4 ms·

This is the collision between imperfect (but working) versus perfect (but not working). It's more important to get emissions down now than to aim for a perfect

This is the collision between imperfect (but working) versus perfect (but not working). It's more important to get emissions down now than to aim for a perfect standard that no one has yet reached, and doesn't appear reachable any time soon. The emissions matter, not the goals of activist NGOs. This cuts emissions, that's why it qualified. Results > ideology.

hnbad 5y ago
Sure, and if you ask German conservatives lignite is practically green energy too. From an environmental point of view the biggest mistake was to cut down on the development and production of nuclear plants because now it's too late to just bet on pivoting to nuclear if we still want to reach literally any of the climate goals. But more fossil fuels are not the answer. The most effective way to cut emissions at this point is to reduce energy use, but there is no economical incentive for the industry to do so and you can only go so far by shaming consumers. There is political capital in talking about overconsumption. There is no political capital in talking about overproduction. EDIT: The original slogan for recycling was "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" but you there's no money in reducing (not "buy electric" or "buy low-energy" but literally not buying) or reusing (not "buy second hand" or "buy refurbished", literally using what you already have).
- m4rtink 5y ago
  How do you remove all the extra CO2 no to mention cleanup all the various toxoc waste sites while reducing energy consumption?
DennisP 5y ago
Gas cuts emissions if you're only looking at CO2, but accounting for methane leaks it has about the same climate impact as coal.
- Wolfenstein98k 5y ago
  I see this criticism every now and then but surely it can't be that simple, that all the professionals are just forgetting methane. The argument reminds me of "sceptics" who appeal to "the effect of the sun cycles", as I'd climate scientists wouldn't have thought of that.
  - DennisP 5y ago
    What do you mean by "all the professionals?" There have been a lot of studies on this. There are plenty of lobbyists and politicians who would like you to think it's not a problem, but climate scientists are well aware of it. Aside from that, we need net zero by 2050 and building new gas plants that will last longer than 30 years is not helpful for that.
    - Wolfenstein98k 5y ago
      "We need net zero by 2050" is completely arbitrary. New gas plants ARE helpful for cutting emissions if you compare it to the most likely alternative (eg coal). It's only NOT helpful if you compare it to utopia. If you could reliably assume that there will be net zero otherwise, then you wouldn't need to worry about these gas plants would you? They'd be shuttered soon anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
      - DennisP 5y ago
        Yes it is fairly arbitrary. With a bit of googling, looks like a fair number of climate scientists call it "too little too late"[1] and "a dangerous trap" on the grounds that we can't put things off that long[2]. Combined with the benefits of gas being much less than advertised due to leakage, it seems reckless to build new fossil plants of any sort, since we have alternative energy sources that don't emit at all. That's not utopian, it's just the rational direction to take right now. [1] https://www.ccag.earth/newsroom/net-zero-by-2050-is-too-little-too-late-world-leading-scientists-urge-global-leaders-to-focus-on-net-negative-strategies https://www.ccag.earth/newsroom/net-zero-by-2050-is-too-litt... [2] https://theconversation.com/climate-scientists-concept-of-net-zero-is-a-dangerous-trap-157368 https://theconversation.com/climate-scientists-concept-of-ne...
ahevia 5y ago
Adding more methane(or any GHG) doesn’t cut emissions. That’s why it doesn’t qualify Results > ideology Snark aside we have already have low/no emission energy alternatives. Nuclear, wind, and solar. No need to pretend that gas is part of that group.
- Wolfenstein98k 5y ago
  I'd prefer nuclear, but it's on the way down in popularity - which is a tragedy for the globe.
tonmoy 5y ago
Even if gas leaks were not a thing, this pulls away resources from greener technologies. If we start building gas power plants it’ll take almost 50 years before they can be retired, and emitting even reduced CO2 for 50 years is not an option we have. Counterintuitively it may be better to keep burning coal for 20 more years in old plants and then switch to fully renewable (or nuclear)
- driverdan 5y ago
  Coal plants can be retrofitted to use natural gas. This is a good short term improvement while lower emissions alternatives are built.
  - tonmoy 5y ago
    Yes, I agree, but if you read the original article EU is thinking about marking new gas powered plants as green
xondono 5y ago
EU has a massive problem of dysfunctional regulations, this just adds more to the mix. As the obvious example, the EU leader in solar is Germany, while solar is almost non existent in Spain. Spain by contrast has a lot of wind turbines in spots with poor/mediocre generation availability.

