New Satellite Photos Show Climate Change Is Sweeping Europe(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
New Satellite Photos Show Climate Change Is Sweeping Europe
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-04-09/new-satellite-photos-show-europe-s-changing-climate
74 comments
There is a notable difference between the images you link. Apparently [1] the drought/heat wave in Belgium started on July 13 2018 (and ended on 7 August), so the image-pair you link was near the beginning of the event. The data on the nifty pair-viewer you link to is sporadic, so it's tedious to find other matches.
But another story centered on the same theme already found matches:
https://www.businessinsider.com/satellite-images-shows-whole...
It shows a bunch of 2017/2018 image-pairs from places like Sweden, Denmark, and Germany with features from the drought.
Surely we are not arguing that there was no drought during that year, or that it's somehow not visible from remote sensing data?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_European_heat_wave
But another story centered on the same theme already found matches:
https://www.businessinsider.com/satellite-images-shows-whole...
It shows a bunch of 2017/2018 image-pairs from places like Sweden, Denmark, and Germany with features from the drought.
Surely we are not arguing that there was no drought during that year, or that it's somehow not visible from remote sensing data?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_European_heat_wave
> Surely we are not arguing that there was no drought during that year, or that it's somehow not visible from remote sensing data?
We're arguing that there is a difference between thorough scientific methods and carefully picking out selected data points to show a dramatic situation that isn't.
We're arguing that there is a difference between thorough scientific methods and carefully picking out selected data points to show a dramatic situation that isn't.
It's pretty clear that the 2018 heat event was indeed an exceptional event, especially in Northern Europe. This is not "a dramatic situation that isn't".
Of course articles in the popular press are going to use different narrative techniques ("give them concrete examples!" is the usual advice to science writers) than scientific papers would. So if you want "thorough scientific methods", you'd have to look elsewhere.
This is the closest I've found to an attribution study of to what extent climate change is responsible for this heatwave event:
http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-07-27-heatwave-made-twice-like...
A gloss on the larger significance of the report in the growing area of "attribution" is here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05849-9
Of course articles in the popular press are going to use different narrative techniques ("give them concrete examples!" is the usual advice to science writers) than scientific papers would. So if you want "thorough scientific methods", you'd have to look elsewhere.
This is the closest I've found to an attribution study of to what extent climate change is responsible for this heatwave event:
http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-07-27-heatwave-made-twice-like...
A gloss on the larger significance of the report in the growing area of "attribution" is here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05849-9
> an exceptional event, especially in Northern Europe. This is not "a dramatic situation that isn't".
Exceptional, yes. Unprecedented, no.
> So if you want "thorough scientific methods", you'd have to look elsewhere.
I'd be happy if there was less cherry-picking and more linking to raw sources for verification. If this was about people of particular ethnicities committing crimes, people would cry foul and "racism" at such hand-picked examples.
Exceptional, yes. Unprecedented, no.
> So if you want "thorough scientific methods", you'd have to look elsewhere.
I'd be happy if there was less cherry-picking and more linking to raw sources for verification. If this was about people of particular ethnicities committing crimes, people would cry foul and "racism" at such hand-picked examples.
[deleted]
There was a european heat wave in 2003 that killed thousands a day and 70,000 total[1]. If 70K people in the US died from a single large climate change induced event change, people might start to talk.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave
The heat wave lasted 25 days (using the above poster's dates). That's a run rate of almost exactly 1 million additional deaths per year.
Given the European population of 741 million, and an 80 year average life span, then they were able to attribute an additional 0.001686909582% of deaths to climate change.
That's roughly two out of one thousand signal to noise ratio. [0] According to one study medical examiners disagreed on cause of death in 12% (TWELVE PERCENT!!!) of cases. [1 & 2]
Either my math is bad (definitely possible), or I'm calling bullshit on the numbers.
[0] - my calculation was as follows: 70,000 deaths / 25 days * 365 days per year / 741,000,000 people in Europe / 80 year life expectancy * 100.00%
[1] - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29091542
[2] - https://www.thename.org/assets/2018Handouts/2.3%20-%20McGive...
Given the European population of 741 million, and an 80 year average life span, then they were able to attribute an additional 0.001686909582% of deaths to climate change.
That's roughly two out of one thousand signal to noise ratio. [0] According to one study medical examiners disagreed on cause of death in 12% (TWELVE PERCENT!!!) of cases. [1 & 2]
Either my math is bad (definitely possible), or I'm calling bullshit on the numbers.
[0] - my calculation was as follows: 70,000 deaths / 25 days * 365 days per year / 741,000,000 people in Europe / 80 year life expectancy * 100.00%
[1] - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29091542
[2] - https://www.thename.org/assets/2018Handouts/2.3%20-%20McGive...
