3 ms·

I considered that question just an example. Anyway, considering that China alone installed about 60% of the new renewable capacity in the whole world in 2024–20

I considered that question just an example. Anyway, considering that China alone installed about 60% of the new renewable capacity in the whole world in 2024–2025, and that about 90% of new capacity is based on renewables both there and in India, I really don't see how your argument on that holds. For low skill immigration, I fundamentally agree with you, and that's something I personally criticize left wing politicians a lot. I see the stance that Western countries can (and should) accept any amount of immigration as a left-wing form of populism. Regarding JFK and the Moon, that's the opposite of populism - that's leading and shaping people's ideas and perceptions. How many Americans were thinking about going to the Moon before JFK made that an important issue?

somenameforme 9mo ago
It was indeed just an example, but a pointed one to try to figure out where your definition begins and where it ends. As for China's claims, beware of capacity factor. [1] Installed capacity is based on peak figures, whereas practical output tends to be a fraction of that for clean energy sources, but significantly higher for energy like coal. It makes it easy to make headlines that sound good, but don't mean what we'd think they mean, and China's not the only one doing this. In any case, CO2 levels are going to continue skyrocketing for the foreseeable future. As for JFK - going to the Moon is something that people would somewhat naturally support. If they oppose it, it's going to be on political grounds, perhaps they think the money could be better spent in the current moment, and not because they literally just don't ever want to send people to the Moon. By contrast something like e.g. political correctness is the exact opposite. People are going to naturally oppose it, unless there is a political motivation behind supporting it. I also chose that exact example because of the comment you made about populists promising the Moon - it turns out that sometimes they deliver. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor
- danmaz74 9mo ago
  Sure, we're going to emit a lot of carbon dioxide for a long time, but we're talking about planet-level changes here, and changing the trend/trajectory has HUGE impact. At least if you care about future generations (I've got a daughter and several nephews, I don't know about you). Anyway, I asked chatgpt to estimate actual averaged capacity, and for China we have that nuclear+renewables (low-carbon) added 73% of new capacity in the last two years. I bet that the figure will become even better in the next years, as batteries and other storage methods become less expensive. Regarding the Moon, are you sure that you're not equating "populist" with "what I personally like"? To make a counterexample, what do you think about free universal medical care? Do you think that "the masses" would "naturally" want that, or not? PS By the way, I'm far from what you would probably define "woke". I actually think that the excesses of wokism were a decisive contributing factor to Trump's win.
  - somenameforme 9mo ago
    The capacity factor means you're also adding less energy than it might seem. Here is a nice graph of CO2 levels [1]. There's a breakdown by country a bit lower. The trend for CO2 levels remains quite sharp. And China is not the only factor. Asia, especially India, Africa, and many other places are due for ever greater levels of development and industrialization. For instance India has 1.4 billion people yet just 60% of the emissions of Europe. The entirety of Africa has less than 33% the emissions of Europe! These figures are not sustainable. However, I am not that concerned about it, also as a family man. There's a finite amount of fossil fuels in the world, they will run out eventually, and become economically unfeasible long before that. So even if we do absolutely nothing, the world will likely be economically forced to start transitioning away, likely on a timeframe that is within our lives. Arguably it's already happening with places in the Mideast aggressively seeking to diversify their economies. In any case CO2 levels when dinos roamed the Earth and the oceans were full of life, were upwards of 1200ppm owing to natural processes. We're not going to hit anywhere near that even if we burn everything - in other words there's no scenario where we become Venus, or anything even remotely like it. Some places will become more hospitable, some will become less, optimal places for growing crops (and/or different types of crops) will shift, and overall there will be a lot more greenery. It's a pretty dumb experiment, but it'll be fine. --- On free healthcare - if we are speaking hypothetically of genuinely free health care at comparable quality then obviously everybody's going to want it. The problem is that those 'political objections' are pretty tough in this case. Obviously it won't be free - it'd be paid through taxes, and the government has already shown itself in a relationship with the healthcare industry where they are, at the minimum, uninterested in reigning in healthcare costs, and government operated systems invariably balloon costs. Outside of free likely becoming quite expensive, there's also the issue of quality and availability. Countries that have had experience running 'free' healthcare systems for decades are increasingly running into problems in modern times with declining economic growth, declining fertility, increasing health issues (obesity, psychological, etc), and so on. Even Scandiland is seeing increasing trends towards privatization in healthcare, and that's with a vastly more appropriate population for such - much less corruption, healthier, preexisting high taxes, fewer social divisions, fewer people seeking to abuse the systems in place, etc. It is still working for them, but I'm not sure if it's indefinitely sustainable at current fertility/economic trends. --- And yeah, I definitely knew you weren't "woke" since they in general seem completely incapable of having a good old debate/discussion! I think the fear of 'wrongthink' makes people accept things that they wouldn't otherwise rationally accept which makes them unable to competently defend their views when speaking somebody of a different worldview. [1] - https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions

somenameforme 9mo ago

It was indeed just an example, but a pointed one to try to figure out where your definition begins and where it ends. As for China's claims, beware of capacity factor. [1] Installed capacity is based on peak figures, whereas practical output tends to be a fraction of that for clean energy sources, but significantly higher for energy like coal. It makes it easy to make headlines that sound good, but don't mean what we'd think they mean, and China's not the only one doing this. In any case, CO2 levels are going to continue skyrocketing for the foreseeable future. As for JFK - going to the Moon is something that people would somewhat naturally support. If they oppose it, it's going to be on political grounds, perhaps they think the money could be better spent in the current moment, and not because they literally just don't ever want to send people to the Moon. By contrast something like e.g. political correctness is the exact opposite. People are going to naturally oppose it, unless there is a political motivation behind supporting it. I also chose that exact example because of the comment you made about populists promising the Moon - it turns out that sometimes they deliver. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor

danmaz74 9mo ago
Sure, we're going to emit a lot of carbon dioxide for a long time, but we're talking about planet-level changes here, and changing the trend/trajectory has HUGE impact. At least if you care about future generations (I've got a daughter and several nephews, I don't know about you). Anyway, I asked chatgpt to estimate actual averaged capacity, and for China we have that nuclear+renewables (low-carbon) added 73% of new capacity in the last two years. I bet that the figure will become even better in the next years, as batteries and other storage methods become less expensive. Regarding the Moon, are you sure that you're not equating "populist" with "what I personally like"? To make a counterexample, what do you think about free universal medical care? Do you think that "the masses" would "naturally" want that, or not? PS By the way, I'm far from what you would probably define "woke". I actually think that the excesses of wokism were a decisive contributing factor to Trump's win.
- somenameforme 9mo ago
  The capacity factor means you're also adding less energy than it might seem. Here is a nice graph of CO2 levels [1]. There's a breakdown by country a bit lower. The trend for CO2 levels remains quite sharp. And China is not the only factor. Asia, especially India, Africa, and many other places are due for ever greater levels of development and industrialization. For instance India has 1.4 billion people yet just 60% of the emissions of Europe. The entirety of Africa has less than 33% the emissions of Europe! These figures are not sustainable. However, I am not that concerned about it, also as a family man. There's a finite amount of fossil fuels in the world, they will run out eventually, and become economically unfeasible long before that. So even if we do absolutely nothing, the world will likely be economically forced to start transitioning away, likely on a timeframe that is within our lives. Arguably it's already happening with places in the Mideast aggressively seeking to diversify their economies. In any case CO2 levels when dinos roamed the Earth and the oceans were full of life, were upwards of 1200ppm owing to natural processes. We're not going to hit anywhere near that even if we burn everything - in other words there's no scenario where we become Venus, or anything even remotely like it. Some places will become more hospitable, some will become less, optimal places for growing crops (and/or different types of crops) will shift, and overall there will be a lot more greenery. It's a pretty dumb experiment, but it'll be fine. --- On free healthcare - if we are speaking hypothetically of genuinely free health care at comparable quality then obviously everybody's going to want it. The problem is that those 'political objections' are pretty tough in this case. Obviously it won't be free - it'd be paid through taxes, and the government has already shown itself in a relationship with the healthcare industry where they are, at the minimum, uninterested in reigning in healthcare costs, and government operated systems invariably balloon costs. Outside of free likely becoming quite expensive, there's also the issue of quality and availability. Countries that have had experience running 'free' healthcare systems for decades are increasingly running into problems in modern times with declining economic growth, declining fertility, increasing health issues (obesity, psychological, etc), and so on. Even Scandiland is seeing increasing trends towards privatization in healthcare, and that's with a vastly more appropriate population for such - much less corruption, healthier, preexisting high taxes, fewer social divisions, fewer people seeking to abuse the systems in place, etc. It is still working for them, but I'm not sure if it's indefinitely sustainable at current fertility/economic trends. --- And yeah, I definitely knew you weren't "woke" since they in general seem completely incapable of having a good old debate/discussion! I think the fear of 'wrongthink' makes people accept things that they wouldn't otherwise rationally accept which makes them unable to competently defend their views when speaking somebody of a different worldview. [1] - https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions