Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SexyOldHobo t1_j7gr857 wrote

I blame voters for constantly electing fossil fuel executives into our government, who then nominate more people with fossil fuel ties to the judiciary.

Not only are current policies inadequate, at least in America, I bet it will be illegal to attempt to close power plants by 2050, and we will most certainly be using our military and international presence to keep the world using our products.

Pretty much the same situation we have now, just with more judicial precedent preventing any civil or public action against the fossil industry.

Voters have shown they do not want change, so there will be none

101

grundar t1_j7hsi7v wrote

> Voters have shown they do not want change, so there will be none

Voters are not the only source of change -- change is happening because it's cheaper.

That's why the USA is closing fossil fuel power plants twice as fast as it's building them (7.5GW added vs. 16GW retired in 2023).

That's why Texas went from 6% wind+solar in 2012 to 17% in 2017 to 31% in 2022.

And that's also why the International Energy Agency projects carbon emissions will fall 15-20% by 2030.

Is that a morally satisfying reason for change to occur? No, not really -- it feels weird to have the right thing happen for the wrong reason. Climate change is important enough that we don't really get to be choosy about why the needed change is happening, only that the needed change is happening.

And, make no mistake, as the above data shows change is indeed happening. It may not be the kind of sweeping environmental awakening one might have hoped for, but it replaced coal and gas with wind+solar+storage, so for now that'll have to do.

18

ludwigvanboltzmann t1_j7k1kbk wrote

I don't care why it's happening, I do care that it's not happening anywhere near fast enough...

9

grundar t1_j7o8ly9 wrote

> > the International Energy Agency projects carbon emissions will fall 15-20% by 2030.
>
> I don't care why it's happening, I do care that it's not happening anywhere near fast enough...

...fast enough for what, exactly?

A 15-20% emissions reduction by 2030 puts us on the second-lowest IPCC pathway which is estimated to result in 1.8C of warming by 2100 (+0.6C above today), in line with Climate Action Tracker's estimate.

So we're certainly not on track for holding warming to 1.5C; however, we are on track for holding warming below 2C, which is a better outcome than I expected even just 5 years ago, and is far better than Climate Action Tracker's most optimistic projection from 5 years ago.

It's not perfect, but it's substantial progress, so I'll take that as a good starting point.

2

SolarStarVanity t1_j7jp8b6 wrote

That's like saying "You have a bleeding gunshot wound, and you are going to die from it pretty soon, but here is an Advil! It might not be the first aid you were hoping for, but it's what I got, so for now that'll have to do."

5

OrangeHatsnFeralCats t1_j7h4wwb wrote

I blame fossil fuel execs buying our politicians no matter who we vote for.

10

SexyOldHobo t1_j7hosyu wrote

Actually most candidates are pretty open about their energy policies.

You can’t vote for Biden then complain he’s not Bernie

2

Natho74 t1_j7ixetj wrote

The problem is you vote for Bernie but then he can't win so you're forced to vote for Biden because at least his policies are better than the other side's.

3

kenlubin t1_j7jjd57 wrote

Biden has produced some fantastic results for us on policy to address climate change.

2

Sanpaku t1_j7hc4ju wrote

To be in such a fate of blissful ignorance. Of how the climate crisis will affect food security and civil conflict (bigger problems than sea-side real estate, IMO) over the next human lifetime. How these changes are likely to persist for the next several hundred generations after that.

And should the realization dawn that they've chosen an immiserated future for their children, grandchildren and further descendants, I expect they'll blame the climate scientists for not warning them urgently enough.

8

fatamSC2 t1_j7ifq6h wrote

Has nothing to do with it. You could be as green as humanly possible and the poorer countries will still use coal because they're trying to catch up and green just isn't feasible in those countries for the most part. Or at least not on any grand scale. So coal usage will continue on until green becomes VERY affordable

6

reddituser567853 t1_j7j7quh wrote

Which will indeed be the case. Coal will be phased out economically, no matter how much you don't care about the environment

Solar also allows micro grids, a huge plus for the underdeveloped world.

2

thomasrat1 t1_j7j325j wrote

That or global governments start to pay for poorer countries to switch to green energy.

1

lowcrawler t1_j7jkjf2 wrote

Green energy is generally cheaper and more easily distributed and crowd sourced.

The argument that first world countries shouldn't pave the way because poor countries will choose coal is faulty.

0

El_Grappadura t1_j7jvalk wrote

The big problem is that the western nations are overconsuming by a lot. The current state is basically: "We cannot allow those poor countries to raise their standard of living", because nobody wants to talk about the necessity of scaling down.

I am personally not d'accord with a policy that involves an abandonment of billions of people because the global elite doesn't want to scale down their obscene lifestyles. We are basically condemning them to die..

0

chesterbennediction t1_j7i7o19 wrote

It's almost like we need fossil fuels to continue our way of life and it's isn't feasible to shut them all down.

2

jeffwulf t1_j7lmuvs wrote

Isn't feasible to shut them all down yet. We've set the base for doing it, we just need to keep building on it.

1

Splenda t1_j7o8tmw wrote

Not most voters. Just most voters in fossil fueled states, many of them rural, who get unfair extra votes due to an antique Constitution that has become the fossil fuel industry's primary weapon against climate solutions.

1

KetaCuck t1_j7hyc27 wrote

I don't think most people understand how much power coal produces and how long it would take us to catch up with "green energy." It would be literally impossible to produce an equivalent amount of energy with wind and solar in that time frame. We'd basically have to build one nuclear power plant a week for the next 25 years.

−1

danielravennest t1_j7mdwc5 wrote

> We'd basically have to build one nuclear power plant a week for the next 25 years.

The world installed an estimated 268 GW of solar in 2022. Assuming a 20% "capacity factor" (actual average output accounting for night and weather) that comes to 53.6 GW average power. Note: US average capacity factor for solar is 24.4%, but not everywhere is so sunny.

A typical size for a new nuclear plant is 1 GW, so that is 53.6 nuclear plants, slightly more than one a week. It is just solar uses a fusion plant that is safely located 149.6 million km away.

2

jeffwulf t1_j7lo4bb wrote

In the US we've been rapidly phasing out coal already with most of the decline being replaced by renewables.

1

danielravennest t1_j7me7ig wrote

Natural gas started replacing coal due to fracking making it cheaper. This started several years before wind and solar were competitive. Now all three are killing coal, but as wind and solar keep getting cheaper, less of it will be natural gas (14% this year for new NG in the US).

1