against it and you'll get a lot further. As far as less cattle and more forest/peat, the US actually had a trend of decreasing agricultural usage and increase in forest cover for most of the last century. Forest cover began to diminish again with increased urbanization and timber cutting so encouraging migration to the regions with the highest population density, the coasts, would further increase deforestation since that's also where the majority of forests are. If you look at maps showing rangeland vs forest and peatland there isn't much overlap in the US, it turns out the best cattle producing areas in the US are those that were already grassland to begin with, go figure.
    - CalRobert 7y ago
      "That's both sad and funny that you think all of those things are possible in the same location in the US." I don't think it's possible in the US. It's why I left the US. Sadly, the US makes it illegal to build what I describe. "huge economic incentives..." Change zoning laws to allow high density building near transit. SB50 in California for instance. It's pretty obvious people _want_ more homes like this since the cost of living in places like this is already astronomical. Not sure what incentives you need when people are already paying insane amounts to enjoy living like this? Finally, nothing in my comment referenced the US.
- credit_guy 7y ago
  It is possible. In a few days Tesla will hold its "Battery day". Some people [1] expect them to announce a $100/kWh battery. If this happens, and with further future battery cost reductions, the ground transportation will shift from gasoline to electric in a matter of 10-15 years. Solar and wind power generation are on a tear. California only has installed 27 GW of solar power generation and will install an additional 15 GW in the next 5 years [2]. There's a chance some nuclear power generation will come into the mix. More people will move to higher density urban areas, and will reduce their carbon footprint. After Covid19, more work will be done from home, more conferences will be virtual, leading to reduced transportation. With some luck, we will have synthetic meat in the not so distant future, which should lead to substantial agricultural emissions reductions. And we should be planting trees. Trees are nice. [1] https://cleantechnica.com/2020/04/15/what-will-tesla-tell-us-on-battery-day/ https://cleantechnica.com/2020/04/15/what-will-tesla-tell-us... [2] https://www.seia.org/state-solar-policy/california-solar https://www.seia.org/state-solar-policy/california-solar
  - s1artibartfast 7y ago
    I think your rationale overemphasizes transportation, which is a minor part of our carbon footprint
    - credit_guy 7y ago
      Not according to the EPA [1]. In the US, transportation accounts for 28% of greenhouse emissions, and 82% of that (i.e. 23% of the total) from road vehicles [2]. If you could convert all of them to net zero vehicles in 10 years, that would be 2.3% emissions reduction per year. Not the full 4% needed, but not too shabby either. [1] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... [2] https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-...
- marcosdumay 7y ago
  It's very obviously not possible to get there by cutting consumption. It has been for a while, but that is all that is allowed into political discourses... probably because the anti-humanity "green" movement is so loud. It is also very obviously possible to solve the problem.

mysterydip 7y ago

So if everyone staying home and only driving when necessary* only reduces emissions a fraction of what's necessary, is it even possible? *I know not everyone is staying home

pteraspidomorph 7y ago
There are a lot of major emissions sources not very affected (or even negatively affected) by people staying home, such as fossil fuel power plants, cargo ships and trucks, cattle farming, certain industries, etc.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
CalRobert 7y ago
Move somehere you can ride a bike, walk, or take electrified transport, heat and cool your extremely efficient NZEB timber-frame home with a solar or wind-fuelled heat pump, eat little meat (restore the grazing land to peatland, forest, etc. too), have 2 or fewer children, and take holidays via rail instead of plane, and you're mostly there.
- pharke 7y ago
  That's both sad and funny that you think all of those things are possible in the same location in the US. I count 4 major infrastructure projects and 3 massive tax incentives that would need to be implemented in order to convince most people to do all of that. Not possible nation wide within a time frame of less than 30 years. Suggesting the majority of a large country's population move to regions where this is possible is also a non-starter without huge economic incentives and would have many unintended side effects due to depopulation of some areas and massive immigration to other areas. The only approach I see working in the US is a decentralized one that takes into account the unique geography and population distribution. Move the efficiencies out to the edges, electric vehicles, rooftop solar, small scale nuclear, more fibre rollout for remote working, incentives for local farms and land management. Work with the existing infrastructure and culture rather than against it and you'll get a lot further. As far as less cattle and more forest/peat, the US actually had a trend of decreasing agricultural usage and increase in forest cover for most of the last century. Forest cover began to diminish again with increased urbanization and timber cutting so encouraging migration to the regions with the highest population density, the coasts, would further increase deforestation since that's also where the majority of forests are. If you look at maps showing rangeland vs forest and peatland there isn't much overlap in the US, it turns out the best cattle producing areas in the US are those that were already grassland to begin with, go figure.
  - CalRobert 7y ago
    "That's both sad and funny that you think all of those things are possible in the same location in the US." I don't think it's possible in the US. It's why I left the US. Sadly, the US makes it illegal to build what I describe. "huge economic incentives..." Change zoning laws to allow high density building near transit. SB50 in California for instance. It's pretty obvious people _want_ more homes like this since the cost of living in places like this is already astronomical. Not sure what incentives you need when people are already paying insane amounts to enjoy living like this? Finally, nothing in my comment referenced the US.
credit_guy 7y ago
It is possible. In a few days Tesla will hold its "Battery day". Some people [1] expect them to announce a $100/kWh battery. If this happens, and with further future battery cost reductions, the ground transportation will shift from gasoline to electric in a matter of 10-15 years. Solar and wind power generation are on a tear. California only has installed 27 GW of solar power generation and will install an additional 15 GW in the next 5 years [2]. There's a chance some nuclear power generation will come into the mix. More people will move to higher density urban areas, and will reduce their carbon footprint. After Covid19, more work will be done from home, more conferences will be virtual, leading to reduced transportation. With some luck, we will have synthetic meat in the not so distant future, which should lead to substantial agricultural emissions reductions. And we should be planting trees. Trees are nice. [1] https://cleantechnica.com/2020/04/15/what-will-tesla-tell-us-on-battery-day/ https://cleantechnica.com/2020/04/15/what-will-tesla-tell-us... [2] https://www.seia.org/state-solar-policy/california-solar https://www.seia.org/state-solar-policy/california-solar
- s1artibartfast 7y ago
  I think your rationale overemphasizes transportation, which is a minor part of our carbon footprint
  - credit_guy 7y ago
    Not according to the EPA [1]. In the US, transportation accounts for 28% of greenhouse emissions, and 82% of that (i.e. 23% of the total) from road vehicles [2]. If you could convert all of them to net zero vehicles in 10 years, that would be 2.3% emissions reduction per year. Not the full 4% needed, but not too shabby either. [1] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... [2] https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-...
marcosdumay 7y ago
It's very obviously not possible to get there by cutting consumption. It has been for a while, but that is all that is allowed into political discourses... probably because the anti-humanity "green" movement is so loud. It is also very obviously possible to solve the problem.