4 ms·

I am not surprised. As long as we pretend we can still operate a growth economy while "doing something" about climate change, we are going to have a huge proble

I am not surprised. As long as we pretend we can still operate a growth economy while "doing something" about climate change, we are going to have a huge problem trying to curb the use of fossil fuels. In the short term, new competing energy sources will lower the demand of fossil fuels and hence the price, so that more will be used to compensate. But even besides the issue of alternative energy sources, we insist on growing our consumerist, capitalistic economy being made more efficient by THE DAY by soulless tech companies like Google, so what do you expect? Countries should re-tool to be more self-sustainable in terms of the basics of food, shelter, and basic products. We should strive to make economies less efficient and more self-sufficient.

Retric 3y ago
This isn’t about capitalism. Wealthy nations are seeing reductions in total CO2 emissions. US dropped from 6 billion metric tons in 2007 to 5 billion metric tons in 2022. That’s back to 1988 levels despite 40% population growth, increased prosperity, and all those crossovers and giant SUV’s. Including imports and exports changes these numbers slightly, but doesn’t change the overall trend. Developing countries are adopting zero carbon technologies because their cost effective, but they are also ramping up fossil fuel use because they are simply growing so quickly. Ethiopia’s real GDP growth rate is 6.1%/year and that’s a good thing in almost every context except pollution.
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  The accounting for CO2 emissions is a bit lopsided. Why do you think developing nations are developing so quickly to become more like the US? The only reason is because they are aided through technologies developed by first-world countries in the first place, the reasons for which are primarily consumerist. If all first-world countries stopped producing so many things to consume and returned to simpler lifestyles, then there would be much less "development" in developing nations.
  - Retric 3y ago
    > all first-world countries stopped producing so many things to consume and returned to simpler lifestyles, then there would be much less "development" in developing nations. When you say simpler lifestyles you mean higher infant mortality, poor sanitation, dirt roads, and all those other ills from poverty. Yes people living in the tropics also want AC, so do we. This isn’t about people in Bangladesh/US wanting an iPhone or designer clothing. Electronics barely move the CO2 needle, it’s things we take for granted like clean drinking water that takes massive infrastructure and tons of concrete.
    - martin_drapeau 3y ago
      Good point. People often forget that the quality of life we have today comes from energy consumption and technological innovation. It all started with fire...
    - vouaobrasil 3y ago
      I disagree. I mean less consumption of non-essential things like upgrades to smartphones every year, keeping 3G as opposed to 4G, 5G, no AI use, no plastic packaging, slower but functional internet, no imports of cheap things from China, no social media, etc. In other words: the reduction of mostly useless technologies on a voluntary basis. Less imported food instead of home-grown food, less imported clothes, less new things that replace perfectly good old things...
      - Retric 3y ago
        Again non of that has a particularly significant impact on climate change. Air travel, ICE cars, fossil fuel or municipal waste power plants, concrete, steel, etc matters. 3G vs 5G really really doesn’t. Grocery stores hand out plastic bags so happily because they are cheap. Stuff being cheap means it’s associated with very minimal CO2 because releasing CO2 means using a valuable resource. Further all that carbon in the bag ends up sequestered in a dump making plastic packaging a great way to use up oil reserves without burning them. PS: Upgrading phones every 2 years is like buying a car, that old phone generally gets traded in and someone else uses it instead of simply dumping it.
- Qem 3y ago
  > Wealthy nations are seeing reductions in total CO2 emissions. US dropped from 6 billion metric tons in 2007 to 5 billion metric tons in 2022. Probably mostly outsourcing manufacture and associated pollution elsewhere (e.g. China).
  - Retric 3y ago
    Nope, if anything imports are flat over that timeframe: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/imports https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/impo... (In constant 2021 dollars that’s 3,129B in 2007 vs 3,401B in 2021.) https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ Really we’re talking a 17% drop in CO2 emissions it would take quite a lot to offset it.
- bmitc 3y ago
  > This isn't about capitalism. How is unconstrained growth at all costs not part of this? > Wealthy nations are seeing reductions in total CO2 emissions Because they are off shored, are they not? And developing countries are increasingly using fossil fuels because of their adoption of capitalism and of technologies (i.e., customers) from developed countries, are they not?
  - inglor_cz 3y ago
    "How is unconstrained growth at all costs not part of this?" It may be a part, but it may also be a lazy ideological distraction. For example, here north of the Alps, a significant factor in the total CO2 budget is heating of homes, which cannot be offshored and cannot be simply banned; previous generations had this problem, too, and they cut down most of the primeval forests for the same purpose. (Europe is now significantly more forested than in the 16th century.) Looking back at my childhood in the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, our heating was notoriously dirty, burning low-quality coal directly in houses, streets full of stinking smoke. Our centrally planned economy stagnated (degrowth!), so replacing old dirty coal-based equipment with something more modern was economically challenging.
    - kelseyfrog 3y ago
      This is a little like saying that because blood sugar disregulation can come from T1 diabetes that it can't come from T2 diabetes. Just because a socialist country caused pollution, doesn't mean that capitalism cannot cause pollution for its own reasons.
      - inglor_cz 3y ago
        It is sort-of a warning for idealists who think that socialism treats nature better. I notice lionization of socialism among young Americans quite often, it is a distant and luring ideal for them, with no personal experience to correct the image. Pretty much the universal experience from east of the Iron Curtain was the opposite. Ecological initiatives were a part of the coalition of the unhappy that brought the regimes down at the end of the eighties.
- specialist 3y ago
  Yup. For instance, China's demand for new energy means they're building more of everything. More nukes, solar, wind, AND coal. Solar is the cheapest option, and getting cheaper. Installed capacity is doubling every 20 (?) months. China is adding more solar every year than the rest of the world combined. But it's still not enough. Therefore, China is compelled to add more coal too. This (pathetic) NYT article explains none of that.

