5 ms·
I really don't see how western countries reducing CO2 production is going to have a net effect globally. Are we really naïve enough to think that African and A
by pstrateman 3y ago
I really don't see how western countries reducing CO2 production is going to have a net effect globally.
Are we really naïve enough to think that African and Asian countries won't just replace our consumption of fossil fuels?
Pretty sure none of these countries have emissions targets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_air_pollution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_air_pollu...
- jncfhnb 3y agoAir pollution is not the same thing as what you’re discussing. Generally speaking, yes, we should probably expect them to use renewables because renewables are gradually cheaper than fuels.
- pstrateman 3y agoRenewables are still an order of magnitude more expensive than fossil fuels. Especially in countries without any infrastructure.
- gambiting 3y agoYes, but as the time goes on that will be less and less true.
- jncfhnb 3y agoThe LCOE of utility solar is cheaper than the LCOE of most if not all fossil fuel based alternatives for the developed US. This does of course vary by region and infrastructure. One would expect that to become more and more favorable over time.
- D-Coder 3y agoYour numbers are a decade out of date.
- jbm 3y agoIf renewables are cheaper, then yes. If the centralized power grid is poor quality (think South Africa) or there is poor quality central government, yes.
- pstrateman 3y agoIf we cant make renewables cheap in western countries, how is it possible they'll be cheap in poor countries?
- ben_w 3y agoThe premise is false. Renewables are the cheapest form of new energy, which is why they're also the dominant form of new energy and why the targets are being met ahead of schedule.
- pstrateman 3y agoRenewables are absolutely not the cheapest form of new energy. Show me a solar + batteries facility that operates 24x365 at sub 0.05 USD/kWh and I'll concede they're cheaper, but you can't because no such facility exists.
- eqvinox 3y ago> 24x365 at sub 0.05 USD/kWh https://www.statista.com/statistics/493797/estimated-levelized-cost-of-energy-generation-in-the-us-by-technology/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/493797/estimated-leveliz... If you average the low and high estimate, onshore wind is almost exactly 50USD/MWh, and nothing else is that cheap. (Yes, you said batteries and 24×365. But the "24×365 capable" fossil sources are nowhere near 50USD/MWh either. And power consumption is not flat across days, the week, and seasons. Particularly solar can be predicted and worked with in adjusting load to match availability.)
- pstrateman 3y agoNatural gas primary power plants are at or below $50/MWh 24x365. Solar and wind with batteries are in the range of $200-500/MWh. Nice try moving the goal posts though.
- dumpHero2 3y agoLot of R&D, tech companies operate out of west. Improving tech in the west reduces the cost for the entire world.
- pstrateman 3y agoThat doesn't explain how you expect to keep people in extreme poverty from burning fossil fuels to get out of that poverty.
- ben_w 3y agoBy making the alternative cheaper.
- itsoktocry 3y agoBelieve it or not, fossil fuels are cheap. And as demand decreases in the West, they will become even cheaper for developing nations.
- ben_w 3y agoBelieve it or not, PV is cheaper. So is wind.
- nico_h 3y agoThey are in extreme poverty because they can’t afford the fossil fuel to burn for economic development. As they develop, they might pick renewable because its cost is falling to the point it might become cheaper than burning fuel, at least for certain use cases.
- nico_h 3y agoYou don’t. You help them electrify with renewables as much as possible. And the car they will buy will be more efficient and burn cleaner than the car the West developed with. And the stove they will use will be more efficient. Until it becomes electric.
- gibolt 3y agoRenewable production is still rapidly increasing, and prices falling. At some point, you saturate the most profitable markets relative to production, and get a race to the bottom. Worse off nations should benefit from the glut of cheaper panels from companies fighting to stay afloat, that are far cheaper than continuing to buy oil.
- nico_h 3y agoLet’s just hope China doesn’t collapse then. We need to produce more panels in more places, however high startup and supply chain setup costs with falling market prices means it’s leading to only established players or national strategic investing.
- epolanski 3y agoWhat a deaf way of thinking imho. We should all strive to do what we can, regardless of what others do. Setting an example and making investments eventually trickles down abroad with technologies being cheaper, with foreign companies being pushed by genuine or PR reasons to make investments on being greener in those countries etc.
- beepboopamkitty 3y agoThe idea that foreign countries will be influenced or pushed by Western countries "setting a good example" into making investments that would benefit their countries from an environmental standpoint is absurd. Do you really think that Chad, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. (who are all at the top of that list for countries with the worst air pollution) give a damn about their air quality? Or PR reasons for bettering their countries? Not even slightly. The leaders of those countries couldn't care less about "their people" because their goal is to keep them poor, uneducated and scared so they can stay rich and in power. This is painfully obvious and pretending it's not real won't help any advancements.
