5 ms·
I like the term “emissions-free”. It keeps our eyes on the target - not emitting CO2 and other gasses to the atmosphere. Other qualities like “renewablility”
by vinniepukh 3y ago
I like the term “emissions-free”.
It keeps our eyes on the target - not emitting CO2 and other gasses to the atmosphere.
Other qualities like “renewablility” or “greenness” are cherries in the top. Nice to haves!
- marginallen 3y ago[flagged]
- stephen_g 3y agoThat is disingenuous and misleading - some species of plants can use more available CO2 but not all can (there are other limiting factors in many cases as I understand it), but for sure most plants will be far, far more affected by the extremely significant negative effects of climate change than the small positive contribution of extra CO2 for photosynthesis.
- Alpha3031 3y agoAdditionally, increased photosynthetic yield on some staple crops may not necessarily be the win that some people suggest it might be. While this is an area not yet very well studied, a number of papers have raised concerns regarding the nutritional quality of the resulting crops. Humans, after all, do not survive on a diet of exclusively carbohydrates. See for example, Ebi, Kristie L., and Irakli Loladze. "[Elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations and climate change will affect our food's quality and quantity.](https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(19)30108-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(19)30108-1)" The Lancet Planetary Health 3, no. 7 (2019): e283-e284.
- unglaublich 3y agoIt's completely fine to be uninformed, still learning, or even uninterested. But writing bold, naïve statements instead of asking questions does not contribute anything. You could have written: "Why do we need to reduce CO2 if plants thrive on it?". Then, someone might have invested a bit of time and effort in you and the audience to share their knowledge.
- Dalewyn 3y agoAssuming this includes solar panels, windmills, dams, et al. their ecological negatives are very conveniently evaded with such terminology.
- rocqua 3y agoGood. We need to solve global warming a lot more than we need to reduce the kind of ecological damage done by dams, panels, and windmills. If we refuse to choose the lesser of two evils, we will be fucked.
- dotancohen 3y agoThe ecological impact of windmills and dams do not present a threat to the existence of human civilization as we know it.
- palemoonale 3y ago[flagged]
- stephen_g 3y agoVolcanoes would average out over the long term with the earth’s natural carbon sinks if we didn’t create gigatonnes of extra emissions from burning fossil fuels, etc. every year…
- Scarblac 3y agoMuch smaller effect than humanity's.
- palemoonale 3y agoSo many experts here... laptop experts!
- foolfoolz 3y agoit downplays the negative impacts of dams. dams prevent sediment from flowing to the ocean which leads to sand loss and erosion
- ehnto 3y agoWhich isn't trivial but there is no perfect solution, even wind and solar have externalities. We will always have some impact on the planet, but I will take erosion over a totally broken ecosystem. Erosion is inevitable over time, and if we don't reduce emissions and the seas rise, erosion will be abit of a moot point.
- mmazing 3y agoEvery choice we make has compromises, but I think coal pollution is magnitudes worse than soil erosion. One affects the entire environment with air pollution, and the other affects a localized area by modifying terrain.
- redundantly 3y agoI wonder what is worse: the consumption of sand for manufacturing, construction, and man-made islands & beaches or the loss of sand generation that dams cause.
- polotics 3y agoAlso btw about dams: they kill! a great deal of a lot more death and also lost land because of dams than all deaths and land loss issues with nuclear.
- rocqua 3y agoAs a counter point, the danger of damns stops when the damn is empty. The danger of nuclear waste is on a longer time-scale. Hence it might be that there are future deaths due to current nuclear power that are not being counted. I say might, because there is no way of knowing how many deaths will occur (or even statistically should be expected to occur) simply because we don't know what will happen to the nuclear waste. I favor nuclear, but I'd love to see hard numbers on the 'headroom' nuclear has on deaths/GWH compared to dams, with some argument about whether long-term nuclear waste storage is likely to be less deadly than that headroom.
- globalnode 3y agoi agree, but i also dislike the term "natural gas" sure its natural just like everything in the universe is -- just a bit of greenwashing to go with our CO2 emissions
- zyl1n 3y agoWhat does natural gas have to do with greenwashing? It is naturally occurring gas; different from other hydrocarbon gas that is man-made.