Retric 3y ago

This isn’t about capitalism. Wealthy nations are seeing reductions in total CO2 emissions. US dropped from 6 billion metric tons in 2007 to 5 billion metric tons in 2022. That’s back to 1988 levels despite 40% population growth, increased prosperity, and all those crossovers and giant SUV’s. Including imports and exports changes these numbers slightly, but doesn’t change the overall trend. Developing countries are adopting zero carbon technologies because their cost effective, but they are also ramping up fossil fuel use because they are simply growing so quickly. Ethiopia’s real GDP growth rate is 6.1%/year and that’s a good thing in almost every context except pollution.

vouaobrasil 3y ago
The accounting for CO2 emissions is a bit lopsided. Why do you think developing nations are developing so quickly to become more like the US? The only reason is because they are aided through technologies developed by first-world countries in the first place, the reasons for which are primarily consumerist. If all first-world countries stopped producing so many things to consume and returned to simpler lifestyles, then there would be much less "development" in developing nations.
- Retric 3y ago
  > all first-world countries stopped producing so many things to consume and returned to simpler lifestyles, then there would be much less "development" in developing nations. When you say simpler lifestyles you mean higher infant mortality, poor sanitation, dirt roads, and all those other ills from poverty. Yes people living in the tropics also want AC, so do we. This isn’t about people in Bangladesh/US wanting an iPhone or designer clothing. Electronics barely move the CO2 needle, it’s things we take for granted like clean drinking water that takes massive infrastructure and tons of concrete.
  - martin_drapeau 3y ago
    Good point. People often forget that the quality of life we have today comes from energy consumption and technological innovation. It all started with fire...
  - vouaobrasil 3y ago
    I disagree. I mean less consumption of non-essential things like upgrades to smartphones every year, keeping 3G as opposed to 4G, 5G, no AI use, no plastic packaging, slower but functional internet, no imports of cheap things from China, no social media, etc. In other words: the reduction of mostly useless technologies on a voluntary basis. Less imported food instead of home-grown food, less imported clothes, less new things that replace perfectly good old things...
    - Retric 3y ago
      Again non of that has a particularly significant impact on climate change. Air travel, ICE cars, fossil fuel or municipal waste power plants, concrete, steel, etc matters. 3G vs 5G really really doesn’t. Grocery stores hand out plastic bags so happily because they are cheap. Stuff being cheap means it’s associated with very minimal CO2 because releasing CO2 means using a valuable resource. Further all that carbon in the bag ends up sequestered in a dump making plastic packaging a great way to use up oil reserves without burning them. PS: Upgrading phones every 2 years is like buying a car, that old phone generally gets traded in and someone else uses it instead of simply dumping it.
Qem 3y ago
> Wealthy nations are seeing reductions in total CO2 emissions. US dropped from 6 billion metric tons in 2007 to 5 billion metric tons in 2022. Probably mostly outsourcing manufacture and associated pollution elsewhere (e.g. China).
- Retric 3y ago
  Nope, if anything imports are flat over that timeframe: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/imports https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/impo... (In constant 2021 dollars that’s 3,129B in 2007 vs 3,401B in 2021.) https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ Really we’re talking a 17% drop in CO2 emissions it would take quite a lot to offset it.
bmitc 3y ago
> This isn't about capitalism. How is unconstrained growth at all costs not part of this? > Wealthy nations are seeing reductions in total CO2 emissions Because they are off shored, are they not? And developing countries are increasingly using fossil fuels because of their adoption of capitalism and of technologies (i.e., customers) from developed countries, are they not?
- inglor_cz 3y ago
  "How is unconstrained growth at all costs not part of this?" It may be a part, but it may also be a lazy ideological distraction. For example, here north of the Alps, a significant factor in the total CO2 budget is heating of homes, which cannot be offshored and cannot be simply banned; previous generations had this problem, too, and they cut down most of the primeval forests for the same purpose. (Europe is now significantly more forested than in the 16th century.) Looking back at my childhood in the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, our heating was notoriously dirty, burning low-quality coal directly in houses, streets full of stinking smoke. Our centrally planned economy stagnated (degrowth!), so replacing old dirty coal-based equipment with something more modern was economically challenging.
  - kelseyfrog 3y ago
    This is a little like saying that because blood sugar disregulation can come from T1 diabetes that it can't come from T2 diabetes. Just because a socialist country caused pollution, doesn't mean that capitalism cannot cause pollution for its own reasons.
    - inglor_cz 3y ago
      It is sort-of a warning for idealists who think that socialism treats nature better. I notice lionization of socialism among young Americans quite often, it is a distant and luring ideal for them, with no personal experience to correct the image. Pretty much the universal experience from east of the Iron Curtain was the opposite. Ecological initiatives were a part of the coalition of the unhappy that brought the regimes down at the end of the eighties.
specialist 3y ago
Yup. For instance, China's demand for new energy means they're building more of everything. More nukes, solar, wind, AND coal. Solar is the cheapest option, and getting cheaper. Installed capacity is doubling every 20 (?) months. China is adding more solar every year than the rest of the world combined. But it's still not enough. Therefore, China is compelled to add more coal too. This (pathetic) NYT article explains none of that.