Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Axios)   The risks of going for net zero emissions: what if we build a better world for no reason?   (axios.com) divider line
    More: Asinine, United States, Afghanistan, Global warming, Pakistan, global economy, new reports, Deloitte Economics Institute, Taliban  
•       •       •

909 clicks; posted to STEM » on 26 Jan 2022 at 5:18 AM (16 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



19 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-01-26 5:24:10 AM  
 
2022-01-26 5:34:26 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-01-26 5:38:20 AM  

Cthushi: [Fark user image image 500x333]


Light_switch.gif

We're done here.
 
2022-01-26 5:57:20 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-01-26 6:54:52 AM  
Is it complicated? A little, but there are no excuses.

If they just put out a little more math, people could make some observations. Almost all of the points below are probably true.

1. Doing A LOT to limit emissions AND transition to renewables is cheaper than a war. Cheaper than a lot of what passes for national security expenditures, defense, or whatever you want to call it.

2. Interest rates are so... historically low right now that borrowing a crap ton of money to spend on increasing renewable generation would be nearly painless in fiscal terms. Even if the return were only 2% per year for the next 35 years or so, it would break even. That is total return, including environmental benefits, so it is going to be at least 10% or so. A real live no-brainer investment. Overbuild and curtail. Use the excess electricity to make hydrogen, ammonia, charge cars, whatever.

3. We do not have to go an austerity route if we all agree to make reasonable cuts and then expand into renewable and alternatives. Why not have so much power from nuclear and renewables that we really just do not need coal, gas, and oil?

4. Conservation is a NO COST way to cut emissions. Just stop wasting, people. You save money. You save the environment.

5. If doing hard things is hard, let's at least do what is easy. If we can't run, let's get walking.

We are mixing up signalling and stretch goals with actual policy and actual expenditures. We do not need cheerleading and drastic policies at this stage. We need a lot of talking and baby steps. As momentum builds and more and more people move in the right direction, policy should follow and shore up those reforms and changes. People will see rewards and good effects from the constant efforts, and knock on will continue. Trying to do too much too quickly just gets everything hung up in the Senate.

/ Set up a family of four with solar and heat pumps last week. They love it. Subzero temps every day and they are heating for free during the day.
// Their life is better, and those kids are growing up in a new age.
/// How much extra rent would YOU pay to not have heating or AC bills ever again? Or electric bills? Or water heating?
 
2022-01-26 7:02:36 AM  

Cthushi: [Fark user image 500x333]


I've seen the Republican version of that, which goes "What if it's a big hoax and we ruin the economy for nothing?"

Because going green doesn't, like, create new jobs or technology or anything. No, it just sucks the money right out of the system and makes everyone poorer.
 
2022-01-26 7:04:01 AM  
Worried about inflation? Gas prices? Heating oil? Gas for cooking and heating? Electricity?

Get the panels and forget about it. Hedge against higher prices. Cut your risk. Know your monthly payment for the next 15 years.

Or, you know, be like every member of my family in the US and just pretend that there is no problem whatsoever, and there never will be.

You can get peace of mind either way, but one comes from being proactive and the other is just denial.

What if every dollar that has been converted to bitcoin had been instead used to fund solar projects in the US? Certainly in the short run, bitcoin has made a lot more for some people. What about the long run? It is not just the plutocrats and boomers ruining the world, everybody. If only these were the kind of people to listen to some cost--benefit study by Deloitte.
 
2022-01-26 7:23:01 AM  

2fardownthread: Is it complicated? A little, but there are no excuses.

If they just put out a little more math, people could make some observations. Almost all of the points below are probably true.

1. Doing A LOT to limit emissions AND transition to renewables is cheaper than a war. Cheaper than a lot of what passes for national security expenditures, defense, or whatever you want to call it.

