4 ms·

> unprecedented scale and speed of decarbonisation in many countries And yet carbon emissions still increased by ~1% last year [1]. As it has for decades. It'

> unprecedented scale and speed of decarbonisation in many countries And yet carbon emissions still increased by ~1% last year [1]. As it has for decades. It's gone from greenwashing to outright lies. The atmosphere doesn't care about your political successes, or the relative percentage of energy sources, or the economics of renewables - only absolute tonnage of CO2e. This is a great example of the "shifting metrics" fallacy. Instead of measuring the thing that matters, you measure the progress of the proposed solution and claim success regardless of meeting the original goal. We need to demand better from journalists. > It is even looking like we may soon see the beginning of the end for fossil fuels Counterpoint: renewables absolutely require fossil fuels for mining, transport, manufacturing, installation, maintenance and recycling. Solar panels and wind turbines cannot provide the energy to deploy new panels or turbines, not even as a demonstration, let alone at a scale that would "end" fossil fuels. In a very concrete and objective sense, these technologies are not at all "renewable" - they're an effective mechanism to extend the energy output of a barrel of oil, not to replace it. [1] https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-in-2022 https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-in-2022

bryanlarsen 3y ago
The rate of increase is negative, and has been since ~2015. It's like a massive ship -- if you apply the engines in reverse you still keep moving forward for quite a long time. Yes, we should be reversing a lot harder than we are, but we are reversing. > renewables absolutely require fossil fuels for mining, transport, manufacturing, installation, maintenance and recycling. That's not true. Producing cement from limestone releases carbon and the production of steel requires carbon, but there are alternative processes for both in development. Pretty much everything else you mentioned just requires energy and/or heat, energy which can be provided by electricity either directly or indirectly via hydrogen or synthetic fuels. If a CAT 793 can run on electricity, anything can. P.S. using 2022 numbers is disingenuous. I could show you 2021 numbers which tell a completely different story. 2021+2022 numbers are far more indicative.
- perrygeo 3y ago
  We're not reversing, we're not even slowing down, we're pulling our foot off the accelerator slightly. Reducing the 2nd derivative is better than nothing but it's blatantly false to claim an "unprecedented scale and speed of decarbonisation". Yes, all those processes require heat and energy. That's the point. How do you intend to distribute that energy across the global supply chain without a dense liquid fuel? It's never been done (though it is theoretically possible). Once we have renewables that can build other renewables without a drop of oil in the process, that's the beginning of a plan to end fossil fuels. I'm hopeful but all I can say is - prove it and we have something to talk about. Beyond that, it's a hypothetical.
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    The carbon emission growth rate since ~2013 has been lower than the population growth rate. Per capita emissions are falling. And it is an unprecedented scale and speed because it has never happened before outside of global recessions. The rate is pretty underwhelming and needs to be much more negative, but it is unprecedented. > How do you intend to distribute that energy across the global supply chain without a dense liquid fuel? Power lines and local generation are more efficient than transporting liquid fuels. > prove it and we have something to talk about. That's what the article is about. It's not theoretical anymore. The grid is decarbonizing.
    - perrygeo 3y ago
      Lol. You misunderstand almost all of my points but I'm tired of arguing. Decarbonizing means reducing carbon. Period.
      - nitwit005 3y ago
        This is what losing an argument looks like.
    - diarrhea 3y ago
      Rates don’t matter. Only absolute numbers matter, or in this case a single number. CO2 emissions, measured by mass. Divide by the atmosphere’s mass if you want a rate. Any other one is meaningless. Less per capita but more capita is still… more.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
credit_guy 3y ago
Well, it's quite simple. The US and the other developed economies have a static energy consumption. More of the energy is produced by renewables. Solar grows by double digits each year, and wind grows less, but from a higher point. If you check the eia.gov site [1], you'll see that 60% comes from fossil fuel and 40% from nuclear + renewables. Wind and solar total about 10%. But the growth of wind and solar in one decade (2012-2022) was by a factor of 4. China and India are still developing. Their energy use increases. They add a lot of renewables, but also a lot of coal. At some point they'll start reducing the coal, because the renewables will be more than capable of keeping up with increase in energy consumption. You are grumbling that we put 1% more CO2 in the air. What exactly would you change? [1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us-generation-capacity-and-sales.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...
benj111 3y ago
>Solar panels and wind turbines cannot provide the energy to deploy new panels or turbines Yes they can. If you want to wait a few hundred years to bootstrap the entire industry just using wind and solar energy (once we have the first solar panel) then we can do that. It makes more sense to get it done quicker though.

