7 ms·
by burning give amounts of energy and speeding it up
by sumek83 3y ago
by burning give amounts of energy and speeding it up
- gumballindie 3y agoSeems like. And annoying loads of people in the process.
- IKantRead 3y agoThe hype has also been great at fueling economic activity which contributes even more across a wide range of sectors. We know how to reduce carbon emissions immediately, we did a great job of it 3 years ago, we just don't like the answer: reduce economic activity. Consume less, produce less, work less, spend less. These things will do more to reduce CO2 emissions than if everyone rushed out and bought electric cars (in the US ~oil~ gasoline consumption has been positively correlated with electric car ownership). But we don't want that, and more importantly, the stock market doesn't want that. I think most people would be fine with reduce work and reduced consumption (to a point), but the people invested deeply in the status quo tend to have asymmetric influence.
- bryanlarsen 3y agoOur commitment is to get to net-zero by 2050. How does conservation get us to net-zero? US oil consumption peaked in 2005. EV ownership didn't peak in 2005, so it seems like a negative correlation to me.
- IKantRead 3y agoI should have specified gasoline consumption since this more closely maps to what we assume EVs will replace. That has been increasing overtime, barring of course the pandemic, we're on track to pick up from where 2019 left off this year: https://www.statista.com/statistics/188448/total-us-domestic-demand-for-gasoline-since-1990/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/188448/total-us-domestic...
- bryanlarsen 3y agoThat's not correlated with EV usage either. EV's comprise well under 1% of the cars in America, and went up during the pandemic. Your numbers are changing a lot more than 1% and went down during the pandemic.
- CalRobert 3y ago"Consume less, produce less, work less, spend less" I want that. I'd love to trade money for time but the relationship seems non-linear. Working 50% as many hours would mean less than 50% as much pay for the most part.
- pmg102 3y agoAnother approach could be to work for 25 years at full time then 25 doing nothing, instead of 50 years part time. I've heard this approach called FIRE - financial independence, retire early.
- CalRobert 3y agoYeah, taxes make that hard where I am. Better to work part time
- pmg102 3y agoYour point about taxation which is usually progressive is well taken. It could be offset by the fact that you could invest the money from the first 25 years thus benefitting from a compound return. I don't know which has the bigger effect.
- CalRobert 3y agoVery much depends on your country and your particular tax situation, of course. The US is pretty good for FIRE (aside from dealing with health insurance). Ireland (where I live) is terrible, by comparison.
- sumek83 3y agoIMO key is the cost of shelter. In all the desirable locations with good jobs the cost of accommodation rises so much that even well earning middle class in uncertain of their future. There is a number of key services and goods everyone needs: somewhere warm to sleep, some food, and healthcare. If people weren't constantly worried that they will lack this the whole nonsensical piramid of useless work would fall apart and everyone would be much happier
- mistrial9 3y agothis response ignores large and substantial inputs to a complex system of systems, instead choosing to focus on a one-line and highly contentious assertion that directly and falsely merges "growth producing carbon waste" with "economic output." Lazy oversimplification like the parent comment, is directly counterproductive to addressing serious and immediate design and political challenges. Please consider other economic inputs that do not directly increase carbon emissions, and include design consideration where "new machines and methods" can accomplish similar or better economic activity.
- gitfan86 3y agoReducing carbon emissions isn't a solution. We need to go to all the way to zero and then to start carbon capture. That ONLY happens with batteries fusion and AI. We are making progress and as long as the pessimists don't get their way. Ironically people like Greta have had the worst impact on climate. Not just that she flies around the world instead of doing zooms. But that she is all doom and gloom instead of trying to help us progress technology
- IKantRead 3y ago> We are making progress and as long as the pessimists don't get their way. I've been hearing a similar statement for decades now, but the global emissions only continue to rise. In fact, I've been hearing that logic since the late 90s and in that time we have doubled the cumulative emissions up to that point. We have seen that emissions drop with decrease in economic activity (multiple times). Yes, batteries, renewables, and nuclear would all part a big part in a truly sustainable future... but we have to survive until that future first. > Reducing carbon emissions isn't a solution We're well past the "solution" stage of this problem. Where in the "harm reduction" phase. Reduced emissions is absolutely superior in this regard to increased emissions... and yet you're arguing that we should be increasing them because a magic solution is just around the corner, like it always has been.
- hooverd 3y agoNuclear too cheap to meter is too cheap to sustain, ironically. In our current system too much abundance is bad thing.
- gitfan86 3y agoWell I have been hearing that Electric cars would never be adopted at scale and that Tesla was going bankrupt for over a decade. Yet here we are and the Model Y became the best selling car in the world this year. Don't give up hope friend.
- avmich 3y ago> Ironically people like Greta have had the worst impact on climate. Not just that she flies around the world instead of doing zooms. But that she is all doom and gloom instead of trying to help us progress technology I'm pretty sure you're wrong here, and Greta doesn't fly, but if you insist, can you share your sources?
- dmm 3y ago> reduce economic activity. Even if we stopped all carbon emissions today the earth would continue to warm for centuries. Mitigating these effects is going to take carbon capture(aka unburning oil) and geoengineering on an immense scale which won't be possible without economic growth. There's no going back.
- femiagbabiaka 3y agoFalse dichotomy either way -- in reality we will do nothing until the pain becomes unbearable.
- dmm 3y agoReducing economic activity seems incompatible with significant carbon capture.
- sumek83 3y agowe have a choice to reduce economic activity in the controlled or uncontrolled way. sadly it seems we have to have tons of unrepairable electronics replaced every year and downfall of the civilization or it's "communism" aka ultimate evil
- gisely 3y agoNot according to climate scientists. As explained here, mostly believe the warming stop shortly after emissions do: https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-st... More importantly, the sooner we can stop carbon emissions the less severe warming and ecosystem harm we'll experience. Carbon capture may help a bit if we are able to massively scale it up, but there really is not substitute for ending emissions.
- dmm 3y agoThanks for the link. I'll take a look at it.
- cudgy 3y ago
- c_crank 3y ago>I think most people would be fine with reduce work and reduced consumption (to a point) The covid lockdowns and their effects were not popular.