52
Renewables are cheaper than ever yet fossil fuel use is still growing – here’s why
(theconversation.com)
It couldn't possibly be the trillion dollar oil industry
this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2023
52 points (100.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
149 readers
8 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Cooling economic activity in Asia – especially China – might reverse this trend, making a replacement pattern similar to Europe and North America feasible.
So according to the article a problem created by rapid industrialization of the west has to be solved by a deindustrialization of the east.
No, basicly energy demand and economic growth are linked. Asia and especially China built renewables very quickly, but energy demand due to economic growth is even faster, so the gap has to be closed by fossil fuels. So if there is a slow down in growth, less new energy is needed and the fast growing renewables can start to replace fossil fuels or at least stop emissions growth.
So no deindustrialization, just no rapid industrialization. Btw China did not have a full on econmic crisis for over 30 years, is currently in a trade war and has a population decline. So they are overdue for the normal capitalist econmic crisis and the current data does not look too good.
So what pace would the benevolent west would like the east to go at. What pace do you deem us to go at.
It would be good, if China does not have higher per capita emissions then the West in five years, which would propably happen if emissions in the West continue to drop and emissions in China continue to rise the way they did in the last decade and more. Not that the emissions in the West should stop droping thou.
As for the rest of Asia it depends. Japan, South Korea and the other rich countries should drop emissions. India, Pakistan and other poor countries should make sure they are able to treat their people well, without raising emissions too much.
However that is not the policy of the West, but my opinion, but since you called me benevolent I thought it was a decent idea to give it to you.
So wouldn't it be better if the west supplies from the billions it has earned from exporting emissions to East a part so that east can have an equivalent reduction.
No, the money should go from the rich to the poor and not be based on some bs east or west stuff. As I said Japan and South Korea certainly do not need Poland or so to pay for their emission reduction.
Right now the most important part should be to reduce emission growth and the best way to do this is to help the poorest countires, who are mainly in Africa to increase material well being in a somewhat sustainable way. Richer countries have less children, so that would stabalize the global population and we might see a global population decline in 2050 or so. Countries like China, Thailand and countries on a similar level, should not recieve help to reduce emissions nor be expected to provide help to the countries actually needing help.
load more comments
(1 replies)
in 1995 I had a 1GB hard drive. It was 80% full.
Nowadays I have 2TB. It's still 80% full.