9 ms·

This wouldn’t really be necessary if we had cleaner power generation.

bwestergard 4y ago
It's a quantitative question. How much cleaner can each energy source be made, what is a feasible energy mix, and which ecological and climate constraints are we trying to stay within? It seems 2000-watt vision provides realistic answers to these questions that are compatible with an overall improvement in human well being in the developed countries.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Yeah, this talk of 'energy' rather than 'pollution' seems to be growing recently. Presumably some attempt to capitalise on the Russian gas crisis to undermine net zero goals and keep fossil fuels burning a tiny bit longer. This group seems to get it as they're talking about reducing Primary Energy without reducing standard of living (mostly done by "electrifying everything") but I don't think that would be clear to most readers, who will just ignore the "same standard of living bit" and feel they are being oppressed.
- prottog 4y ago
  > most readers, who will just ignore the "same standard of living bit" and feel they are being oppressed. I think this is an uncharitable view, but that aside, is that not a reasonable assumption for "most readers"? This group is exceptional in that they explicitly state maintaining the same standard of living as a goal. In what I know of most modern climate-related discourse, there are very few such mentions.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    No it's not a reasonable assumption. Which specific groups are you aware of that think dealing with climate change by phasing out burning fossil fuels will reduce standards of living? I think you'll find a common funding source behind them.
    - prottog 4y ago
      The proponents of the Green New Deal in the US, for example, rarely mention maintaining or improving the standard of living as an imperative goal of the project, at least from the side of the carrot; there's plenty of talk on the stick side that everyone will have a cataclysmic fall in their standard of living if the status quo stays. For example, House Resolution 109 of the 116th Congress[0] mentions "[ensuring] prosperity and economic security" as an objective, but being sandwiched between "[achieving] net-zero greenhouse gas emissions" and "[promoting] justice and equity" it's difficult to see it as more than hand-waving and one that won't be forfeited for those other goals once the rubber meets the pavement. Bernie Sanders' website on the issue[1] doesn't mention the standard of living at all among the Key Points. AOC's[2] does but in the same way as HR 109, which makes sense given that she was the sponsor behind it. The New York Times explainer[3] on the issue does not even discuss whether the average person's material standard of living will change. The number one goal from all sources is the categorical imperative of going "net-zero" or "100% renewable", without asking or answering the question of "at what cost at the margins" (again, other than the undefined cost of calamity), which is what I'm really interested in addressing; because it's going to be a very hard sell to tell the people of the developed world to scale back on their standard of living, and a great moral injustice to tell the people of the yet-to-be-developed world that they cannot take advantage of cheap, abundant energy sources. [0]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolutio... [1]: https://berniesanders.com/issues/green-new-deal/ https://berniesanders.com/issues/green-new-deal/ [2]: https://www.ocasiocortez.com/green-new-deal https://www.ocasiocortez.com/green-new-deal [3]: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/climate/green-new-deal-questions-answers.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/climate/green-new-deal-qu...
      - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
