KaiserJeep wrote:Understand that there is only one single action that has meaning at this point in time. That is the reduction of global population to a sustainable number. That will allow the few remaining humans to live without further ecological harm.
As with meaningful action to mitigate CC, there is little hope of voluntary planned reductions. The oil peak, the coal peak, the natural gas peak will all be felt with human casualties, until the number of humans is reduced to that sustainable number.
Ibon and others would say that the Third World is best prepared for this, being a few generations closer to their agrarian or hunter/gatherer ancesters. There would be merit in that position if the population of the Third World had not exploded with access to mechanized agriculture and medicine. There is simply no hope - none at all - that this enlarged population can live as did their grandparents. There isn't enough jungle to slash&burn, nor enough clean water, nor croplands when they are reduced to manual tilling. A bone-chilling die-off approaches for the Third World.
The First World, by virtue of the fact that they have disposable income, will control all of the remaining oil and other FF's, which are traded in open exchanges. This situation will allow a few decades to convert to the new agricultural infrastructure, whatever that is. It might be electrical farm machinery, or coal-to-liquids, or (most likely) a multitude of things.
Advantage: First World, Middle Class people with bad consumer habits. Those will be solved via the increasing cost of food - when it's groceries or a new iPhone, most will choose to eat.
But "fixing Climate Change" is not happening. The lack of affordable FF's will reduce the human population. As to how much cumulative damage is done the ecology before then, who knows? That too will determine the habitability of Earth for the remaining humans.
If you have no prescription that causes everybody everywhere to back off FF's simultaneously, then best get them burned and gone as quickly as possible.
Current renewable generation in China is dominated by hydroelectricity, which is the country’s second-largest source of generation after coal. Wind and solar currently account for relatively small amounts of generation, at 2.7% and 0.5%, respectively. However, EIA expects substantial growth over the coming decades, consistent with the targets in China’s most recent Five-Year Plan, designed to uphold the country’s commitment to the Paris Agreement within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
In China’s nationally determined contribution (NDC) that it filed as part of the Paris Agreement, the country expressed its intention to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) levels and increase the share of energy consumption from non-fossil sources to 20% by 2030. EIA projects solar capacity to grow to 240 GW by 2040, or by more than 7% per year from 2015 to 2040. Similarly, EIA expects nearly 280 GW of wind capacity to come online between 2015 and 2040, a growth rate of nearly 5% per year.
That’s thanks to China’s continuous support (paywall) for NEVs, which includes government subsidies and license plate controls on diesel cars. NEVs now account for around 0.6% (link in Chinese) of all the vehicles on the road in China as of June, according to data from the Ministry of Public Security. The country wants NEV sales to make up 20% of the total auto market by 2025.
KaiserJeep wrote:Thus all green efforts are lost. Really, anybody who thinks different is delusional. Nor is the trend positive, it's very much negative, with China bringing a new coal plant online every 5 days and India every 8 days.
In fact China now burns 3X the coal as does the USA. I do not begrudge them their Middle Class splendor, I just wish they would be greener about it. When it comes to green energy, they talk more than they do. So does the USA.
KaiserJeep wrote:....China bringing a new coal plant online every 5 days and India every 8 days.....In fact China now burns 3X the coal as does the USA. I do not begrudge them their Middle Class splendor, I just wish they would be greener about it. When it comes to green energy, they talk more than they do.
Plantagenet wrote:Obama got...
asg70 wrote:Plantagenet wrote:Obama got...
Obama kick....
Return to Environment, Weather & Climate
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 281 guests