4 ms·

@epistasis In response to this point, which is frequently brought up: > The chart I linked is CO2 accounting based on consumption, not US production, it takes

@epistasis In response to this point, which is frequently brought up: > The chart I linked is CO2 accounting based on consumption, not US production, it takes into account Chinese emissions for US consumption. While it is certainly the case that measuring consumption is much better than measuring production, it fails to account for a lot emissions. For example in the manufacture of solar PV, the solar panels themselves are counted, but since the companies manufacturing and processing the silicon need for these are in China selling to other Chinese companies, that is not counted even though all those fossil fuels used are used exclusively for the benefit of American companies. That doesn't even address the issue of US companies bringing in capital for various foreign investments. If VCs make money in a Chinese company and then reinvest in your startup that money in our economy was generated with fossil fuels. The best proxy to GHG emissions is still dollars, both on individual and nation state levels. > Will you admit that we have cleaner energy sources ready to deploy that will replace fossil fuels, if we choose to do so? This is not an issue of willing. "Green" energy has only been used to supplement fossil fuel usage. Year over year global usage of every fossil fuel, of every source of energy for that matter has continue to increase: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-substitution?country=~OWID_WRL https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-substitutio... Renewables are feeding a greater part of our electrical grid in the US but are still a tiny part of our energy budget: https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/assets/images/charts/Energy/Energy_2020_United-States.png https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/assets/images/charts/Ene... We are building renewables as fast as we can and it's not enough because so far it's not replacing anything. The only way to reduced GHG emission is to reduce fossil fuel usage, immediately. We've made tremendous expansion of renewable energy and it has not touched fossil fuel usage. If we stop fossil fuel usage today, or drastically reduce it, we will experience incredible global economic pangs. > nihilism is as bad as denialism There is an important form of Nihilism that many existentialists talk about which is the nihilism of pretending your action had meaning. Putting on a tie and going to work, pretending that work is real and meaningful when you know that ultimately your life is meaningless. There's a great irony that if everyone collectively agreed we are doomed, our economic activity and emissions would likely also cool down. Our frenzied consumer activity is driven by an ideology that says tomorrow will always be better. If we let go of that we likely would live more relaxed lives in the developed world. And, again, all I am saying is the only way to reduce GHG is to globally reduce emissions and we are not doing that at all. You can claim that the US is somehow separate from China's emissions, but you can see a global dip in emissions in 2008. I can think of no better experiment on the interconnected nature of emissions than to see how a housing crisis in the US becomes a global economic down turn which sees the most promising drop in emissions we have ever seen. Arguably the only other solution is accelerationism, where we push economic systems to collapse faster... which is maybe what you're really going for.

epistasis 5y ago
> For example in the manufacture of solar PV, the solar panels themselves are counted, but since the companies manufacturing and processing the silicon need for these are in China selling to other Chinese companies, that is not counted even though all those fossil fuels used are used exclusively for the benefit of American companies. This is simply inaccurate. US consumption CO2 numbers account for US purchase of solar panels. Though I appreciate that there are some link here, you are still making backwards-looking statements rather than stating limitations about what could be. For example, this link: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-substitution?country=~OWID_WRL https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-substitutio... Is of what was in terms of energy. Will it be that way in the future? Only if we let corruption and entrenched fossil fuel interests prevent cheaper options from being deployed. Renewable expansion is just barely getting started. To declare "game over" already is fatalism and not founded by any sort of data. Dollars are not CO2 emissions. CO2 is emissions. Our economic systems are constructed by law and convention, and technology is completely changeable. I see lots of feelings and emotions in your post about frenzy, but we need all that frenzy. We need action and change, desperately. Economic collapse will not save us, because emitting 25% of our current emissions is not good enough. The only solution is compete transition of the economy in all sectors. Massive change. I say get on board or get out of the way.
- baron_harkonnen 5y ago
  > US consumption CO2 numbers account for US purchase of solar panels. That's what I said, but they don't account for the manufacture of raw materials produced and sold in China to aid in the manufacture of these panels, nor of the associated infrastructure causes. They therefore underestimate the export co2. > Is of what was in terms of energy. Will it be that way in the future? Only if we let corruption and entrenched fossil fuel interests prevent cheaper options from being deployed. Energy is effectively the same as economic activity. You are correct that if we could magically replace all of the fossil fuel usage with renewables we would be at zero emissions. But again, all sources of energy production have been rising. > Dollars are not CO2 emissions. CO2 is emissions. Our economic systems are constructed by law and convention, and technology is completely changeable. Again you are correct that dollars are not CO2 emissions, but dollars are a good proxy for energy (read Smil's Energy and Civilization if you need a reference for that), and currently the vast majority of our energy needs are met with CO2 emitting fuel sources. > The only solution is compete transition of the economy in all sectors. Massive change. I say get on board or get out of the way. Do you really not see the contradiction regarding the problem at hand and your solution? A complete transition of the economy is a incredibly destructive, insanely energy intensive process. Unless energy was already mostly renewable such a solution will only lead to the problem being worse. I guess I'll get out of the way since this conversation has only further convinced me of how bleak our situation is.

epistasis 5y ago

> For example in the manufacture of solar PV, the solar panels themselves are counted, but since the companies manufacturing and processing the silicon need for these are in China selling to other Chinese companies, that is not counted even though all those fossil fuels used are used exclusively for the benefit of American companies. This is simply inaccurate. US consumption CO2 numbers account for US purchase of solar panels. Though I appreciate that there are some link here, you are still making backwards-looking statements rather than stating limitations about what could be. For example, this link: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-substitution?country=~OWID_WRL https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-substitutio... Is of what was in terms of energy. Will it be that way in the future? Only if we let corruption and entrenched fossil fuel interests prevent cheaper options from being deployed. Renewable expansion is just barely getting started. To declare "game over" already is fatalism and not founded by any sort of data. Dollars are not CO2 emissions. CO2 is emissions. Our economic systems are constructed by law and convention, and technology is completely changeable. I see lots of feelings and emotions in your post about frenzy, but we need all that frenzy. We need action and change, desperately. Economic collapse will not save us, because emitting 25% of our current emissions is not good enough. The only solution is compete transition of the economy in all sectors. Massive change. I say get on board or get out of the way.

baron_harkonnen 5y ago
> US consumption CO2 numbers account for US purchase of solar panels. That's what I said, but they don't account for the manufacture of raw materials produced and sold in China to aid in the manufacture of these panels, nor of the associated infrastructure causes. They therefore underestimate the export co2. > Is of what was in terms of energy. Will it be that way in the future? Only if we let corruption and entrenched fossil fuel interests prevent cheaper options from being deployed. Energy is effectively the same as economic activity. You are correct that if we could magically replace all of the fossil fuel usage with renewables we would be at zero emissions. But again, all sources of energy production have been rising. > Dollars are not CO2 emissions. CO2 is emissions. Our economic systems are constructed by law and convention, and technology is completely changeable. Again you are correct that dollars are not CO2 emissions, but dollars are a good proxy for energy (read Smil's Energy and Civilization if you need a reference for that), and currently the vast majority of our energy needs are met with CO2 emitting fuel sources. > The only solution is compete transition of the economy in all sectors. Massive change. I say get on board or get out of the way. Do you really not see the contradiction regarding the problem at hand and your solution? A complete transition of the economy is a incredibly destructive, insanely energy intensive process. Unless energy was already mostly renewable such a solution will only lead to the problem being worse. I guess I'll get out of the way since this conversation has only further convinced me of how bleak our situation is.