        It's about six lines in on one of your links that: global warming at or above 2 degrees Celsius beyond preindustrialized levels will cause - * (B) more than $500,000,000,000 in lost annual economic output in the United States by the year 2100; ... other bad stuff.. * (F) a risk of damage to $1,000,000,000,000 of public infrastructure and coastal real estate in the United States Which is just a summary of the IPCC which goes into great detail on the GDP impacts. And that's just the "Green" part, they immediately launch into a bunch of things that just are standard of living and how they want to improve it. > life expectancy declining while basic needs, such as clean air, clean water, healthy food, and adequate health care, housing, transportation, and education, are inaccessible to a significant portion of the United States population; So I think we've conclusively demonstrated, that you're not reading/hearing what these peaple are actually saying. edit: on Bernie's relatively short page which you provided the link to: > The cost of inaction is unacceptable. Economists estimate that if we do not take action, we will lose $34.5 trillion in economic activity by the end of the century. And the benefits are enormous: by taking bold and decisive action, we will save $2.9 trillion over 10 years, $21 trillion over 30 years, and $70.4 trillion over 80 years. And this is from a plan that pays for itself in 15 years.
- eternityforest 4y ago
  There's no pollution free energy. Even solar is not perfect, there's only so much land that is suitable. If you don't focus on efficiency they might just invent new ways to use energy that don't really improve standard of living. It's a lot easier to switch to renewables if you don't need as much energy in the first place.
  - jjk166 4y ago
    This is a false equivalency - fossil fuel consumption produces gas and particulate pollution which causes severe and irreversible damage to health and the environment on a planetwide scale indiscriminately, solar takes up a small area of unused land in a location which can be arbitrarily chosen to avoid harm and the space can be reclaimed at any time. Yes, solar isn't free, but we as a civilization could be consuming many hundreds of times more power than we currently use with no meaningful issues if it were all coming from solar energy.
Tepix 4y ago
Power generation isn't the only thing causing issues. Power consumption can also generate a lot of heat. I'm not sure how much of a factor it plays in the big picture.
- supertrope 4y ago
  Almost none. Combustion heat is a rounding error compared to sunlight heat trapped by greenhouse gases.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    Globally that's true, but perhaps more relevant when considering the part of the biosphere that humans primarily inhabit? To what degree is the urban heat island effect caused by artificially heated air (including waste heat from A/Cs), for instance?
    - supertrope 4y ago
      Urban heat island effect is cause by cutting down too many trees (which reflect infrared) and paving over the majority of the surface. Here too mechanical heat is dwarfed by sunlight.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - wizofaus 4y ago
        I'm not so sure, I can't find numbers but it is commonly listed as a secondary factor (including by wikipedia). I did find this: "Results show that the urban heat island causes an average increase of 2.2 °C in the external air temperature mainly caused by the waste heat rejected from cooling system" (https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/9/3/48/htm https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/9/3/48/htm) And while it's true UHIs don't significantly contribute towards climate change, they can cause increased rainfall, and presumably have some effect on agricultural production that's done near larger cities.
      - 4y ago

