this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2024
355 points (98.6% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5243 readers
446 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well they'll try. Unfortunately for oil and coal companies, China exists.
Unfortunately, climate action is a collective effort globally. With him being in the pocket of Big Oil, expect no further investment into renewables and increased coal mining, fracking, and oil drilling.
Anyone who cared about climate and voted for him (or abstained/voted third party) basically fucked themselves and everybody else.
That's nice, but Americans and American companies can't afford non renewable energy. Trump needs to triple subsidies over the next 4 years to keep them competitive with renewable energy.
Just a reminder, Trump is not more corrupt or well bribed than Texas, and Texas is one of the largest producers of renewable energy in the Western hemisphere. Money wins over ideology, and there's a lot more money to be had with solar and wind given the now low upfront costs and nearly non-existent maintenance costs compared to all fossil fuels.
I hope you're right. I don't really see that in practice, as we slow walk that transition.
Counterpoint, Alberta exists and low costs benefit the consumer, not the company. I am fully confident that the profit made by oil and gas is significantly more than the tight profit margins in renewables, which means far less money to throw at politicians. Oil and gas can therefore throw much more money at Trump and still be in the black on their ‘investment’, even if you ignore that Trump has deep ideological and political opposition to renewables.
Renewables don't have tight profit margins, you're think of nuclear, maybe hydro.
Solar approaches a 100% profit margin after 20 years, wind only ever gets to 90ish but still has the same timeline. Without subsidies, neither oil or coal gets profitable.
No, i’m thinking of solar.
Over decades a solar system will pay back itself many times over, but that’s irrelevant to the question of how big of a money pile can business throw at politicians in the here and now.
That’s determined by the profit margin for companies manufacturing and installing them, which tend to be rather thin given the highly competitive nature of the market. No solar installer anywhere near the profit that oil companies are raking in, and the people owning the panels are usually paying off the loan to install them, using the profits to build more capacity, or saving, not buying off politicians.
Without subsidies there would be far less profit for oil companies, which is exactly why it is so important for them to ‘reinvest’ some of their recent massive profits into continuing and expanding said subsidies and slowing down the adoption of alternatives. Buying off the government with its own money is a benefit since it leaves more for them.
Individual solar is nice, but it's a fraction of a percent of solar capacity. No one is talking about that. Actual solar plants and installations are run by dedicated companies with huge profit margins that currently are all in expansion phases. They make up the majority of solar power installed and operated.
That market is competitive, but not hyper competitive and dirt has a decent lobbying budget, hence Dems including solar subsidies to appease Texas of all states.
I also wasn’t talking about individual solar. Utility solar is nearly always divided between manufacturing, installation, and the operator. The operator is the only one benefited by solar’s long term return on investment. Everyone else makes their money in construction, which is very much price competitive.
In my experience none of these groups however have even a fraction of the cash of a company like BP or Exxon Mobile, and what piles of cash they do have tends to be investment in rather than profit from. As it’s a lot harder to spend investors cash on buying regulators than it is to spend incoming profit on it this limits the amount that they can spend on such an endeavor.
There are also a lot more places banning utility scale solar and wind than are oil and gas, so delaying renewables rollout seems like an evidently effective strategy for limiting their lobbying power.
As well as changes to the EPA, NOAA, etc. Talking about climate change might become dangerous. Asking for help from FEMA may weigh heavily on how your state voted.
May? That's exactly what he did in the past
i think that intersection is very small.
Which is why I also included abstainers. Not large groups on their own, but enough to swing an election
But per capita, China is pumping way less greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than the USA. And much of China's industry only exists to sell cheap goods to Western countries.
China also built more high-speed rail in a decade than the US has in it's entirety. Not to mention how fast they're producing electric cars and solar panels.
That's what I mean, oil and coal companies can try regression, but China is already able to export the means for countries and communities to create their own power cheaper than those groups could buy power from fossil fuels companies.
That's what tarrifs are for.
Tariffs issued by the US will only harm the US, and so on. The anti China block represents an extreme minority of people in the planet and an ever shrinking percentage of total industry and energy use. More and more countries are choosing brics
Tarrifs will temporarily and artificially prop up USA oil gas and car manufactures at the expense of the US taxpayer
A lot of countries do not like China. India and China have regulare border fights that alone is massive, the EU does not like China too much either(Ukraine being a big part of that), Indonesia has just hit China with 200% on textiles, Mexico, Brazil and Chile have added anti dumping tariffs on Chinese steel, Thailand is looking into Chinese dumping as well. There also are border conflicts with the seven dash line with most nearby countries like Vietnam, Philipines, Malaysia and Indonesia.
