SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the did-you-check-to-turn-the-lights-off dept.
Germany's economy nowadays emits as much carbon dioxide as it did in the 1950s, when it was 10 times smaller.
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), carbon dioxide emissions trends for 2019 suggest clean energy transitions are underway. Global power sector emissions declined by some 170 Mt, or 1.2%, with the biggest falls taking place in the advanced economies of the European Union, Japan and the United States. There, CO2 emissions are now at levels not seen since the late 1980s, when electricity demand was one-third lower.
In these advanced economies, the average CO2 emissions intensity of electricity generation declined by nearly 6.5% in 2019. This is a rate three times faster than the average over the past decade.
This decline is driven by a switch from coal to natural gas, a rise in nuclear power and weaker electricity demand, combined with the seemingly unstoppable growth in renewables. These now constitute over 40% of the energy mix in Germany (wind power +11%) and the United Kingdom, where rapid expansion in offshore wind power generation is happening.
The bummer lies with the rest of the world.
There emissions continue to expand with close to 400 Mt last year. About 80% of that increase is happening in Asia. Coal demand here continues to expand, accounting for over 50% of energy use.
(Score: 5, Informative) by meustrus on Wednesday February 12 2020, @07:37PM (12 children)
What you're seeing there is a graph of infrastructure build-out and associated economic growth.
Funny how it goes up in Democrat years, but mostly stays flat in Republican years.
It also fluctuates seemingly randomly from year to year, so we really don't have the data yet to make any clear statements about trends during the Trump presidency.
Also, it's not Democrats who claim that stopping climate change "would cost one trillion dollars per year". That's FUD from the climate change deniers, and it has literally zero basis in fact.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 12 2020, @07:44PM
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/04/pete-buttigieg-unveils-1point1-trillion-climate-change-plan.html [cnbc.com]
"Sanders has proposed the largest federal investment in combating climate change, laying out his plan for a $16.3 trillion outlay over 15 years in renewable energy and public infrastructure.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., who dropped out of the race last week, had been the next closest candidate, with her proposal for a $10 trillion "moonshot" plan for the next decade."
Those are democrats. You are a liar.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 12 2020, @07:45PM (2 children)
So you think government activity causes climate change?
False.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/527196/how-much-will-it-cost-to-solve-climate-change/ [technologyreview.com]
https://www.axios.com/climate-change-costs-wealth-carbon-tax-303d7cff-3085-49d9-accb-ec77689b9911.html [axios.com]
Etc, etc. This has been repeated over and over so you just have no idea what you are talking about.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Sulla on Wednesday February 12 2020, @08:47PM (1 child)
Wew thats expensive when we could go with better sources for cheaper.
2018 Numbers
Currently fossil fuels represent ~60% of US power generation, with ~30% of that being from Coal. Nuclear power is 20% of current power generation at 98 operating plants.
New nuclear plants cost between 6 and 9 billion each for a 1100 MW plant. If we wanted to take that 60% fossil and convert to Nuclear it would cost 2.352 Trillion on the low end and 3.528 Trillion on the high end.
I will vote for anyone who ran on this platform.
If we were to just replace Coal it would cost between 882B and 1,323B, also very reasonable.
As a side benefit it would bring the cost of consumption as well
Economic growth due to cheaper prices
Energy independence
No need for foreign oil wars
Clean
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 12 2020, @11:52PM
It is about siphoning off large sums of money. As is exemplified by totally opposing nuclear energy which could give those results in a practical, tried way, and instead peddling one expensive physics-defying fantasy scheme after another.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by meustrus on Wednesday February 12 2020, @09:17PM (7 children)
Responding to myself to respond to both comments:
- Whoever moderated me +1 Informative is wrong. Read my signature.
- I have not read any of the linked articles. I'd moderate people +1 Informative myself if they weren't deliberately misrepresenting what the reports claim and who is behind them.
- The linked articles are not from Democrats, but from non-partisan international groups primarily concerned with energy security, not climate change.
- The linked articles are about total economic cost including "real-world factors", not about direct cost to the government which is what I thought we were talking about.
- The linked articles also claim that the total economic cost of inaction is significantly higher (at least $54 trillion).
- If we're being honest, the total economic impact predicted by these articles would be (total economic cost of action - total economic cost of inaction), which is at least a $10 trillion surplus.
- Government policy affects economic growth, for better or for worse, and economic growth is directly correlated to energy consumption which is directly correlated with carbon emissions which is directly correlated with rising temperatures.
- Sanders' plan is for climate change and public infrastructure, not just climate change.
- Sanders is not a Democrat (he's a registered Independent, and he calls himself a Democratic Socialist).
- Any current plans are based on needing to make up for lost time, which is expensive, and I might still be 10 years in the past when it comes to what I think effective climate change policy looks like.
- I was responding to the false equivalence between Trump's policies and Democratic plans. Trump's policies did not accomplish anywhere near what anybody's trillion-dollar infrastructure plan would accomplish.
This post is not any better researched than my original post, so while I've made what I consider to be rather obvious counterarguments based on a cursory evaluation of the quoted articles, there may still be details I have missed. I encourage the reader to dig deeper into all available evidence and its origins.
I'm always happy to have public conversations with known Soylentils, even known trolls. I'm even willing to admit that I'm wrong and consider new evidence. Moving forward, however, I will not be returning to refute any more bad-faith claims from anonymous cowards.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 12 2020, @10:58PM (5 children)
All the same globalist powergrabbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 13 2020, @12:21AM (4 children)
Is there any conspiracy you don't like?
Personally I'm putting my money on "its a Russian troll sowing FUD".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 13 2020, @12:35AM
Yea, the fake one where Trump colluded with the russians. These people can't even come up with a good conspiracy.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 13 2020, @01:42AM (2 children)
The one where the DNC rigs the primary for Biden seems to have fallen out of favor!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 13 2020, @05:23AM (1 child)
Where have you seen that? They clearly tried to fix it for him or buttigieg and then moved onto something else because Biden isn't worth it anymore.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday February 13 2020, @12:09PM
The primaries aren't over yet, and if the current pattern of results continues the Democratic Party will wind up in a brokered convention. Then the super delegates will come into play and it will be a whole new level of rigging. They could anoint Joe Biden then, or anyone they want, really. They could even anoint Hillary for a do-over of 2016.
The DNC has been rigging the contest against Bernie the whole time, and they will keep doing as much as they think they can get away with. I suspect they have already conceded the election to Trump and are now focused on defending the DNC from the progressive base so that they can remain in power as the gatekeepers.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 14 2020, @10:50PM
Thanks for this meta-analysis, and for the links.
Agreed that the bad faith actors are not worth ... well I'll stay polite.