2. Interest rates are so... historically low right now that borrowing a crap ton of money to spend on increasing renewable generation would be nearly painless in fiscal terms. Even if the return were only 2% per year for the next 35 years or so, it would break even. That is total return, including environmental benefits, so it is going to be at least 10% or so. A real live no-brainer investment. Overbuild and curtail. Use the excess electricity to make hydrogen, ammonia, charge cars, whatever.

3. We do not have to go an austerity route if we all agree to make reasonable cuts and then expand into renewable and alternatives. Why not have so much power from nuclear and renewables that we really just do not need coal, gas, and oil?

4. Conservation is a NO COST way to cut emissions. Just stop wasting, people. You save money. You save the environment.

5. If doing hard things is hard, let's at least do what is easy. If we can't run, let's get walking.

We are mixing up signalling and stretch goals with actual policy and actual expenditures. We do not need cheerleading and drastic policies at this stage. We need a lot of talking and baby steps. As momentum builds and more and more people move in the right direction, policy should follow and shore up those reforms and changes. People will see rewards and good effects from the constant efforts, and knock on will continue. Trying to do too much too quickly just gets everything hung up in the Senate.

/ Set up a family of four with solar and heat pumps last week. They love it. Subzero temps every day and they are heating for free during the day.
// Their life is better, and those kids are growing up in a new age.
/// How much extra rent would YOU pay to not have heating or AC bills ever again? Or electric bills? Or water heating?


The biggest requirement is getting the government to force companies to move from plastics back to glass and other, newer and better plastics (aka biodegradable)


So its never gonna happen. Because, again, you could wave a magic wand and have every individual become carbon neutral and coca cola will outproduce that in about 2 hours of plastic bottles
 
2022-01-26 7:49:54 AM  

2fardownthread: Is it complicated? A little, but there are no excuses.

If they just put out a little more math, people could make some observations. Almost all of the points below are probably true.

1. Doing A LOT to limit emissions AND transition to renewables is cheaper than a war. Cheaper than a lot of what passes for national security expenditures, defense, or whatever you want to call it.

2. Interest rates are so... historically low right now that borrowing a crap ton of money to spend on increasing renewable generation would be nearly painless in fiscal terms. Even if the return were only 2% per year for the next 35 years or so, it would break even. That is total return, including environmental benefits, so it is going to be at least 10% or so. A real live no-brainer investment. Overbuild and curtail. Use the excess electricity to make hydrogen, ammonia, charge cars, whatever.

3. We do not have to go an austerity route if we all agree to make reasonable cuts and then expand into renewable and alternatives. Why not have so much power from nuclear and renewables that we really just do not need coal, gas, and oil?

4. Conservation is a NO COST way to cut emissions. Just stop wasting, people. You save money. You save the environment.

5. If doing hard things is hard, let's at least do what is easy. If we can't run, let's get walking.

We are mixing up signalling and stretch goals with actual policy and actual expenditures. We do not need cheerleading and drastic policies at this stage. We need a lot of talking and baby steps. As momentum builds and more and more people move in the right direction, policy should follow and shore up those reforms and changes. People will see rewards and good effects from the constant efforts, and knock on will continue. Trying to do too much too quickly just gets everything hung up in the Senate.

/ Set up a family of four with solar and heat pumps last week. They love it. Subzero temps every day and they are heating for free during the day.
// ...


OK, OK, sure, but you haven't considered one very, very important thing - a lot of old rich men have made a lot of money off oil, coal, etc., and a lot of old rich men have made a lot of money off the military-industrial complex. You're suggesting we cut into those profits just for....what? Something that benefits people other than the rich old men?  Preposterous!
 
2022-01-26 10:40:31 AM  

2fardownthread: Is it complicated? A little, but there are no excuses.

If they just put out a little more math, people could make some observations. Almost all of the points below are probably true.

1. Doing A LOT to limit emissions AND transition to renewables is cheaper than a war. Cheaper than a lot of what passes for national security expenditures, defense, or whatever you want to call it.

