3 ms·

The West has been consuming fossils to fuel their industrial revolution for centuries, but now that is time of the East to use energy and grow, we tell them tha

The West has been consuming fossils to fuel their industrial revolution for centuries, but now that is time of the East to use energy and grow, we tell them that energy is bad for the environment and that they have to pay tax or buy expensive energy (renewables)

stavros 5y ago
We don't tell them they have to pay, we tell everyone that we should all pay. Your reasoning is just "we benefitted from X bad thing in the past so now we should let others do it too".
- whatever1 5y ago
  It's easy to point your finger and say that "we are in this together" when you are in a position of power.
  - stavros 5y ago
    It's hard not to when the planet is dying.
rootusrootus 5y ago
So we should be okay with the massive pollution now because they're entitled to it because we did it in the past? I think it would be better for developing countries to try and skip as much of the dirty bits as possible and leapfrog to the best we can get from modern technology.
- whatever1 5y ago
  I think that every country deserves a fair opportunity to grow with cheap energy. We took advantage of it, and in the process we created huge externalities. We should clean after our mess first and then try to lecture the developing countries.
  - RHSeeger 5y ago
    By that exact same logic, the next generation of people in every country should be allowed to use as much polluting energy as the last one, because the established generation did so and they are the developing generation.
    - Qwertious 5y ago
      By the same logic, the next generation of people should have access to the same intact climate as the last one. Obviously though, you can't have both. The difference here is that rich countries are rich, and can afford to take on the extra financial burden via the very same finances that they obtained via cheap energy.
bosswipe 5y ago
Yes it's extremely unfair that the West used up what turned out to be the planet's entire carbon budget. But it doesn't change the fact that humanity has to stop emitting carbon.
derriz 5y ago
Where do you get the idea that renewables are expensive energy? Utility scale onshore wind and solar PV are the cheapest form of generation[1] by a long shot. And because of this, 90% of the global electricity generation capacity added in 2020 was renewable. There wasn't a single coal burning power plant built in the US last year, despite political support for coal - it's just too uneconomic. This isn't coercion, taxes or anything - it's simple economics and it's happening everywhere - developed and developing countries. Using old/outdated technology doesn't fuel growth in developing countries. Just because the industrial revolution in the west was powered by coal and steam engines, doesn't mean it makes any sense for a modern developing country to start building steam engines to power a manufacturing base. [1] https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2020/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
- whatever1 5y ago
  Lazard's analysis is bad at best, but that is a separate discussion. The main issue is that renewables have huge upfront capital costs combined with 0 storage &transportation capabilities (cannot put your wind energy in a tank). Of course these are not issues for the West, but I don't know how you can go to an isolated Indian village and tell them that they need to spit 20k per household to install solar panels. Combustible fuels are pay as you go. Want heat tonight? Use some wood just for tonight. Want to move your motorcycle? You need only a jug of gasoline.
  - derriz 5y ago
    What do you mean the analysis is "bad"? It's widely referenced and they explain their methodology in detail and their data sources. If there's an aspect of the methodology you think is bad, I'd be interested in hearing it. Their results are pretty much in line with other independent studies of the same thing. I don't understand why you'd compare the capital cost of utility scale electricity generation against that for a wood burning domestic stove or a small motorcycle. Isolated Indian villages are not expected to fund utility scale electricity generation? I mean you could try to argue that candles are better than solar-powered flash-lights, I guess? But I don't see the relevance. The fact is that for utility scale electricity generation, the combination of solar PV or onshore wind with idling peaker natural gas capacity blows all the competition out of the water in terms of cost. The only thermal generation currently viable in the modern world is combined-cycle gas and even then it's unlikely to maintain touching distance in a world where wind turbines continue to fall in price by 10% a year while PV panels are falling at an even faster rate. You just have to look at what's actually happening globally - both developed and developing world. Like I said 90% of worldwide newly installed grid scale generation capacity added in 2020 was renewable. The simplest explanation for this is the one which agrees with all the analysis from various sources - it's happening because it's far cheaper.
duxup 5y ago
The consequences don't really change regardless of how you read history.