hnbad 5y ago

Sure, and if you ask German conservatives lignite is practically green energy too. From an environmental point of view the biggest mistake was to cut down on the development and production of nuclear plants because now it's too late to just bet on pivoting to nuclear if we still want to reach literally any of the climate goals. But more fossil fuels are not the answer. The most effective way to cut emissions at this point is to reduce energy use, but there is no economical incentive for the industry to do so and you can only go so far by shaming consumers. There is political capital in talking about overconsumption. There is no political capital in talking about overproduction. EDIT: The original slogan for recycling was "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" but you there's no money in reducing (not "buy electric" or "buy low-energy" but literally not buying) or reusing (not "buy second hand" or "buy refurbished", literally using what you already have).

m4rtink 5y ago
How do you remove all the extra CO2 no to mention cleanup all the various toxoc waste sites while reducing energy consumption?

DennisP 5y ago

Gas cuts emissions if you're only looking at CO2, but accounting for methane leaks it has about the same climate impact as coal.

Wolfenstein98k 5y ago
I see this criticism every now and then but surely it can't be that simple, that all the professionals are just forgetting methane. The argument reminds me of "sceptics" who appeal to "the effect of the sun cycles", as I'd climate scientists wouldn't have thought of that.
- DennisP 5y ago
  What do you mean by "all the professionals?" There have been a lot of studies on this. There are plenty of lobbyists and politicians who would like you to think it's not a problem, but climate scientists are well aware of it. Aside from that, we need net zero by 2050 and building new gas plants that will last longer than 30 years is not helpful for that.
  - Wolfenstein98k 5y ago
    "We need net zero by 2050" is completely arbitrary. New gas plants ARE helpful for cutting emissions if you compare it to the most likely alternative (eg coal). It's only NOT helpful if you compare it to utopia. If you could reliably assume that there will be net zero otherwise, then you wouldn't need to worry about these gas plants would you? They'd be shuttered soon anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
    - DennisP 5y ago
      Yes it is fairly arbitrary. With a bit of googling, looks like a fair number of climate scientists call it "too little too late"[1] and "a dangerous trap" on the grounds that we can't put things off that long[2]. Combined with the benefits of gas being much less than advertised due to leakage, it seems reckless to build new fossil plants of any sort, since we have alternative energy sources that don't emit at all. That's not utopian, it's just the rational direction to take right now. [1] https://www.ccag.earth/newsroom/net-zero-by-2050-is-too-little-too-late-world-leading-scientists-urge-global-leaders-to-focus-on-net-negative-strategies https://www.ccag.earth/newsroom/net-zero-by-2050-is-too-litt... [2] https://theconversation.com/climate-scientists-concept-of-net-zero-is-a-dangerous-trap-157368 https://theconversation.com/climate-scientists-concept-of-ne...

ahevia 5y ago

Adding more methane(or any GHG) doesn’t cut emissions. That’s why it doesn’t qualify Results > ideology Snark aside we have already have low/no emission energy alternatives. Nuclear, wind, and solar. No need to pretend that gas is part of that group.

Wolfenstein98k 5y ago
I'd prefer nuclear, but it's on the way down in popularity - which is a tragedy for the globe.

tonmoy 5y ago

Even if gas leaks were not a thing, this pulls away resources from greener technologies. If we start building gas power plants it’ll take almost 50 years before they can be retired, and emitting even reduced CO2 for 50 years is not an option we have. Counterintuitively it may be better to keep burning coal for 20 more years in old plants and then switch to fully renewable (or nuclear)

driverdan 5y ago
Coal plants can be retrofitted to use natural gas. This is a good short term improvement while lower emissions alternatives are built.
- tonmoy 5y ago
  Yes, I agree, but if you read the original article EU is thinking about marking new gas powered plants as green

xondono 5y ago

EU has a massive problem of dysfunctional regulations, this just adds more to the mix. As the obvious example, the EU leader in solar is Germany, while solar is almost non existent in Spain. Spain by contrast has a lot of wind turbines in spots with poor/mediocre generation availability.