BRICS is a group of countries, who do not like the US. That however does not mean they like China. That is why you hear the term multipolar world order a lot from those countries. As in no country should rule the world.
This was resolved days prior to BRICS summit. India is moving closer to China, because US is unreliable partner for South East Asia, where a single mandate of war on China means siding with those countries in resisting India influence.
It is specifically an anti US hegemony position. China's approach to economic investment instead of governance capture is significantly favoured.
They got a deal done, which does not seem to solve the border conflict, but just allows patrols from both sites:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/22/how-india-and-china-pulled-back-from-a-border-war-and-why
There's hope in US for China-India conflict to last. The de-escalation is significant and a good path.
Chinese policy doesn't give a shit about climate change. In fact, Xi is banking on a Northern passageway to Europe permanently unthawing to avoid the partly US-controlled South China Sea.
Xi cares about staying in power until he drops in the 2030s, for that he neess to keep the country stable and the people quiet. So what he really wants is industrial power and rising welfare. He's found that one of the best ways to gain an edge that is to spur useful innovation that wealthier nations will want to adopt.
What this means is that we'll see a lot of climate-friendly technology coming out of China, but the country may not care much about cleaning up its footprint.
Even if you are right I'll take doing the right thing for the wrong reasons over the fucking disappointment and self destruction coming from the United States.
Doesn't matter how you spin it, China is objectively better for the world right now.
You can feel morally superior all the way to societal collapse
Tbh, doesn't feel good pinning hopes on China, but I'll take what I can get at this point.
You're right in that the whole drill-baby-drill thing is utter self-destruction which may still work passably over the course of the next four years but not beyond. The IRA right now is solid industrial policy and I wish us Europeans were competing. (Wild guess though, the repeal of the IRA will go much like the repeal of the ACA last time around.)
However, my point is that China is in a phase where it's doing more with more, and its motivation is such that that will stay that way. The only reason Chinese emissions are stagnating right now is that their economy is faltering. At this point, the Jevons paradox is simply eating their renewable power/electric car/... gains. Granted, that is preferable to them continuing to buy ever more fossil-fueled cars.
The motivation for producing this technology will, to a degree, determine the outcome: Solar panels off Temu, delivered to your doorstep using a fossil-fueled plane are a thing that exists.
What happens when the importing blocs (US and EU) rethink their climate policy (because right-wing morons think that's a good idea)? Chinese products will adapt quickly.
lol
ok educate me. On the topic of climate in which ways has (or will) the United States be better? I'd appreciate the optimistic perspective.
Does the argument extend beyond China bad?
When the people in China can go outside in public without wearing filtration masks I'll consider start taking their environmental approaches more seriously.
What century are you from? The localized pollution problems you're referring to have been resolved. I know you won't trust any source anyone here provides, so go ahead and look it up. Just because you got used to your government being useless and slow, doesn't mean other governments are the same.
What you're bringing up, even if true, would be explained equally well by population density.
China's per capita emissions are lower than the US and Canada https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/
They're also innovating and leading in solar technology and cheap EVs.
You're pointing at subjective and anecdotal "evidence" where are your hard stats?
here, educate yourself: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/20696000-the-hundred-year-marathon
when your argument is "china good", then "china bad" absolutely is valid rebuttal.
Do you have any real sources, like scientific sources, anything written by someone not intending to get paid massive amounts for their work?
well hello there, chinese intelligence officer.
we in the western civilization are usually getting paid for our work and don't consider that as discreditation of said work. also, the author of the book, is, among others, researcher at Harvard, so he is the literal scientist.
Michael Pillsbury is the director of the Center on Chinese Strategy at the Hudson Institute and has served in presidential administrations from Richard Nixon to Barack Obama. Educated at Stanford and Columbia Universities, he is a former analyst at the RAND Corporation and research fellow at Harvard and has served in senior positions in the Defense Department and on the staff of four U.S. Senate committees. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the International Institute for Strategic Studies. He lives in Washington, D.C.
Buddy is a Western Patriot fighting the good fight. Go get em tiger, your emotional zeal is steadfast in the face of data and logic. America is truly amazing and the best at climate. You caught a vuvuzelan spy working for Xi.
How did treating all dissent as Russian/Chinese bots/trolls work out this election? Not very well. Because they mostly don't exist.
China's per capita carbon emissions are lower than the United States and Canada https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/
oh, cool. manipulation by carefully selecting statistisc that will support my theory 😂
first, there is a lot more to "being good/better for the world" than co2 emissions per capita.
with that out of hand, lets look at few others, shall we?
https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china