2. Interest rates are so... historically low right now that borrowing a crap ton of money to spend on increasing renewable generation would be nearly painless in fiscal terms. Even if the return were only 2% per year for the next 35 years or so, it would break even. That is total return, including environmental benefits, so it is going to be at least 10% or so. A real live no-brainer investment. Overbuild and curtail. Use the excess electricity to make hydrogen, ammonia, charge cars, whatever.

3. We do not have to go an austerity route if we all agree to make reasonable cuts and then expand into renewable and alternatives. Why not have so much power from nuclear and renewables that we really just do not need coal, gas, and oil?

4. Conservation is a NO COST way to cut emissions. Just stop wasting, people. You save money. You save the environment.

5. If doing hard things is hard, let's at least do what is easy. If we can't run, let's get walking.

We are mixing up signalling and stretch goals with actual policy and actual expenditures. We do not need cheerleading and drastic policies at this stage. We need a lot of talking and baby steps. As momentum builds and more and more people move in the right direction, policy should follow and shore up those reforms and changes. People will see rewards and good effects from the constant efforts, and knock on will continue. Trying to do too much too quickly just gets everything hung up in the Senate.

/ Set up a family of four with solar and heat pumps last week. They love it. Subzero temps every day and they are heating for free during the day.
// Their life is better, and those kids are growing up in a new age.
/// How much extra rent would YOU pay to not have heating or AC bills ever again? Or electric bills? Or water heating?


Yeah, but anyone in a position of serious power to enact this is gonna wake up to a horses head in their bed courtesy of the Military Industrial Complex.
 
2022-01-26 11:02:44 AM  

2fardownthread: /// How much extra rent would YOU pay to not have heating or AC bills ever again? Or electric bills? Or water heating?


About as much as what I'd pay for the bills+rent. See? It's not the tenant who cares.
/local utility used to offer "green" energy blocks at triple price, in TVA land.
 
2022-01-26 11:15:00 AM  

Ishkur: Cthushi: [Fark user image 500x333]

I've seen the Republican version of that, which goes "What if it's a big hoax and we ruin the economy for nothing?"

Because going green doesn't, like, create new jobs or technology or anything. No, it just sucks the money right out of the system and makes everyone poorer.


Even if it did, "sucks the money out of the system and makes everyone poorer" is what the status quo is already doing.  I believe the legislator folk call that "revenue neutral."
 
2022-01-26 2:22:45 PM  
So people still not understand the risk potential of "business as usual" is a wildly unstable and heating climate, which could undermine food production and cause massive movements of refugees (on levels that make today's movements seem trivial)?

The risk of doing the same shiat is that it will destroy us. Anyone talking about transitioning off fossil fuels as a "risk" needs to remember it's like the "risk" of getting rehab for alcoholism. The shiat is killing you, you need rehab.
 
2022-01-26 2:32:16 PM  
So the summary appears to be "Significant economic advantages across the board by 2070, but it will cost some rich guy a penny today so no."
 
2022-01-26 3:02:05 PM  
Yeah, this is FUD, feel sorry for the poor billionaires who will lose some money.

Reality: Solar Wind and Batteries are significantly cheaper than any other form of energy. Essentially no fossil plants are planned anywhere worldwide. Even China has stopped planning new coal plants. The change over to renewable will be mostly complete by the end of the decade simply because of economics. Closed loop geothermal is likely to reach price parity sometime this year which will further accelerate the switch. This is inevitably going to happen because there is a lot of profit to be made making the switch.

Reality: EVs have been doubling every year for the past decade. Last year about 5% of new cars worldwide were EVs 3 more years of doubling will make the vast majority of cars EV. This is backed up by every car maker scrambling to increase production as fast as possible. All makers expect 100% EV sometime this decade.

These changes are going to happen regardless of any action by governments. By 2030, demand for oil and gas will drop by more than half just from these changes.

If you have assets or employment in the fossil fuel sector, you need to get out as fast as you can.
 