If you downvoted me, then show your math. At least I put mine out there.
Do you think the US is more likely to care than Europe does?
Not sure how to feel other than sick about this. I wonder what more it will take to have something actually be done about this, haha.
Serious answer: It would take a small political shift.
We do not need to reinvent our economic systems, we just need to push back against the political power of a few established special interest groups that want to protect their current profit. Green technologies are already being adopted rapidly. Smart government regulations, taxes, and incentives can speed along these changes. The situation is not hopeless. We're having an increasing impact on the climate, but we're not extinct yet.
Vote. Tell your friends to vote. Cultivate green initiatives in your own community. Contribute to environmental organizations. Buy the low carbon alternative. Steer your career to build the future instead of picking over the carcass of the past. Stop waiting on the world to change.
We do not need to reinvent our economic systems, we just need to push back against the political power of a few established special interest groups that want to protect their current profit. Green technologies are already being adopted rapidly. Smart government regulations, taxes, and incentives can speed along these changes. The situation is not hopeless. We're having an increasing impact on the climate, but we're not extinct yet.
Vote. Tell your friends to vote. Cultivate green initiatives in your own community. Contribute to environmental organizations. Buy the low carbon alternative. Steer your career to build the future instead of picking over the carcass of the past. Stop waiting on the world to change.
(disclaimer: I am part of a Climate&Energy research group that does some economic modeling of this sort, though this particular solution is still being researched)
> We do not need to reinvent our economic systems, we just need to push back against the political power of a few established special interest groups that want to protect their current profit.
Ironically, with some of the better solutions (e.g. a Carbon Tax), fossil fuel companies may not actually see reduced profit, but that is not well understood by the industry since the reason is slightly subtle.
Since energy demand is relatively inelastic, increasing the price only slightly decreases consumer demand. While that by itself is technically a loss for energy companies, a sensible carbon tax also creates a secondary market to dispose of CO2. The majority of the additional consumer cost of energy is actually paying that secondary market to take the CO2. It turns out that disposing of CO2 is primarily an energy cost, which means the net demand for things like natural gas can actually go up.
At the moment, my personal favorite solution is to implement a "Carbon Rebate"--basically a revenue neutral tax. You tax CO2 emissions (probably at the source), and create a secondary market to offset emissions to avoid paying the tax. Any revenue from the tax is uniformly redistributed to consumers (perhaps as a tax credit), and you have the "tax" rate ramp up year over year. This establishes price discovery and creates an economic incentive to solve the problem without being significantly disruptive to either the industry or consumers (and somewhat exploits the prisoner dilemma). From a US-centric viewpoint, trade agreements would be required to enforce this tax on goods imported from other countries that are not subjected to an analogous carbon price. Since the import tariffs money would be redistributed to US citizens, it creates an incentive for those countries to adopt a similar policy.
> We do not need to reinvent our economic systems, we just need to push back against the political power of a few established special interest groups that want to protect their current profit.
Ironically, with some of the better solutions (e.g. a Carbon Tax), fossil fuel companies may not actually see reduced profit, but that is not well understood by the industry since the reason is slightly subtle.
Since energy demand is relatively inelastic, increasing the price only slightly decreases consumer demand. While that by itself is technically a loss for energy companies, a sensible carbon tax also creates a secondary market to dispose of CO2. The majority of the additional consumer cost of energy is actually paying that secondary market to take the CO2. It turns out that disposing of CO2 is primarily an energy cost, which means the net demand for things like natural gas can actually go up.
At the moment, my personal favorite solution is to implement a "Carbon Rebate"--basically a revenue neutral tax. You tax CO2 emissions (probably at the source), and create a secondary market to offset emissions to avoid paying the tax. Any revenue from the tax is uniformly redistributed to consumers (perhaps as a tax credit), and you have the "tax" rate ramp up year over year. This establishes price discovery and creates an economic incentive to solve the problem without being significantly disruptive to either the industry or consumers (and somewhat exploits the prisoner dilemma). From a US-centric viewpoint, trade agreements would be required to enforce this tax on goods imported from other countries that are not subjected to an analogous carbon price. Since the import tariffs money would be redistributed to US citizens, it creates an incentive for those countries to adopt a similar policy.
Interesting proposal. Thank you for your work on this! Carbon emissions seem to be a classic tragedy of the commons and I believe the only effective way to prevent a tragedy of the commons is through better governance. Creating these kinds of promising new policies is one half of the solution, activism to generate the political will to enact them is the other half. (Disclaimer: I work on the activism side. We haven't given up and neither should any of you)
> It would take a small political shift
Not sure about the green parties in other countries, but here in Belgium, they're good for one thing: opposition. It's crazy how much they live in their small echo chamber. The whole 'nuclear is bad' is killing us, their great plans to ban cars from city centers with circulation plans only seem to make traffic, traffic jams and co2 levels worse.
