4 ms·

So far we are still increasing the rate at which we extract fossil fuels, even with all the investment in renewables and alternate power sources in the last dec

So far we are still increasing the rate at which we extract fossil fuels, even with all the investment in renewables and alternate power sources in the last decades (https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels). The Jevon paradox seem to still be valid in this, even with a few countries that managed to have most of their energy matrix on clean sources. And with all the time that CO2 remains in the atmosphere it is not enough to just extract a bit less, thing that still may take years to be achieved, all that was managed to be captured by some expensive carbon capture technology is probably orders below of how much we increased emissions. Absolute global numbers matters here. And yes, it is not possible to just stop extracting fossil fuels and try to solve our energy needs with what we have built so far. But time is running out (if it is not over already). Severe drop in consumption should be in the map too, there was a shortlived dent in the trends around 2020.

standeven 2y ago
And that’s why carbon taxes are so beneficial. It’s a shame they’ve been villainized and are unpopular.
- _bent 2y ago
  The issue is that they do not work. If your constituents made bad investments and are stuck with oil heating because they heard that solar is woke on Fox, you cannot actually have them face the consequences of their actions. You will either not be elected or the media response will be so bad that you won't be able to govern. You will have to bail them out or add exemptions
  - jeauxlb 2y ago
    This is easily solved. Particularly as industry is such a large contributor to GHG emissions, imposing a carbon tax on industry and possibly even allowing grandfathering allows the costs to be baked in to (only) future considerations, and makes cleaner companies more competitive compared to dirtier ones.
    - naasking 2y ago
      Baking them into future decisions will not be enough. Sorry, if people made bad investments it will teach them to be smarter. Accomodations can only go so far to be effective.
- lumb63 2y ago
  I am a fan of a carbon tax, but one issue I’ve never seen addressed by proponents is the regressive structure of the tax. Oftentimes the poorest areas are using the most carbon-intensive energy sources and thus stand to be hurt the most by a carbon tax. There is little the average poor person can do to avoid this Similar logic applies for, e.g. EV subsidies - the people most capable of dishing out the cash to secure a subsidy are those in the financially best positions.
  - CalRobert 2y ago
    Within a given area rich people tend to use more carbon. Poor people are less likely to be taking international flights, etc. Annoyingly, one big problem is that we've allowed NIMBY's to make it illegal to build homes near jobs, so people who can't afford homes near work are often stuck driving long distances to work through no fault of their own.
    - 7speter 2y ago
      Rich people can afford electric cars while poor people won’t be able to, even if the car is used, through the next decade. If anything, SUV prices will drop like a rock… Also, rich people can decide to pay for expensive upgrades to their homes (switching to heatpumps, upgrading electrical wiring for efficient solar/wind usage, solar panels, high voltage chargers for electrical vehicles), while poorer home owners (many of whom are on fixed income), aren’t able to do those things.
      - CalRobert 2y ago
        We agree, this is why I am not a huge fan of subsidies for EV's. Among other things, we should be encouraging fewer cars of all sorts. I do like ebike subsidies though, and better public transport. Similarly, it can make sense to help people improve their home's efficiency, and in some places grants are available for this (insulation, etc.). Though in many cases you're using renters' taxes to make the homeowner wealthier, which isn't really fair.
  - jogjayr 2y ago
xbmcuser 2y ago
The past decade does not matter as till this year consumption growth was more than renewables additions that has changed in 2023 and will accelerate from 2024. So the tipping point has just been reached add electrification of transport and heating and fossil fuel use will come down a lot faster than people owning fossil fuel reserves would like for the world to realize. In 2024 we will add almost more solar than all the solar installs in the world till 2020.
- gmuslera 2y ago
  The problem is not how much solar we add, but that it is not corresponded with a reduction of demand of fossil fuels. Not sure about 2024, but at least for the years of the ourworldindata info it was still on its way up. And the solution is not just maintaining the same levels of the previous year, but dropping to zero far before there is no way out anymore.
  - xbmcuser 2y ago
    Ah no it is we are not eating fossil fuel it is used to produce energy if an alternative cheaper source of energy comes up world will start replacing fossil fuels. You will see the effect of this in the next 3-4 years as solar and battery price out fossil fuels for electricity first and 10+ years when they start pricing out fossil fuels for other energy use. Where as global warming I am pessimistic about it I think we have already crossed the point of no return for me solar and cheap electricity would allow humans to survive easier in a warming world.
jillesvangurp 2y ago
Any timelines we impose are artificial. Setting deadlines hasn't really helped accomplish as much as simply changing the economics has in recent years. The reason solar power is popular is simply that it saves people money on their electricity bills. That wasn't always true. But now that it is, we see huge growth at both grid level and domestic level of its deployment. You are right we are still expanding the use of fossil fuels. But we do seem to be on a path where the peak usage is happening in the reasonably near future. The faster than expected adoption of renewables is bringing that moment forward. I regularly read what Bloomberg NEF publishes on this topic. They published an interesting article recently: https://about.bnef.com/blog/designing-and-delivering-net-zero-policy-tackling-a-long-term-problem-today/ https://about.bnef.com/blog/designing-and-delivering-net-zer... They are calling for short term policy changes to accelerate things. Most of those policies are simply about incentivizing people doing the right things.

standeven 2y ago

And that’s why carbon taxes are so beneficial. It’s a shame they’ve been villainized and are unpopular.