2022-01-26 6:20:50 PM  

2fardownthread: Is it complicated? A little, but there are no excuses.

If they just put out a little more math, people could make some observations. Almost all of the points below are probably true.

1. Doing A LOT to limit emissions AND transition to renewables is cheaper than a war. Cheaper than a lot of what passes for national security expenditures, defense, or whatever you want to call it.


War is expensive for the people who have to pay the bill, but it's a net gain for the lobbyists, contractors, paid politicians, and other profiteers.
 
2022-01-26 7:02:53 PM  

erik-k: Cthushi: [Fark user image image 500x333]

Light_switch.gif

We're done here.


Wait, one more:

pbs.twimg.comView Full Size
 
2022-01-26 8:21:38 PM  
In contrast, the cost of moving the country to net-zero emissions would be about 0.1% of GDP or about $35 billion per year through 2050, Deloitte found.

Seems implausibly low.

Meanwhile, the second report, from the McKinsey Global Institute, takes a global view and finds that reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 would require $275 trillion of cumulative global capital spending or about 7.5% of global GDP across the 2021-2050 period.

That seems much more realistic.

Like the Deloitte team, the McKinsey researchers found that the push to net zero would require front-loaded costs, with spending on physical assets increasing to as high as 8.8% of GDP between 2026 and 2030, before declining.

Maybe as we come out of a pandemic, people will be feeling positive about paying this, maybe not.

The report found that transitioning to net-zero emissions may have net job gains worldwide, though these may be unevenly distributed.

These jobs are what you get for your 7.5%, you're paying people to do work, so it makes new jobs. It also makes grifters, just look at the billion pound fraud in the UK over government covid payments.

Electricity costs would likely increase as countries shift to renewables, though how high they spike and for how long depends in large part on how the transition is managed, McKinsey concluded.

This will be the killer point, if the new jobs can benefit lower earners, things might work out. If they don't, your "better world" will be built on increasing the suffering of the poor so that others can get their share of $275 trillion.

Here's the kick: We don't need net zero, the planet can process a certain amount of CO2, just not the megatons we're pumping out every year.
 
2022-01-26 8:30:56 PM  

ExYank: Yeah, this is FUD, feel sorry for the poor billionaires who will lose some money.

Reality: Solar Wind and Batteries are significantly cheaper than any other form of energy. Essentially no fossil plants are planned anywhere worldwide. Even China has stopped planning new coal plants. The change over to renewable will be mostly complete by the end of the decade simply because of economics. Closed loop geothermal is likely to reach price parity sometime this year which will further accelerate the switch. This is inevitably going to happen because there is a lot of profit to be made making the switch.

Reality: EVs have been doubling every year for the past decade. Last year about 5% of new cars worldwide were EVs 3 more years of doubling will make the vast majority of cars EV. This is backed up by every car maker scrambling to increase production as fast as possible. All makers expect 100% EV sometime this decade.

These changes are going to happen regardless of any action by governments. By 2030, demand for oil and gas will drop by more than half just from these changes.

If you have assets or employment in the fossil fuel sector, you need to get out as fast as you can.


Pro-tip, the expression FUD is only used by people who don't want to engage with the arguments made.

Also, in this case it doesn't even make sense, the article showed two different approaches to addressing the CO2 emissions problem. There was really no fear mongering at all.

As for the rest of what you wrote, you're right, we are actually really close to a tipping point to move to an almost-zero carbon economy. There is no need to panic, sensible decisions like choosing nuclear over coal for electricity and, of course, all the efficiency savings we can make because those are win-win. For example, I drive an electric car that I paid for using the savings of not buying fossil fuels. It is paying for itself. (And for the cynics, I use a zero-carbon supplier for my electricity).

That's why I so dislike terms like climate crisis, they're not motivating, they create hopelessness and we really do have a lot of reasons for hope right now.
 
Displayed 19 of 19 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.