3 ms·

It's an inflection point, not a zero point. GP's emphasis on the word "acceleration" above is to distinguish the two. Rallying is an inflection point, turning

by uoaei 3y ago

It's an inflection point, not a zero point. GP's emphasis on the word "acceleration" above is to distinguish the two. Rallying is an inflection point, turning the tide is a zero point. Rallies suffer from survivorship bias -- you don't hear praises and songs for the rallies that failed. It's not enough to assume blind hope, we have to recognize the forces stacked against us and be very strategic going forward. This requires massive sacrifice, including those comfortably sitting in the war rooms and atop guarded positions.

toomuchtodo 3y ago
When a pendulum swings, consider the momentum as it passes over its equilibrium. We are approaching that equilibrium point, and if you look at global renewables deployment, EV uptake, and CO2/methane emissions reduction efforts, we are about to leave that equilibrium point headed in the other direction at full speed. Major sacrifice will not be needed, except perhaps with regards to meat consumption as the world gets wealthier. Certainly, we should not rest on our laurels and should keep the pedal to the floor, but the data shows we are moving the needle. > In this report, we find there is a 70% chance that emissions start falling in 2024 if current clean technology growth trends continue and some progress is made to cut non-CO2 emissions. This would make 2023 the year of peak emissions – meeting the IPCC deadline. Let’s get to 100% as soon as possible.
- uoaei 3y ago
  Your grasp of physics metaphors leaves a lot to be desired. That's not how momentum works. Plus, the pendulum reference implies swinging back across to net-positive carbon emissions, which I don't think is part of anyone's plan. What we want is a critically damped system, that inflects ASAP and approaches zero the quickest. Again, this requires a better grasp of the issues than "EVs will save the world". Our conveniences are the problems that need solving. Everyone who has the systems view (as opposed to the extremely narrow economics view) says we need to radically restructure our society so that lifestyles can be sustainable. This includes removing the need for most people to drive or fly, period.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - andrekandre 3y ago
    > This includes removing the need for most people to drive or fly, period. does this imply that most co2 emissions are caused by cars and consumer flying?
    - uoaei 3y ago
      No, but there are many sources of emissions related to the sprawl of car-centric culture. The connection with flying is just how much emissions can be attributed to one passenger in a plane compared to an equivalent drive. When you fly you're trading more emissions for speed and convenience in your travels. The classic quoted stat is that a single flight is worth about a year of driving at today's averages.

by uoaei 3y ago

toomuchtodo 3y ago

When a pendulum swings, consider the momentum as it passes over its equilibrium. We are approaching that equilibrium point, and if you look at global renewables deployment, EV uptake, and CO2/methane emissions reduction efforts, we are about to leave that equilibrium point headed in the other direction at full speed. Major sacrifice will not be needed, except perhaps with regards to meat consumption as the world gets wealthier. Certainly, we should not rest on our laurels and should keep the pedal to the floor, but the data shows we are moving the needle. > In this report, we find there is a 70% chance that emissions start falling in 2024 if current clean technology growth trends continue and some progress is made to cut non-CO2 emissions. This would make 2023 the year of peak emissions – meeting the IPCC deadline. Let’s get to 100% as soon as possible.

uoaei 3y ago
Your grasp of physics metaphors leaves a lot to be desired. That's not how momentum works. Plus, the pendulum reference implies swinging back across to net-positive carbon emissions, which I don't think is part of anyone's plan. What we want is a critically damped system, that inflects ASAP and approaches zero the quickest. Again, this requires a better grasp of the issues than "EVs will save the world". Our conveniences are the problems that need solving. Everyone who has the systems view (as opposed to the extremely narrow economics view) says we need to radically restructure our society so that lifestyles can be sustainable. This includes removing the need for most people to drive or fly, period.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- andrekandre 3y ago
  > This includes removing the need for most people to drive or fly, period. does this imply that most co2 emissions are caused by cars and consumer flying?
  - uoaei 3y ago
    No, but there are many sources of emissions related to the sprawl of car-centric culture. The connection with flying is just how much emissions can be attributed to one passenger in a plane compared to an equivalent drive. When you fly you're trading more emissions for speed and convenience in your travels. The classic quoted stat is that a single flight is worth about a year of driving at today's averages.