Their whole attitude is to change something and then thinking "people should just" - a phrase I hear a lot from them. Take the bike, live closer to work, use less water/electricity/..., work remotely, all live in cities, buy electric cars, ... Bullying people into doing something will not work, but that seems to be their main strategy.
Also, anti-vaxers, 'alternative medicine', essential oils, 'natural/bio, healthy gluten-free bullshit practitioners and 'mainstream science' skeptics seem to be a good portion of their target audience. Sadly I know more than a few examples of those, and the only thing I expect to happen from that political side is that they, with all the best intentions of the world, will just make it a lot worse.
We need a clear plan, backed by numbers and science to get where we want to go, and I don't see any political wing making a serious point about this. We need this yesterday.
Not sure about the green parties in other countries, but here in Belgium, they're good for one thing: opposition. It's crazy how much they live in their small echo chamber. The whole 'nuclear is bad' is killing us, their great plans to ban cars from city centers with circulation plans only seem to make traffic, traffic jams and co2 levels worse.
Their whole attitude is to change something and then thinking "people should just" - a phrase I hear a lot from them. Take the bike, live closer to work, use less water/electricity/..., work remotely, all live in cities, buy electric cars, ... Bullying people into doing something will not work, but that seems to be their main strategy.
Also, anti-vaxers, 'alternative medicine', essential oils, 'natural/bio, healthy gluten-free bullshit practitioners and 'mainstream science' skeptics seem to be a good portion of their target audience. Sadly I know more than a few examples of those, and the only thing I expect to happen from that political side is that they, with all the best intentions of the world, will just make it a lot worse.
We need a clear plan, backed by numbers and science to get where we want to go, and I don't see any political wing making a serious point about this. We need this yesterday.
It seems like an issue would be the requirement of massive cuts into freedom - possibly preventing people from pursuing their livelihoods. At the very least, these livelihoods have to be significantly shifted. Convincing people to support or even drive these uncomfortable changes in their lives is more than hard.
Look at car manufacturing. I doubt we will be able to 1:1 replace jobs related to combustion-engine based cars. There are so many parts and corresponding suppliers involved. It all vanishes with electric cars due to their comparative simplicity. From resources mining to car mechanic - many people are directly affected.
Of course new jobs will arise with electric cars, new mobility and computerized driving. But those are not for the drive train engineers, manufacturers and related workforce. Those will be for new, highly trained individuals or appear in a different sector, such as service - and that is if these new jobs aren't automated anyways.
Replacing plastic straws is facing severe opposition because the alternatives are not well liked. For quite a lot of people it is more important to have a non-soggy straw than to let one less bird die.
Many of us are also ready to reduce flying, especially ridiculously cheap flights that make your carbon footprint explode. Others, less fortunate than us, depend on such flights for their only vacation this year.
Are we going to take that away from them in the name of climate by imposing a carbon tax? Should a flight from Northern Europe to Tenerife really cost 90€ while blowing enormous amounts of CO2 into the damaged atmosphere?
We are getting into authoritarianism here at some point...
Look at car manufacturing. I doubt we will be able to 1:1 replace jobs related to combustion-engine based cars. There are so many parts and corresponding suppliers involved. It all vanishes with electric cars due to their comparative simplicity. From resources mining to car mechanic - many people are directly affected.
Of course new jobs will arise with electric cars, new mobility and computerized driving. But those are not for the drive train engineers, manufacturers and related workforce. Those will be for new, highly trained individuals or appear in a different sector, such as service - and that is if these new jobs aren't automated anyways.
Replacing plastic straws is facing severe opposition because the alternatives are not well liked. For quite a lot of people it is more important to have a non-soggy straw than to let one less bird die.
Many of us are also ready to reduce flying, especially ridiculously cheap flights that make your carbon footprint explode. Others, less fortunate than us, depend on such flights for their only vacation this year.
Are we going to take that away from them in the name of climate by imposing a carbon tax? Should a flight from Northern Europe to Tenerife really cost 90€ while blowing enormous amounts of CO2 into the damaged atmosphere?
We are getting into authoritarianism here at some point...
Your freedom to move your fist ends at the tip of my nose. Climate change is hurting many worldwide, and it will get worse base on all available evidence. You are massively cutting the most basic of freedoms (food, water, and livelihood) by not fixing it.
You aren't allowed to drive drunk because it hurts others, and that's not authoritarianism. It's simply not allowing someone to harm others, just as climate change is doing to many.