_bent 2y ago
The issue is that they do not work. If your constituents made bad investments and are stuck with oil heating because they heard that solar is woke on Fox, you cannot actually have them face the consequences of their actions. You will either not be elected or the media response will be so bad that you won't be able to govern. You will have to bail them out or add exemptions
- jeauxlb 2y ago
  This is easily solved. Particularly as industry is such a large contributor to GHG emissions, imposing a carbon tax on industry and possibly even allowing grandfathering allows the costs to be baked in to (only) future considerations, and makes cleaner companies more competitive compared to dirtier ones.
  - naasking 2y ago
    Baking them into future decisions will not be enough. Sorry, if people made bad investments it will teach them to be smarter. Accomodations can only go so far to be effective.
lumb63 2y ago
I am a fan of a carbon tax, but one issue I’ve never seen addressed by proponents is the regressive structure of the tax. Oftentimes the poorest areas are using the most carbon-intensive energy sources and thus stand to be hurt the most by a carbon tax. There is little the average poor person can do to avoid this Similar logic applies for, e.g. EV subsidies - the people most capable of dishing out the cash to secure a subsidy are those in the financially best positions.
- CalRobert 2y ago
  Within a given area rich people tend to use more carbon. Poor people are less likely to be taking international flights, etc. Annoyingly, one big problem is that we've allowed NIMBY's to make it illegal to build homes near jobs, so people who can't afford homes near work are often stuck driving long distances to work through no fault of their own.
  - 7speter 2y ago
    Rich people can afford electric cars while poor people won’t be able to, even if the car is used, through the next decade. If anything, SUV prices will drop like a rock… Also, rich people can decide to pay for expensive upgrades to their homes (switching to heatpumps, upgrading electrical wiring for efficient solar/wind usage, solar panels, high voltage chargers for electrical vehicles), while poorer home owners (many of whom are on fixed income), aren’t able to do those things.
    - CalRobert 2y ago
      We agree, this is why I am not a huge fan of subsidies for EV's. Among other things, we should be encouraging fewer cars of all sorts. I do like ebike subsidies though, and better public transport. Similarly, it can make sense to help people improve their home's efficiency, and in some places grants are available for this (insulation, etc.). Though in many cases you're using renters' taxes to make the homeowner wealthier, which isn't really fair.
- jogjayr 2y ago

xbmcuser 2y ago

The past decade does not matter as till this year consumption growth was more than renewables additions that has changed in 2023 and will accelerate from 2024. So the tipping point has just been reached add electrification of transport and heating and fossil fuel use will come down a lot faster than people owning fossil fuel reserves would like for the world to realize. In 2024 we will add almost more solar than all the solar installs in the world till 2020.

gmuslera 2y ago
The problem is not how much solar we add, but that it is not corresponded with a reduction of demand of fossil fuels. Not sure about 2024, but at least for the years of the ourworldindata info it was still on its way up. And the solution is not just maintaining the same levels of the previous year, but dropping to zero far before there is no way out anymore.
- xbmcuser 2y ago
  Ah no it is we are not eating fossil fuel it is used to produce energy if an alternative cheaper source of energy comes up world will start replacing fossil fuels. You will see the effect of this in the next 3-4 years as solar and battery price out fossil fuels for electricity first and 10+ years when they start pricing out fossil fuels for other energy use. Where as global warming I am pessimistic about it I think we have already crossed the point of no return for me solar and cheap electricity would allow humans to survive easier in a warming world.

jillesvangurp 2y ago

Any timelines we impose are artificial. Setting deadlines hasn't really helped accomplish as much as simply changing the economics has in recent years. The reason solar power is popular is simply that it saves people money on their electricity bills. That wasn't always true. But now that it is, we see huge growth at both grid level and domestic level of its deployment. You are right we are still expanding the use of fossil fuels. But we do seem to be on a path where the peak usage is happening in the reasonably near future. The faster than expected adoption of renewables is bringing that moment forward. I regularly read what Bloomberg NEF publishes on this topic. They published an interesting article recently: https://about.bnef.com/blog/designing-and-delivering-net-zero-policy-tackling-a-long-term-problem-today/ https://about.bnef.com/blog/designing-and-delivering-net-zer... They are calling for short term policy changes to accelerate things. Most of those policies are simply about incentivizing people doing the right things.