bryanlarsen 3y ago

The rate of increase is negative, and has been since ~2015. It's like a massive ship -- if you apply the engines in reverse you still keep moving forward for quite a long time. Yes, we should be reversing a lot harder than we are, but we are reversing. > renewables absolutely require fossil fuels for mining, transport, manufacturing, installation, maintenance and recycling. That's not true. Producing cement from limestone releases carbon and the production of steel requires carbon, but there are alternative processes for both in development. Pretty much everything else you mentioned just requires energy and/or heat, energy which can be provided by electricity either directly or indirectly via hydrogen or synthetic fuels. If a CAT 793 can run on electricity, anything can. P.S. using 2022 numbers is disingenuous. I could show you 2021 numbers which tell a completely different story. 2021+2022 numbers are far more indicative.

perrygeo 3y ago
We're not reversing, we're not even slowing down, we're pulling our foot off the accelerator slightly. Reducing the 2nd derivative is better than nothing but it's blatantly false to claim an "unprecedented scale and speed of decarbonisation". Yes, all those processes require heat and energy. That's the point. How do you intend to distribute that energy across the global supply chain without a dense liquid fuel? It's never been done (though it is theoretically possible). Once we have renewables that can build other renewables without a drop of oil in the process, that's the beginning of a plan to end fossil fuels. I'm hopeful but all I can say is - prove it and we have something to talk about. Beyond that, it's a hypothetical.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  The carbon emission growth rate since ~2013 has been lower than the population growth rate. Per capita emissions are falling. And it is an unprecedented scale and speed because it has never happened before outside of global recessions. The rate is pretty underwhelming and needs to be much more negative, but it is unprecedented. > How do you intend to distribute that energy across the global supply chain without a dense liquid fuel? Power lines and local generation are more efficient than transporting liquid fuels. > prove it and we have something to talk about. That's what the article is about. It's not theoretical anymore. The grid is decarbonizing.
  - perrygeo 3y ago
    Lol. You misunderstand almost all of my points but I'm tired of arguing. Decarbonizing means reducing carbon. Period.
    - nitwit005 3y ago
      This is what losing an argument looks like.
  - diarrhea 3y ago
    Rates don’t matter. Only absolute numbers matter, or in this case a single number. CO2 emissions, measured by mass. Divide by the atmosphere’s mass if you want a rate. Any other one is meaningless. Less per capita but more capita is still… more.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

credit_guy 3y ago

Well, it's quite simple. The US and the other developed economies have a static energy consumption. More of the energy is produced by renewables. Solar grows by double digits each year, and wind grows less, but from a higher point. If you check the eia.gov site [1], you'll see that 60% comes from fossil fuel and 40% from nuclear + renewables. Wind and solar total about 10%. But the growth of wind and solar in one decade (2012-2022) was by a factor of 4. China and India are still developing. Their energy use increases. They add a lot of renewables, but also a lot of coal. At some point they'll start reducing the coal, because the renewables will be more than capable of keeping up with increase in energy consumption. You are grumbling that we put 1% more CO2 in the air. What exactly would you change? [1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us-generation-capacity-and-sales.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...

benj111 3y ago

>Solar panels and wind turbines cannot provide the energy to deploy new panels or turbines Yes they can. If you want to wait a few hundred years to bootstrap the entire industry just using wind and solar energy (once we have the first solar panel) then we can do that. It makes more sense to get it done quicker though.