- SapporoChris 3y ago"Natural gas (also called fossil gas, methane gas or simply gas) is a naturally occurring mixture of gaseous hydrocarbons consisting primarily of methane in addition to various smaller amounts of other higher alkanes." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas Alright, so it goes by several names but it's sold to consumers as "Natural Gas". I'm not sure if it was green washing, but obviously the marketers were going for the most palatable name for consumers.
- b112 3y agobut obviously Predicated upon what? Natural gas was merely a name to differentiate between 'gasoline', short form 'gas' for many english speaking countries. And the name is valid, it's mostly in its natural form, compared to 'gasoline aka gas', which required loads of processing to create it from oil. And the name comes from a time before most of the population had even heard of global warming, at a time before people cared about using fossil fuels. There was in no way any attempt to greenwash, because absolutely no one cared one iota back then! And the same is true for being palatable. It was just fuel. There was no reason to make it sound better. This was the age when most homes were heated by heating oil, or wood, or coal even! People didn't get "triggered" back then, not in the 1950s or whatever. No one really cared except in the most extreme of cases. The earliest marketing concern over a name I know of, is "canola" oil, created by Canadian research programs, first on market I believe in the 70s, which is rapeseed oil. (Rapeseed oil was added to cattle feed before this, but was considered too bitter for people until processing improvements were developed.) It was thought that women would associate rapeseed with rape, and not buy it. This was in North America, the rest of the world generally, at the time, just called it rapeseed oil.
- uxp8u61q 3y agoCO2 and methane ("emissions") is one target. A very important one, but let's not forget the other concerns altogether - plastic pollution, contamination of the environment through mineral extraction, etc. The only path forward is a drastic reduction in overall consumption. Even if we reach 100% emissions-free electricity, we'll end up with an unlivable planet anyway if we don't focus on the other issues too. If we limit warming to 1,5°C — which isn't even realistic anymore — what good will it do to us if our water and arable land are contaminated beyond repair?
- anovikov 3y agoBut well, the goal is about increasing consumption. No matter if we like it or not, it will increase massively - probably more than an order of magnitude overall - this century, simply because countries that are now poor, will no longer be so once massive amounts of renewable energy become the norm. We have to decrease pollution while also quickly increasing consumption - probably at same rate as in the "main" fossil fuel era - in 1870..1970, between oil becoming a thing, and Arab embargo.
- uxp8u61q 3y agoIf you take as an axiom that the core cause of the current destruction of our planet is inevitable, then there's isn't much we can discuss.
- Faaak 3y agoI agree. Also, our planet is limited. Thinking that we can increase production infinitely ( good economist point of view), is just physically impossible
- iraqmtpizza 3y ago0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + 0.0009 +... Seems physically possible to me.
- 3y ago
- ekianjo 3y ago> I like the term “emissions-free”. Because it's false? Nothing is emissions-free: making solar panels and wind turbines create emissions, and since they are all made in China, just transporting them around the world where they are used cause emissions as well. And when they become garbage they are shipped once more around the world to be disposed (and not recycled). So it's only "emissions-free" if you ignore the whole supply chain.
- adrianN 3y agoMost wind turbines are made in China, because China is installing most wind turbines. Nobody ships 120m long blades around the world, it's hard enough to ship them within one country.
- jacquesm 3y ago> since they are all made in China High grade bullshit stated with confidence.
- anileated 3y agoChina produces about 80% of all solar panels in the world. Coindicentally or not, it is also the #1 country by coal production; it has the largest number of coal plants of any country (in absolute terms), and the government has recently been ramping up the rate of new coal plant construction after a few years of trying to keep it more or less in check. Most of electricity in China comes from coal (>60%, compared to US’s <20%). Based on cursory checks of https://ourworldindata.org/energy https://ourworldindata.org/energy, https://www.statista.com/statistics/668749/regional-distribution-of-solar-pv-module-manufacturing/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/668749/regional-distribu..., whatever sources they use.
- adrianN 3y agoFor most metrics the country with most people in it will occupy one of the leading spots.
- 3y ago