4 ms·

Strangely, the climate doesn't care at all how many people there are. No matter how much the emissions drop per person, if they're not dropping overall, then no

Strangely, the climate doesn't care at all how many people there are. No matter how much the emissions drop per person, if they're not dropping overall, then no progress has been made. We're in just as bad of a situation as we've ever been. This is no way looks good -- the scale of the problem is so immense, and progress on the only metric that actually matters continues to be non-existent. On a global scale, worldwide production of fossil fuels is not going down. I fail to see any evidence that this is being fixed. Maybe someday the various technologies will converge in a way that fixes the issue -- but I doubt it.

Retric 4y ago
Good thing you’re misinformed. The US released 6.13 Billion tons of CO2 in 2007 down to 5.26 billion tons in 2019. 2020 and 2021 are even lower but that’s from the pandemic. Global trends are more troublesome, but coal peaked in 2013 and it’s use has declined from 44,993 TWH in 2013 to 43,839 in 2019. Anyway, per person numbers are critical for understanding trends. Infrastructure ages, the average US power plant is over 41 years old in 2020. The industry is essentially running off a huge cliff, which is less obvious when you look at year over year production. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/average-age-of-existing-coal-power-plants-in-selected-regions-in-2020 https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/average-age-o... In China on the other hand the average coal power plant is 11, that infrastructure is likely going to be around for decades. Long term the rest of the world is catching up developed economies, but what that meant in 2006 looked much worse than what that means today.
- boplicity 4y ago
  > Global trends are more troublesome That's exactly my point. It doesn't matter if one country becomes completely carbon neutral. We're screwed anyways if oil extraction continues unabated. It's easy to play around with different numbers to find ones that are favorable, but you can't hide the fact that fossil fuel extraction hasn't gone down. Unless it rapidly slows, and then stops, we're screwed, no matter which countries emit less carbon. And no matter which populations are more "efficient."
  - Retric 4y ago
    It very much matters if the former #1 CO2 producer slows down. Look back at predictions from say 1990 or even 2000 and global CO2 emissions are much lower than predicted. That is progress. Climate change is cumulative so both reducing past emissions, reducing growth in emissions, and slowing down future emissions matter, but the sooner you start the less rapid the change needs to be. That’s especially true when for example old cars are exported to developing countries. Those hybrids people bought in 2010 are going to end up in South America, Africa, India etc.
    - boplicity 4y ago
      > It very much matters if the former #1 CO2 producer slows down. That's where I'm quite skeptical. I'm very doubtful that overall fossil fuel extraction will decrease. This is a worldwide problem. The climate is affected by the global level of fossil fuel use, not by the amount released by individual countries. The extraction rate is still at or near record highs (worldwide). Will it slow down? Maybe? However, it seems unlikely, given the political and economic cost necessary to actually make a real dent. Governments just aren't taking the problem as seriously as they should.
      - Retric 4y ago
        I agree that it’s a worldwide problem. My point was simply individual countries slowing down is necessary even if it’s not sufficient to solve the problem. Where I see real progress globally is more efficient processes release less CO2 so there are economic incentives even if governments do nothing. India isn’t building solar farms to look green, they are building solar farms to save money. That means even more economies of scale and thus more solar farms. As these trends continue eventually fossil fuels lose economies of scale. That’s by far a more realistic path to success than every single government making wise long term policy decisions. Will that be fast enough is kind of an arbitrary metric, it’s not going to be as fast as possible but it will avert the worst possibilities.

Retric 4y ago

Good thing you’re misinformed. The US released 6.13 Billion tons of CO2 in 2007 down to 5.26 billion tons in 2019. 2020 and 2021 are even lower but that’s from the pandemic. Global trends are more troublesome, but coal peaked in 2013 and it’s use has declined from 44,993 TWH in 2013 to 43,839 in 2019. Anyway, per person numbers are critical for understanding trends. Infrastructure ages, the average US power plant is over 41 years old in 2020. The industry is essentially running off a huge cliff, which is less obvious when you look at year over year production. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/average-age-of-existing-coal-power-plants-in-selected-regions-in-2020 https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/average-age-o... In China on the other hand the average coal power plant is 11, that infrastructure is likely going to be around for decades. Long term the rest of the world is catching up developed economies, but what that meant in 2006 looked much worse than what that means today.

boplicity 4y ago
> Global trends are more troublesome That's exactly my point. It doesn't matter if one country becomes completely carbon neutral. We're screwed anyways if oil extraction continues unabated. It's easy to play around with different numbers to find ones that are favorable, but you can't hide the fact that fossil fuel extraction hasn't gone down. Unless it rapidly slows, and then stops, we're screwed, no matter which countries emit less carbon. And no matter which populations are more "efficient."
- Retric 4y ago
  It very much matters if the former #1 CO2 producer slows down. Look back at predictions from say 1990 or even 2000 and global CO2 emissions are much lower than predicted. That is progress. Climate change is cumulative so both reducing past emissions, reducing growth in emissions, and slowing down future emissions matter, but the sooner you start the less rapid the change needs to be. That’s especially true when for example old cars are exported to developing countries. Those hybrids people bought in 2010 are going to end up in South America, Africa, India etc.
  - boplicity 4y ago
    > It very much matters if the former #1 CO2 producer slows down. That's where I'm quite skeptical. I'm very doubtful that overall fossil fuel extraction will decrease. This is a worldwide problem. The climate is affected by the global level of fossil fuel use, not by the amount released by individual countries. The extraction rate is still at or near record highs (worldwide). Will it slow down? Maybe? However, it seems unlikely, given the political and economic cost necessary to actually make a real dent. Governments just aren't taking the problem as seriously as they should.
    - Retric 4y ago
      I agree that it’s a worldwide problem. My point was simply individual countries slowing down is necessary even if it’s not sufficient to solve the problem. Where I see real progress globally is more efficient processes release less CO2 so there are economic incentives even if governments do nothing. India isn’t building solar farms to look green, they are building solar farms to save money. That means even more economies of scale and thus more solar farms. As these trends continue eventually fossil fuels lose economies of scale. That’s by far a more realistic path to success than every single government making wise long term policy decisions. Will that be fast enough is kind of an arbitrary metric, it’s not going to be as fast as possible but it will avert the worst possibilities.