stavros 5y ago

We don't tell them they have to pay, we tell everyone that we should all pay. Your reasoning is just "we benefitted from X bad thing in the past so now we should let others do it too".

whatever1 5y ago
It's easy to point your finger and say that "we are in this together" when you are in a position of power.
- stavros 5y ago
  It's hard not to when the planet is dying.

rootusrootus 5y ago

So we should be okay with the massive pollution now because they're entitled to it because we did it in the past? I think it would be better for developing countries to try and skip as much of the dirty bits as possible and leapfrog to the best we can get from modern technology.

whatever1 5y ago
I think that every country deserves a fair opportunity to grow with cheap energy. We took advantage of it, and in the process we created huge externalities. We should clean after our mess first and then try to lecture the developing countries.
- RHSeeger 5y ago
  By that exact same logic, the next generation of people in every country should be allowed to use as much polluting energy as the last one, because the established generation did so and they are the developing generation.
  - Qwertious 5y ago
    By the same logic, the next generation of people should have access to the same intact climate as the last one. Obviously though, you can't have both. The difference here is that rich countries are rich, and can afford to take on the extra financial burden via the very same finances that they obtained via cheap energy.

bosswipe 5y ago

Yes it's extremely unfair that the West used up what turned out to be the planet's entire carbon budget. But it doesn't change the fact that humanity has to stop emitting carbon.

derriz 5y ago

Where do you get the idea that renewables are expensive energy? Utility scale onshore wind and solar PV are the cheapest form of generation[1] by a long shot. And because of this, 90% of the global electricity generation capacity added in 2020 was renewable. There wasn't a single coal burning power plant built in the US last year, despite political support for coal - it's just too uneconomic. This isn't coercion, taxes or anything - it's simple economics and it's happening everywhere - developed and developing countries. Using old/outdated technology doesn't fuel growth in developing countries. Just because the industrial revolution in the west was powered by coal and steam engines, doesn't mean it makes any sense for a modern developing country to start building steam engines to power a manufacturing base. [1] https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2020/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...

whatever1 5y ago
Lazard's analysis is bad at best, but that is a separate discussion. The main issue is that renewables have huge upfront capital costs combined with 0 storage &transportation capabilities (cannot put your wind energy in a tank). Of course these are not issues for the West, but I don't know how you can go to an isolated Indian village and tell them that they need to spit 20k per household to install solar panels. Combustible fuels are pay as you go. Want heat tonight? Use some wood just for tonight. Want to move your motorcycle? You need only a jug of gasoline.
- derriz 5y ago
  What do you mean the analysis is "bad"? It's widely referenced and they explain their methodology in detail and their data sources. If there's an aspect of the methodology you think is bad, I'd be interested in hearing it. Their results are pretty much in line with other independent studies of the same thing. I don't understand why you'd compare the capital cost of utility scale electricity generation against that for a wood burning domestic stove or a small motorcycle. Isolated Indian villages are not expected to fund utility scale electricity generation? I mean you could try to argue that candles are better than solar-powered flash-lights, I guess? But I don't see the relevance. The fact is that for utility scale electricity generation, the combination of solar PV or onshore wind with idling peaker natural gas capacity blows all the competition out of the water in terms of cost. The only thermal generation currently viable in the modern world is combined-cycle gas and even then it's unlikely to maintain touching distance in a world where wind turbines continue to fall in price by 10% a year while PV panels are falling at an even faster rate. You just have to look at what's actually happening globally - both developed and developing world. Like I said 90% of worldwide newly installed grid scale generation capacity added in 2020 was renewable. The simplest explanation for this is the one which agrees with all the analysis from various sources - it's happening because it's far cheaper.

duxup 5y ago

The consequences don't really change regardless of how you read history.