3 ms·

>Why is this the case? Seems very obvious. Fossil fuels are the best way to generate energy by far. In the end GDP and environmental pollution are the same thi

>Why is this the case? Seems very obvious. Fossil fuels are the best way to generate energy by far. In the end GDP and environmental pollution are the same thing or at the very least highly correlated. >In light of this, why should we aim to reduce emissions at a significant detriment to human life? Is it because of unknown unknowns? Or solely to preserve endangered species? It is because certain groups believe that climate change will induce an apocalyptic scenario ending most life on earth. The "dirty secret" of the whole thing is that decarbonisation and deindustrialisation are the same thing. China is gambling that climate change is self correcting, which is the game theoretical optimum for any nation.

marcosdumay 4y ago
> Fossil fuels are the best way to generate energy by far. Nope. Not by far. That was the case a decade ago, but fossil fuels are already not competitive on several situations, a close first on many others, and significantly ahead on very few. What goes back to the OP's question. The IPCC projections are like that because the IPCC doesn't model technological progress at all.
- constantcrying 4y ago
  >That was the case a decade ago, but fossil fuels are already not competitive on several situations, a close first on many others, and significantly ahead on very few. Regulations, Taxes and opportunity decline with growth.
  - marcosdumay 4y ago
    Said about the thing that has been on exponential growth for 5 decades already and without any sign or reason for an inflection. Yes, eventually your comment will be right. It's just not right now.
    - constantcrying 4y ago
      Linear for Hydro (the good one). Wind and solar (the bad ones) seem exponential, but don't even sum to Hydro in total energy generation. Other renewables are linear. This is also barely even responding to the argument at all... Just explain to me how Germany, who notoriously are very keen on renewables (the bad ones, since the good one does not work here), has the highest energy prices in the world?
      - marcosdumay 4y ago
        Cost breakdown for electricity on Germany: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1346309/household-electricity-prices-composition-germany/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1346309/household-electr... Looks like their transmission is quite expensive, and 2022 has had an increase on generation prices. (I wonder why... Are you trying to pinpoint that one on renewables?) And yes, I'm talking about solar and wind. Hydro left its exponential stage ages ago. But well, if you postulate them to be bad...
        constantcrying 4y ago
        >Looks like their transmission is quite expensive, and 2022 has had an increase on generation prices. German energy prices aren't some of the highest in the word since 10 months ago. >https://www.statista.com/statistics/1346309/household-electricity-prices-composition-germany/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1346309/household-electr... I can only access 2021 data. TWENTY PERCENT of energy prices are just tax to fund renewables. This was removed early 2022, else I probably could not have posted this, but it has existed for decades. In 2021 you could have instantly slashed electricity prices by 20% just by ignoring renewables. But you are still missing the point entirely, it isn't like coal and solar are competing on an equal regulatory playing field. One industry is funded by a 20% tax on energy prices, the other has to compete with that while being under various other direct taxes, "carbon taxes", etc., which inevitably are taxes which show up in the production price. Honestly you are really stupid if you think renewables are more economical. For decades they have been subsidized and given all possible regulatory benefits they can possibly get, but germany is still producing energy with coal. I am at a loss for what to say. Again in 2021 TWENTY PERCENT of the energy price were due to taxes for renewables.

marcosdumay 4y ago

> Fossil fuels are the best way to generate energy by far. Nope. Not by far. That was the case a decade ago, but fossil fuels are already not competitive on several situations, a close first on many others, and significantly ahead on very few. What goes back to the OP's question. The IPCC projections are like that because the IPCC doesn't model technological progress at all.

constantcrying 4y ago
>That was the case a decade ago, but fossil fuels are already not competitive on several situations, a close first on many others, and significantly ahead on very few. Regulations, Taxes and opportunity decline with growth.
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  Said about the thing that has been on exponential growth for 5 decades already and without any sign or reason for an inflection. Yes, eventually your comment will be right. It's just not right now.
  - constantcrying 4y ago
    Linear for Hydro (the good one). Wind and solar (the bad ones) seem exponential, but don't even sum to Hydro in total energy generation. Other renewables are linear. This is also barely even responding to the argument at all... Just explain to me how Germany, who notoriously are very keen on renewables (the bad ones, since the good one does not work here), has the highest energy prices in the world?
    - marcosdumay 4y ago
      Cost breakdown for electricity on Germany: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1346309/household-electricity-prices-composition-germany/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1346309/household-electr... Looks like their transmission is quite expensive, and 2022 has had an increase on generation prices. (I wonder why... Are you trying to pinpoint that one on renewables?) And yes, I'm talking about solar and wind. Hydro left its exponential stage ages ago. But well, if you postulate them to be bad...
      - constantcrying 4y ago
        >Looks like their transmission is quite expensive, and 2022 has had an increase on generation prices. German energy prices aren't some of the highest in the word since 10 months ago. >https://www.statista.com/statistics/1346309/household-electricity-prices-composition-germany/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1346309/household-electr... I can only access 2021 data. TWENTY PERCENT of energy prices are just tax to fund renewables. This was removed early 2022, else I probably could not have posted this, but it has existed for decades. In 2021 you could have instantly slashed electricity prices by 20% just by ignoring renewables. But you are still missing the point entirely, it isn't like coal and solar are competing on an equal regulatory playing field. One industry is funded by a 20% tax on energy prices, the other has to compete with that while being under various other direct taxes, "carbon taxes", etc., which inevitably are taxes which show up in the production price. Honestly you are really stupid if you think renewables are more economical. For decades they have been subsidized and given all possible regulatory benefits they can possibly get, but germany is still producing energy with coal. I am at a loss for what to say. Again in 2021 TWENTY PERCENT of the energy price were due to taxes for renewables.