4 ms·

Much easier to make large cuts when you're on a completely different level to to begin with. Replacing coal with natural gas and patting yourself your back bec

Much easier to make large cuts when you're on a completely different level to to begin with. Replacing coal with natural gas and patting yourself your back because you made such a contribution while locking in another 30 years of fossil energy use is beyond me. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart&stackMode=absolute&country=CHN~EU-27~FRA~DEU~GBR~USA~CAN~AUS~SWE&region=World https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?t...

jrumbut 6y ago
I read the article as spanking Germany rather than patting the US on the back. I would summarize the argument as the German effort was so misguided it had a proportionally similar effect as the US non-effort. Edit: and therefore Germany is not an example for the US to emulate. As for me, I've been against shutting down working nuclear reactors, but I don't feel qualified to decide on the other components of the plan.
- Gwypaas 6y ago
  I think what's missing is the difficulty. The US did a purely economic side step led by the fracking boom with a coincidental effect being less emissions. The next step following is where it becomes interesting, because now it's not easy, you can't just burn oil better and be done with it. Germany took a lot of the cost of the early investment enabling large scale manufacturing of PV and wind power. Sure that is inefficient compared to doing nothing, but this investment is what we're riding on today when LCOE of renewables are lower than both nuclear and fossil energy.
woodpanel 6y ago
"Much easier to make large cuts when you're on a completely different level to to begin with" The author uses percentages. Both countries starting and endpoints are relatively close. How is it mathematically possible to call that "completely different level to to begin with"?
- Gwypaas 6y ago
  Look at the graph I linked. Burning oil more efficiently is easy when you start from coal and emit tons more, real change is hard. Compare to Sweden, less than 1/4 the CO2 emissions compared to the US, and an almost completely carbon free electric infrastructure. Getting another 10% is extremely hard, because all the easy options have already been exercised. Three glass windows, district heating, energy requirements for new builds, high gas taxes, car ownership taxes depending on CO2 emissions. All done. The final emissions are much harder questions, electric cars and public transport is the next. My town is converting over 30 bus lines to electric just this month, that is a hard change with large investments. Pilot programs started in 2013, now it's workable at a larger scale. They're starting a pilot program on steel manufacturing using green hydrogen from electrolysis where electrical ovens isn't possible, that is a hard change with completely new challenges. As said, real change is hard. Converting coal to gas and locking in another 30-40 years of fossil fuel is not real change.

jrumbut 6y ago

I read the article as spanking Germany rather than patting the US on the back. I would summarize the argument as the German effort was so misguided it had a proportionally similar effect as the US non-effort. Edit: and therefore Germany is not an example for the US to emulate. As for me, I've been against shutting down working nuclear reactors, but I don't feel qualified to decide on the other components of the plan.

Gwypaas 6y ago
I think what's missing is the difficulty. The US did a purely economic side step led by the fracking boom with a coincidental effect being less emissions. The next step following is where it becomes interesting, because now it's not easy, you can't just burn oil better and be done with it. Germany took a lot of the cost of the early investment enabling large scale manufacturing of PV and wind power. Sure that is inefficient compared to doing nothing, but this investment is what we're riding on today when LCOE of renewables are lower than both nuclear and fossil energy.

woodpanel 6y ago

"Much easier to make large cuts when you're on a completely different level to to begin with" The author uses percentages. Both countries starting and endpoints are relatively close. How is it mathematically possible to call that "completely different level to to begin with"?

Gwypaas 6y ago
Look at the graph I linked. Burning oil more efficiently is easy when you start from coal and emit tons more, real change is hard. Compare to Sweden, less than 1/4 the CO2 emissions compared to the US, and an almost completely carbon free electric infrastructure. Getting another 10% is extremely hard, because all the easy options have already been exercised. Three glass windows, district heating, energy requirements for new builds, high gas taxes, car ownership taxes depending on CO2 emissions. All done. The final emissions are much harder questions, electric cars and public transport is the next. My town is converting over 30 bus lines to electric just this month, that is a hard change with large investments. Pilot programs started in 2013, now it's workable at a larger scale. They're starting a pilot program on steel manufacturing using green hydrogen from electrolysis where electrical ovens isn't possible, that is a hard change with completely new challenges. As said, real change is hard. Converting coal to gas and locking in another 30-40 years of fossil fuel is not real change.