It's a quantitative question. How much cleaner can each energy source be made, what is a feasible energy mix, and which ecological and climate constraints are we trying to stay within? It seems 2000-watt vision provides realistic answers to these questions that are compatible with an overall improvement in human well being in the developed countries.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

Yeah, this talk of 'energy' rather than 'pollution' seems to be growing recently. Presumably some attempt to capitalise on the Russian gas crisis to undermine net zero goals and keep fossil fuels burning a tiny bit longer. This group seems to get it as they're talking about reducing Primary Energy without reducing standard of living (mostly done by "electrifying everything") but I don't think that would be clear to most readers, who will just ignore the "same standard of living bit" and feel they are being oppressed.

prottog 4y ago
> most readers, who will just ignore the "same standard of living bit" and feel they are being oppressed. I think this is an uncharitable view, but that aside, is that not a reasonable assumption for "most readers"? This group is exceptional in that they explicitly state maintaining the same standard of living as a goal. In what I know of most modern climate-related discourse, there are very few such mentions.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  No it's not a reasonable assumption. Which specific groups are you aware of that think dealing with climate change by phasing out burning fossil fuels will reduce standards of living? I think you'll find a common funding source behind them.
  - prottog 4y ago
    The proponents of the Green New Deal in the US, for example, rarely mention maintaining or improving the standard of living as an imperative goal of the project, at least from the side of the carrot; there's plenty of talk on the stick side that everyone will have a cataclysmic fall in their standard of living if the status quo stays. For example, House Resolution 109 of the 116th Congress[0] mentions "[ensuring] prosperity and economic security" as an objective, but being sandwiched between "[achieving] net-zero greenhouse gas emissions" and "[promoting] justice and equity" it's difficult to see it as more than hand-waving and one that won't be forfeited for those other goals once the rubber meets the pavement. Bernie Sanders' website on the issue[1] doesn't mention the standard of living at all among the Key Points. AOC's[2] does but in the same way as HR 109, which makes sense given that she was the sponsor behind it. The New York Times explainer[3] on the issue does not even discuss whether the average person's material standard of living will change. The number one goal from all sources is the categorical imperative of going "net-zero" or "100% renewable", without asking or answering the question of "at what cost at the margins" (again, other than the undefined cost of calamity), which is what I'm really interested in addressing; because it's going to be a very hard sell to tell the people of the developed world to scale back on their standard of living, and a great moral injustice to tell the people of the yet-to-be-developed world that they cannot take advantage of cheap, abundant energy sources. [0]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolutio... [1]: https://berniesanders.com/issues/green-new-deal/ https://berniesanders.com/issues/green-new-deal/ [2]: https://www.ocasiocortez.com/green-new-deal https://www.ocasiocortez.com/green-new-deal [3]: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/climate/green-new-deal-questions-answers.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/climate/green-new-deal-qu...
    - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      It's about six lines in on one of your links that: global warming at or above 2 degrees Celsius beyond preindustrialized levels will cause - * (B) more than $500,000,000,000 in lost annual economic output in the United States by the year 2100; ... other bad stuff.. * (F) a risk of damage to $1,000,000,000,000 of public infrastructure and coastal real estate in the United States Which is just a summary of the IPCC which goes into great detail on the GDP impacts. And that's just the "Green" part, they immediately launch into a bunch of things that just are standard of living and how they want to improve it. > life expectancy declining while basic needs, such as clean air, clean water, healthy food, and adequate health care, housing, transportation, and education, are inaccessible to a significant portion of the United States population; So I think we've conclusively demonstrated, that you're not reading/hearing what these peaple are actually saying. edit: on Bernie's relatively short page which you provided the link to: > The cost of inaction is unacceptable. Economists estimate that if we do not take action, we will lose $34.5 trillion in economic activity by the end of the century. And the benefits are enormous: by taking bold and decisive action, we will save $2.9 trillion over 10 years, $21 trillion over 30 years, and $70.4 trillion over 80 years. And this is from a plan that pays for itself in 15 years.
eternityforest 4y ago
There's no pollution free energy. Even solar is not perfect, there's only so much land that is suitable. If you don't focus on efficiency they might just invent new ways to use energy that don't really improve standard of living. It's a lot easier to switch to renewables if you don't need as much energy in the first place.
- jjk166 4y ago
  This is a false equivalency - fossil fuel consumption produces gas and particulate pollution which causes severe and irreversible damage to health and the environment on a planetwide scale indiscriminately, solar takes up a small area of unused land in a location which can be arbitrarily chosen to avoid harm and the space can be reclaimed at any time. Yes, solar isn't free, but we as a civilization could be consuming many hundreds of times more power than we currently use with no meaningful issues if it were all coming from solar energy.

Tepix 4y ago

Power generation isn't the only thing causing issues. Power consumption can also generate a lot of heat. I'm not sure how much of a factor it plays in the big picture.

supertrope 4y ago
Almost none. Combustion heat is a rounding error compared to sunlight heat trapped by greenhouse gases.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  Globally that's true, but perhaps more relevant when considering the part of the biosphere that humans primarily inhabit? To what degree is the urban heat island effect caused by artificially heated air (including waste heat from A/Cs), for instance?
  - supertrope 4y ago
    Urban heat island effect is cause by cutting down too many trees (which reflect infrared) and paving over the majority of the surface. Here too mechanical heat is dwarfed by sunlight.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      I'm not so sure, I can't find numbers but it is commonly listed as a secondary factor (including by wikipedia). I did find this: "Results show that the urban heat island causes an average increase of 2.2 °C in the external air temperature mainly caused by the waste heat rejected from cooling system" (https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/9/3/48/htm https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/9/3/48/htm) And while it's true UHIs don't significantly contribute towards climate change, they can cause increased rainfall, and presumably have some effect on agricultural production that's done near larger cities.
    - 4y ago