3 ms·

It seems the only sector that can't be decarbonized radically are transport and agriculture, mostly because airplanes and freight transport. That leaves us abou

by dsign 5y ago

It seems the only sector that can't be decarbonized radically are transport and agriculture, mostly because airplanes and freight transport. That leaves us about 30% of carbon emissions today[1]. According to those numbers, carbon capture is going to be needed, but nowhere with the same priority than clean energy. A high-priority item for the environment is simply education, since voters are pushing strongly against clean energy ("wind turbines kill birds", "nuclear plants go Chernobyl", "electric cars are expensive|auto-update like Windows and brick on you|have no turbo", "batteries are worse for the environment than fossil fuels"). [1]: https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector

rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
>It seems the only sector that can't be decarbonized radically are transport and agriculture Agriculture can significantly be decarbonized if we stop eating meat (or radically reduce consumption)[0]. It would also significantly help with biodiversity loss, which is becoming a bigger and more pressing issue than climate change. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_p... [1] https://ipbes.net/sites/default/files/2021-06/20210609_workshop_report_embargo_3pm_CEST_10_june_0.pdf https://ipbes.net/sites/default/files/2021-06/20210609_works...
carry_bit 5y ago
It's not carbon emissions that are directly the problem, but rather the emission of fossil carbon into the biosphere. Hydrocarbon fuels and the like can be produced from carbon already in the biosphere.
jtr1 5y ago
> A high-priority item for the environment is simply education, since voters are pushing strongly against clean energy ("wind turbines kill birds", "nuclear plants go Chernobyl", "electric cars are expensive|auto-update like Windows and brick on you|have no turbo", "batteries are worse for the environment than fossil fuels"). Lack of media representation seems like a widely under-attacked problem. Look at the number adults who say they hear about climate change in the media at least once a week, the numbers are abysmal: https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/yc...
gpvos 5y ago
Which parts of agriculture cannot stop using fossil fuels? As for transport, the only thing that cannot run on (hopefully green) electricity using current technology is long-haul flights, which frankly we can do without; just go back to using ships and use videoconferencing for the rest.
- pjc50 5y ago
  CO2-to-jetfuel is possible. CO2 and agriculture tends to be a matter of accounting; cows emit methane, as do a lot of decay processes. From a practical point of view farmers who are on subsidized diesel already will probably be the last to change. Nitrogen fertilizer can be made renewably. The nonrenewability of phosphorous and potassium deposits may be more of a problem.
pjc50 5y ago
> simply education, since voters are pushing strongly against clean energy This isn't a matter of education, it's a matter of duelling propaganda systems. You can't just dismiss the problems, they have to be presented in a balanced context along with solutions. > "wind turbines kill birds" True but needs the massive qualifier that this isn't a big impact on bird populations compared to habitat loss, domestic cats and even glass buildings. > "nuclear plants go Chernobyl" True? Needs the qualifier that, apart from the people in the immediate area, and farmers in Europe who had to destroy produce, the effect wasn't too bad comparatively. > "electric cars are expensive|auto-update like Windows and brick on you" The first is true, hence subsidies in much of the west. For high mileage they are cheaper to run. The second is true for Tesla, but I can see it being expanded even to petrol cars; something of a separate issue. > "batteries are worse for the environment than fossil fuels"). This one is probably false.

by dsign 5y ago

rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago

>It seems the only sector that can't be decarbonized radically are transport and agriculture Agriculture can significantly be decarbonized if we stop eating meat (or radically reduce consumption)[0]. It would also significantly help with biodiversity loss, which is becoming a bigger and more pressing issue than climate change. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_p... [1] https://ipbes.net/sites/default/files/2021-06/20210609_workshop_report_embargo_3pm_CEST_10_june_0.pdf https://ipbes.net/sites/default/files/2021-06/20210609_works...

carry_bit 5y ago

It's not carbon emissions that are directly the problem, but rather the emission of fossil carbon into the biosphere. Hydrocarbon fuels and the like can be produced from carbon already in the biosphere.

jtr1 5y ago

> A high-priority item for the environment is simply education, since voters are pushing strongly against clean energy ("wind turbines kill birds", "nuclear plants go Chernobyl", "electric cars are expensive|auto-update like Windows and brick on you|have no turbo", "batteries are worse for the environment than fossil fuels"). Lack of media representation seems like a widely under-attacked problem. Look at the number adults who say they hear about climate change in the media at least once a week, the numbers are abysmal: https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/yc...

gpvos 5y ago

Which parts of agriculture cannot stop using fossil fuels? As for transport, the only thing that cannot run on (hopefully green) electricity using current technology is long-haul flights, which frankly we can do without; just go back to using ships and use videoconferencing for the rest.

pjc50 5y ago
CO2-to-jetfuel is possible. CO2 and agriculture tends to be a matter of accounting; cows emit methane, as do a lot of decay processes. From a practical point of view farmers who are on subsidized diesel already will probably be the last to change. Nitrogen fertilizer can be made renewably. The nonrenewability of phosphorous and potassium deposits may be more of a problem.

pjc50 5y ago

> simply education, since voters are pushing strongly against clean energy This isn't a matter of education, it's a matter of duelling propaganda systems. You can't just dismiss the problems, they have to be presented in a balanced context along with solutions. > "wind turbines kill birds" True but needs the massive qualifier that this isn't a big impact on bird populations compared to habitat loss, domestic cats and even glass buildings. > "nuclear plants go Chernobyl" True? Needs the qualifier that, apart from the people in the immediate area, and farmers in Europe who had to destroy produce, the effect wasn't too bad comparatively. > "electric cars are expensive|auto-update like Windows and brick on you" The first is true, hence subsidies in much of the west. For high mileage they are cheaper to run. The second is true for Tesla, but I can see it being expanded even to petrol cars; something of a separate issue. > "batteries are worse for the environment than fossil fuels"). This one is probably false.