Yeah, this is true. But even more so, the fossilfuel industry used this before as a lobbying strategy to move a lot of countries electrical systems to natural gas over renewables.
There’s some shady stuff too where fracked gas (which the US in particular has a lot of) gives off a tonne of methane potentially making it as pollutant as coal (I don’t have a good source to this, but it’s referenced in Naomi Klein’s this changes everything)
Thanks for sharing - I feel a little dissapointed that you think I’m “nitpicking”. From my point of view I’m asking you for further details, and you’ve explained really fully.
I’m not some internet troll, just a normal person concerned about climate change, and to this point:
Ah, OK! Problem solved. Lol.
Go back and read my first comment, in no way did I claim climate change was solvable.
Thanks for the paper though, will definitely take it away and read it.
I guess maybe I’m missing something?
You’re arguing like current climate models predict 8 degrees warming, but my understanding is that a worst case scenario is 4 degrees- the best reference I can find is UN climate summit comparisons[0].
Do you have any references of stuff predicting 8 degrees or is it your personal prediction? If it’s the second, I don’t really have the knowledge to debate current climate models. If it’s the first link me some stuff!
My understanding (based on reading around and nothing else, I’m not a climate scientist) is we’re at 2 degrees already, 3 degrees is likely and 4 degrees would be close enough to catastrophic that talking about 5 degrees isn’t worthwhile. There’s still margin for human society to stop the worst of outcomes.
[0]https://unclimatesummit.org/comparing-climate-impacts-at-1-5c-2c-3c-and-4c/
how does that power suck fossil carbon out of the biosphere, what’s the tech for that?
Does it have to be tech? Ocean plankton, peat bogs, forests, etc all do a great job of removing and storing carbon. They’re being destroyed currently, but we could choose to bolster them instead.
Just to back up what your saying MIT have a nice explainer on carbon lifetimes[0].
I don’t know if I feel as doomed as you though. There is a lot of technology to reduce carbon (renewables etc). And moreover, a lot of the carbon use today is completely unecessary consumerism.
We’ve had 30 years of political inertia since Regan/Thatcher/etc so political change seems impossible to a lot of folks. Historically that’s just not the case. Before then, voter rights, civil rights, women’s rights all made huge political changes. If there’s any silver lining to the horror show of US politics at the moment, it should be that there is at least proof that massive structural change is possible in today’s political climate, and I genuinely believe that can be harnessed for good.
I don’t think there’s any guarantees, but it’s still a lot too early to give up.
[0] https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-do-we-know-how-long-carbon-dioxide-remains-atmosphere
I like this meme but can’t shut my brain off from saying that the circle doesn’t need 2 cycles in it, it could have just had one of each.
I think you’re right, but I don’t think OP would necessarily disagree (although I don’t know them).
The point is, we don’t really know where, or how many, tipping points there are. Every 0.1 degree warming is a higher chance of reaching them. And most climate models predict very different outcones for 2 degree vs 3 degree vs 4 degree warming.
So, there are a bunch of lags effects and tipping points, but we still don’t have any information to suggest that every 0.1 degree avoided has huge value.
The UK estimate alone was that 600 people would likely die[0], so 8 is probably a very big underestimation.
I mean you literally used quotation marks to write words I didn’t say, but fine. I assume from your comments that you’re progressive and anti-Trump, so keep on pushing for those values!
I think you might have misread my initial comment in that I didn’t say, and don’t agree with branding Biden as the “foundations of facism”.
I’m not saying Biden, Obama, Bush etc are some kind of proto-facists like that implies. I said “the foundations that allowed America to become a new facist state”. I think unless you disagree with me calling Trump’s government facist, that the previous governments created an environment in which he could rise to power seems more or less a statement of fact.
If you’re interested in understanding where I’m coming from (who knows, we’re on the internet after all!) I’d say I mostly agree with Naomi Klein’s take that global politics have become too subservient to mega-corportations and that that’s creating a decline in equality which is driving far right ideology worldwide.[0]
I’m pretty far into stuff that I wasn’t initially trying to comment on though. My point is that the US political system is broken, and blaming people who are disenfranchised at that isn’t an effective strategy for changing things.
I’m 100% not equating Biden with Trump. I’m not trying to deny the comolete horror Trump is afflicting of US and non-US citizens right now.
I’m just saying, he’s a symptom of a broken system. America will only come out of this situation if it recognises that it needs to make real and lasting change.
The non voters might not help, but they’re at least acknowledging this reality. And putting them in the same camp as literal facists is not helping anyone.
I totally feel this frustration, and I’m not US so it’s kinda not my business, but I don’t buy this argument.
Trump America is a horror show, for sure. But the status quo before Trump is also the foundations that allowed America to become a new facist state. Any real solutions need to be bigger than what middle of the road Democrats are offering.
That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t vote against Trump. But the system is clearly broken, stop blaming victims of it, and start blaming its perpetrators.
Yeesh! It’s crazy that gas is so much cheaper in a place with such abundant sunlight- any idea why? Are there lopsided grants/funding?
How much cheaper is gas? In the UK gas is 1/3 the cost of electricity per mw, but gas boilers are less than 1/3 as efficient so heat pumps are still cheaper to run.
Shame the action this is promoting has ended now- this is hilarious and surprisingly professional.
Serious people have some other cool stuff too if anyone’s interested: https://www.seriouspeople.co/
Just want to chip in to say this depends a lot on geography. Places like Sweden with big hydro capacity can store huge amounts of energy easily, and release really fast.
The majority of European countries are still moving in the right direction, albeit far too slowly. It’s mainly just the US that’s abandoning any attempt towards sustainability.
I’d disagree. Even from a pretty neoliberal kind of economics, fast fasion doesn’t factor environmental “externalities” (i.e. the cost doesn’t include environmental destruction) so it’s massively undepriced, which artificially punps up demand for fast fashion.
In other words, the issue is caused by the way the system is set up. I.e. it’s a systemic issue.
I guess what I mean is, renewable doesn’t need tibe 100% all the time to lead to that case. The UK is about 50% renewable overall, but if it’s sunny and windy (or windy and nobody is using electricity) then that ratio jumps over 90% fast.
I think I’m just geeking out on electricity though, not making a meaningful point.
No idea how reliable this is but suggests that 1/2 to 1 meter squared if crop is needed for a loaf of bread: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/how-much-wheat-make-loaf-bread
No idea what the scale is in that picture, but it’d be a lot more efficient to grow potatoes or some similar riot veg if space is a concern.