3 ms·

What's very important to note is that a big bulk of the recent reductions have come from picking low-hanging fruits, i.e. by replacing coal with natural gas. T

What's very important to note is that a big bulk of the recent reductions have come from picking low-hanging fruits, i.e. by replacing coal with natural gas. This does not mean that going to zero will be possible with just more of the same.

logifail 3y ago
> a big bulk of the recent reductions have come from picking low-hanging fruits, i.e. by replacing coal with natural gas US and Europe, maybe. What about China and India? "China permitted more coal power plants last year [2022] than any time in the last seven years, according to a new report released this week. It's the equivalent of about two new coal power plants per week. The report by energy data organizations Global Energy Monitor and the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air finds the country quadrupled the amount of new coal power approvals in 2022 compared to 2021"[0] [0] https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-six-times-more-new-coal-plants-than-other-countries-report-fin https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-...
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  The thing is, India is emitting less than either the USA or the EU even in absolute terms. In per capita terms, it's negligible. And in total emissions to date, it's not even a blip. Even China is far better in these metrics than the US and EU. So, at least morally, they seem to have every right to increase their emissions, and it is up to us, the largest historical polluters, to contract our economies if we are serious about both climate change and moral rights. Why should we expect to live in luxury in the EU while peasants in India live without electricity just because they can't afford a non-coal power plant? Of course, an even better approach would be for the large historical polluters to contribute funds, manpower and know-how, freely, to build clean power and clean industry in China and other places. And finally, I am also well aware that this is higy idealistic and none of this has any chance in hell of happening. We'll just keep pointing fingers at China and India (and the USA, speaking as an EU citizen) and avoid too much actual change.
  - nonethewiser 3y ago
    The CO2 levels are all about absolute emissions. Per capita is irrelevant when we’re talking about total damage being done. 2 new coal plants a week is terrible.
    - tsimionescu 3y ago
      They are relevant to equity. We can't just stay in our air-conditioned running water homes playing on the internet and going to work in our cars while complaining that poor people in India and China and elsewhere should just spend more on solar since cheap coal is too dirty. They clearly have a much dire need for energy than we do, so it is up to us to either help them reach that energy need without coal and gas, or to reduce our energy consumption (and lifestyle) commensurately with how much they are producing. If they build 2 coal plants, we can tear down 4 natural gas plants and still reduce overall emissions. Sure, we may need some rolling blackouts, but such is the price - we'll still live much better than the vast majority of the world.
    - rypskar 3y ago
      >>Per capita is irrelevant when we’re talking about total damage being done Per capita is relevant when we are talking about countries or regions, if not the easy way is to cut the region in 2 and say you have cut emissions by 50%. The per capita is irrelevant is often used by small countries as an excuse for not doing anything because "they" are so many more than "we", so what "we" do don't change anything
  - ralfd 3y ago
    > India is emitting less than either the USA or the EU even in absolute terms This will change with more wealth though. We must ensure that future energy hunger in India (and Africa) ist not satiated by fossil fuels.
- adrianN 3y ago
  China's CO2/kWh is falling. Of course they could do much better, but they're not only building coal plants, they're also building massive amounts of renewables.
elihu 3y ago
In the U.S. a pretty simple next step would be to stop exporting coal. I mean, why are we doing that in the first place? We get all the same negative consequences of CO2 emissions as if we burned it ourselves, but someone else gets to use the energy. But yeah, we need a lot more investment in non-fossil-fuel energy production, and we need to be able to move and store electric energy on a much bigger scale than we can now. Fossil fuels for ground transportation needs to stop being a thing. We can do it with existing technology, we've just chosen not to. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=55980 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=55980

logifail 3y ago

> a big bulk of the recent reductions have come from picking low-hanging fruits, i.e. by replacing coal with natural gas US and Europe, maybe. What about China and India? "China permitted more coal power plants last year [2022] than any time in the last seven years, according to a new report released this week. It's the equivalent of about two new coal power plants per week. The report by energy data organizations Global Energy Monitor and the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air finds the country quadrupled the amount of new coal power approvals in 2022 compared to 2021"[0] [0] https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-six-times-more-new-coal-plants-than-other-countries-report-fin https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-...

tsimionescu 3y ago
The thing is, India is emitting less than either the USA or the EU even in absolute terms. In per capita terms, it's negligible. And in total emissions to date, it's not even a blip. Even China is far better in these metrics than the US and EU. So, at least morally, they seem to have every right to increase their emissions, and it is up to us, the largest historical polluters, to contract our economies if we are serious about both climate change and moral rights. Why should we expect to live in luxury in the EU while peasants in India live without electricity just because they can't afford a non-coal power plant? Of course, an even better approach would be for the large historical polluters to contribute funds, manpower and know-how, freely, to build clean power and clean industry in China and other places. And finally, I am also well aware that this is higy idealistic and none of this has any chance in hell of happening. We'll just keep pointing fingers at China and India (and the USA, speaking as an EU citizen) and avoid too much actual change.
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  The CO2 levels are all about absolute emissions. Per capita is irrelevant when we’re talking about total damage being done. 2 new coal plants a week is terrible.
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    They are relevant to equity. We can't just stay in our air-conditioned running water homes playing on the internet and going to work in our cars while complaining that poor people in India and China and elsewhere should just spend more on solar since cheap coal is too dirty. They clearly have a much dire need for energy than we do, so it is up to us to either help them reach that energy need without coal and gas, or to reduce our energy consumption (and lifestyle) commensurately with how much they are producing. If they build 2 coal plants, we can tear down 4 natural gas plants and still reduce overall emissions. Sure, we may need some rolling blackouts, but such is the price - we'll still live much better than the vast majority of the world.
  - rypskar 3y ago
    >>Per capita is irrelevant when we’re talking about total damage being done Per capita is relevant when we are talking about countries or regions, if not the easy way is to cut the region in 2 and say you have cut emissions by 50%. The per capita is irrelevant is often used by small countries as an excuse for not doing anything because "they" are so many more than "we", so what "we" do don't change anything
- ralfd 3y ago
  > India is emitting less than either the USA or the EU even in absolute terms This will change with more wealth though. We must ensure that future energy hunger in India (and Africa) ist not satiated by fossil fuels.
adrianN 3y ago
China's CO2/kWh is falling. Of course they could do much better, but they're not only building coal plants, they're also building massive amounts of renewables.

elihu 3y ago

In the U.S. a pretty simple next step would be to stop exporting coal. I mean, why are we doing that in the first place? We get all the same negative consequences of CO2 emissions as if we burned it ourselves, but someone else gets to use the energy. But yeah, we need a lot more investment in non-fossil-fuel energy production, and we need to be able to move and store electric energy on a much bigger scale than we can now. Fossil fuels for ground transportation needs to stop being a thing. We can do it with existing technology, we've just chosen not to. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=55980 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=55980