5 ms·
Emissions rise as a function of demand, mainly from east Asia, particularly China (holding demand constant, emissions would otherwise lower, since combustion te
by slothtrop 4y ago
Emissions rise as a function of demand, mainly from east Asia, particularly China (holding demand constant, emissions would otherwise lower, since combustion technology grows more efficient over time). The homegrown demand rises because we are padding our numbers with immigration to boost GDP (enriching the wealthy, primarily), and newcomers adopt the same carbon footprint as the rest of us, through consumption. They want houses, vehicles, electricity, gadgets, delicious and convenient food too.
The argument has been made that it's inhumane to demand that developing countries (e.g. in Africa, or BRIC) opt to lower their fossil fuel consumption, restraining themselves from improving their quality of life over time. I agree. We benefited, so should they. If it were possible for them to catch up purely on green tech, they would.
Only a fraction of fossil fuel use is actually for generating electricity. The other uses are currently non-abatable, until technology improves. Other uses include blast furnaces for cement and coke, steel-making, creating ammonia, creating plastics. On the electricity front, things are still a mess.
- mnky9800n 4y agoa third of the co2 produced comes from electricity. Rich nations could subsidize GDP growth in developing nations by building nuclear and renewables there. These countries will accelerate the demise of humanity if they burn coal instead. They don't have the right to do it. Neither did developed nations but they already did it. We do not have the right to determine the fate of the planet that we share with all other living things. Teddy Roosevelt said, “We have become great because of the lavish use of our resources. But the time has come to inquire seriously what will happen when our forests are gone, when the coal, the iron, the oil, and the gas are exhausted, when the soils have still further impoverished and washed into the streams, polluting the rivers, denuding the fields and obstructing navigation.” We must conserve and protect this planet. Even if that means doing so from other humans.
- slothtrop 4y agoWorth reminding that the IPCC stance is not apocalyptic, in contrast to what you seem to suggest. Rich countries are scarcely getting back around to upscaling nuclear themselves, much less subsidizing it in others. One advantage the developing countries have is they don't have the baggage of existing extensive infrastructure for electricity, and some renewables can be deployed in a more decentralized fashion (i.e. solar). I believe this is currently happening in India in limited fashion. Add to the fact, renewable tech, and mitigating tech like carbon capture, is very much subsidized in the West. The necessary shift from the private sector is going to cost trillions; it's happening already, but not overnight, and the angsty projection against barons and the wealthy class won't make it go any faster. I mean, they needed to hear the message, but there's no reason to believe it isn't loud and clear at this point.
- mnky9800n 4y agoThis isn't limited to a couple degrees of temperature. We are killing the planet with the current mass extinction event. We don't have the right to do that. But I agree with you which is why I devote my time to research related to climate mitigation topics such as co2 sequestration.
- slothtrop 4y ago[flagged]
- Dah00n 4y ago>They don't have the right to do it. Well, if they say they have the right then they have the right. They are, after all, as free to govern themselves as we are. If you mean ethics doesn't allow them, sure, but the same ethics doesn't allow us to let them pay for the damage we did and especially since much of their pollution is actually them producing stuff for us. Chinese made pollution creating stuff for Americans should clearly be in the US pollution account, not the Chinese one. It is going in circles, wasting time on talk. The only solution is that those that polluted in the past pay for those that are on the rise now. Either directly or by not pollution in the future. Anything else (unless you invent a Pollution Eater 9000) is the typical talk and zero real action. Step one: Let companies like Apple pay for 100% of their pollution all the way from mineral mining to garbage disposable.