- epolanski 3y agoYou're on your own mission so reasoning with you seems pointless. You made up your mind and didn't even bother checking. But I'll leave you with that. Solar gives 14'000 Iraqis job nowadays and villages fully solar powered are more and more common [1]. Chad too, which you mention, has multiple solar projects[2]. None of this would've happened without the rest of the world making important investments and making the technology cheap. Setting examples and doing the right thing is morally important regardless of what others do. That still stands. And as an European I much hope for cleaner air, less smog, less gas heaters, etc. It doesn't make sense to go the other way and have tens of thousands die each year because "it's cheaper if we use fossils". As a society we have to move forwards and stop thinking it's all about the individual and economical stats. Economical stats go up and we're as miserable and lonely and mentally unstable as we've ever been. We may at least leave a slightly cleaner and healthier world. [1]https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231102-iraq-inches-toward-solar-powered-future https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231102-iraq-inches-t... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27jermaya_Solar_Power_Station https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27jermaya_Solar_Power_Stat...
- nerdbert 3y agoWhen people in richer countries buy a lot of solar panels and heat pumps and whatnot, that brings down the manufacturing cost of these items, so that they also become the rational choice in poorer countries. Once everyone in America started driving cars, that didn't drive a resurgence in the use of horses for transportation in Africa.
- muspimerol 3y agoI’d argue that the rich nations have an obligation to find a way to structure a less carbon intensive economy. The global south can benefit from the R&D that the west does. It’s not a forgone conclusion that the only way to grow is by burning fossil fuels, but the global south will certainly go that way if there is no known alternative.
- h0l0cube 3y agoLooking at the data, Africa and Asia have been steadily increasing their renewables and currently have higher percentage than the US, though the US are catching up very fast thanks to the IRA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-electricity-renewables?tab=chart&country=OWID_WRL~OWID_AFR~OWID_EUR~OWID_ASI~USA~OWID_OCE https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-electricity-renewab...
- pstrateman 3y agoLiterally exactly what I'm predicting will happen is what's happening today. North American and European CO2 emissions are decreasing, but world wide emissions are constant. The rest of the world doesn't care, we're only bankrupting ourselves in a futile struggle. If you really want to reduce atmospheric CO2 the only solution is massive sequestration or military force to stop the third world from burning fossil fuels. https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/co2?time=1941..latest&facet=none&country=OWID_AFR~OWID_NAM~OWID_ASI~OWID_EUR~OWID_SAM~OWID_WRL&hideControls=false&Gas+or+Warming=CO%E2%82%82&Accounting=Production-based&Fuel+or+Land+Use+Change=All+fossil+emissions&Count=Per+capita https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/co2?time=1941..latest&f... Here's a better link: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/co2?time=1941..latest&facet=none&country=OWID_WRL~High-income+countries~Low-income+countries~Lower-middle-income+countries~Upper-middle-income+countries&hideControls=false&Gas+or+Warming=CO%E2%82%82&Accounting=Production-based&Fuel+or+Land+Use+Change=All+fossil+emissions&Count=Per+capita https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/co2?time=1941..latest&f...
- nico_h 3y agoOr like, affordable renewables and reforestation. Also we need to cool the oceans ASAP so they can recover their carbon sequestration capacity. Maybe we could use the negative spot price of renewables to cool the coastal waters as a form of geo engineering.
- pstrateman 3y agoReforestation is a scam, the total biomass of all plants on earth is about 450 billion tons.[1] Global CO2 emissions are on the order of 55 billion tons a year. The only way reforestation is going to matter is if we cut down all the trees globally and regrow them completely every 10 years, which uh seems unlikely. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6016768/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6016768/ Edit: that being said I do like forests, not because of the CO2 reduction, but because they're nice places.
- dandellion 3y agoThe US once spread democracy all over the world, surely they can spread renewable energy the same way too.
- nico_h 3y agoSo they can keep the oil for themselves. “Look what this oil dependency makes us do! Don’t fall into that trap! (And anyway it’s ours!)”
- yread 3y agoNot all countries in Africa are dirty polluters (like South Africa). Kenya or Congo are basically all renewable
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago> CO2 production ... African This is so hypocritical it is breathtaking! Tiny UK alone has, historically, produced more CO2 that all of Africa has done so far! Furthermore, USA & West perceives themselves to be leaders in technology and innovation. Cleantech was a perfect opportunity to sell world-leading products to the rest of the world, and make bank. Instead we dithered and delayed, missed the opportunity, and now African leaders are making fun of us, "Why do you come to our country only to complain about China? That's all we hear from you!'
- ThatMedicIsASpy 3y agoChina installed more solar panels last year than the U.S. has in total. 500GW end of 2023. 1TW in 3 years is their current goal.
- rstuart4133 3y ago> Pretty sure none of these countries have emissions targets That's wrong. I'm not sure why I'm replying as truth seems be to first casualty in culture wars, but the only two that matter in that list are China and India due to their population. China: President Xi announced that China would reach its carbon emissions peak before 2030 and become “carbon neutral” before 2060. https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/the-carbon-brief-profile-china/ https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/the-carbon-brief-profile... India: Reduce the carbon intensity of its economy by at least 45 percent by 2030 compared to 2005 levels. Achieve the target of net zero by 2070. https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/publications/assessing-india-s-ambitious-climate-commitments/ https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/publications/assessing... Most countries have announced feel good emissions targets. It's a great way to generate political feel good's, and talk is cheap.