You aren't allowed to drive drunk because it hurts others, and that's not authoritarianism. It's simply not allowing someone to harm others, just as climate change is doing to many.
> You are massively cutting the most basic of freedoms (food, water, and livelihood)
my lungs emit CO2, so you must either believe that infringes on your freedoms, or that some emission of CO2 is acceptable. What about the food you eat. How did it get to the grocer? How much energy did it take to produce the nitrogen that was used to fertilize the soil, or to drive the tractor that harvested and plowed the field? What about the structures that you dwell in every day? They took an enormous amount of concrete and steel which rely on fossil fuels to procure and assemble.
Unless you advocate going back to a caveman society, carbon emission is so deeply ingrained in our society that it cannot be eliminated in our generation. And you do not have the right to tell others to live like a caveman.
my lungs emit CO2, so you must either believe that infringes on your freedoms, or that some emission of CO2 is acceptable. What about the food you eat. How did it get to the grocer? How much energy did it take to produce the nitrogen that was used to fertilize the soil, or to drive the tractor that harvested and plowed the field? What about the structures that you dwell in every day? They took an enormous amount of concrete and steel which rely on fossil fuels to procure and assemble.
Unless you advocate going back to a caveman society, carbon emission is so deeply ingrained in our society that it cannot be eliminated in our generation. And you do not have the right to tell others to live like a caveman.
One thing I am finding really nuts is that, in spite of what we now know about climate change, North American drivers are currently thirsting for larger and larger, less fuel efficient, very expensive trucks and sport utility vehicles. Auto manufacturers are currently tripping over themselves to design and produce larger vehicles to satisfy that demand.
Given that, I have a really hard time reconciling the "we just can't do anything, sorry, it'll hurt our freedoms" attitude with the "I don't care about my CO2 output" attitude that is evident in the consumption behaviours of most people I see. It's as if they consider outputting tonne after tonne of carbon into the atmosphere as a point of pride or immutable entitlement.
Given that, I have a really hard time reconciling the "we just can't do anything, sorry, it'll hurt our freedoms" attitude with the "I don't care about my CO2 output" attitude that is evident in the consumption behaviours of most people I see. It's as if they consider outputting tonne after tonne of carbon into the atmosphere as a point of pride or immutable entitlement.
The data shows that the U.S. lowered emissions in 2017 and 2018 more than other major countries. A fraction of the <10% of emissions that personal vehicles make up isn't worth focusing valuable attention and effort toward.
https://reason.com/blog/2018/05/04/us-carbon-dioxide-emissio...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-...
https://reason.com/blog/2018/05/04/us-carbon-dioxide-emissio...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-...
Our views on vehicles and vehicle fuel consumption are symbolic of how we view our commitment to lowering emissions. People aren't buying huge SUV's because they've analyzed the data to determine that the relative impact of their consumption isn't worth buying a smaller vehicle. They are choosing to spend more on fuel-guzzling vehicles (and spend more on fuel) because their consumption and output is an afterthought.
While total overall emissions (in the U.S.) may be steady or shrinking, the total amount of emissions for transportation is growing. There's no excuse for that. All it tells us is that an overall reduction in GHG emissions could be even lower if people made slightly more conscientious transport choices.
https://rhg.com/research/preliminary-2017-us-emissions/
While total overall emissions (in the U.S.) may be steady or shrinking, the total amount of emissions for transportation is growing. There's no excuse for that. All it tells us is that an overall reduction in GHG emissions could be even lower if people made slightly more conscientious transport choices.
https://rhg.com/research/preliminary-2017-us-emissions/
"People aren't buying huge SUV's because they've analyzed the data to determine that the relative impact of their consumption isn't worth buying a smaller vehicle."
Just curious how you know this to be true.
Just curious how you know this to be true.
It's an assumption. Would be happy to be proven wrong if you know otherwise.
Anecdotal only, but I notice my friends with more than 3 kids need a larger vehicle. Also, heavier vehicles are safer for the passengers. And some people need to carry cargo.
I'm sure not everyone has a 'good' reason, but a fair number of people do make a conscious choice.
I'm sure not everyone has a 'good' reason, but a fair number of people do make a conscious choice.
My assertion wasn't I assumed that people aren't making a conscious choice, but rather that they aren't pouring over international carbon emissions data as part of that decision making process.
As far as what families feel they "need", I think it represents a larger societal issue around how we manage vehicle use and ownership. Most pickup trucks I see on the road aren't hauling cargo. And most 7 or 8 passenger SUVs have 1 or 2 people in them.
> Also, heavier vehicles are safer for the passengers.
Yes, for the passengers in that particular vehicle. More dangerous for others on the road who can't afford or are unwilling to purchase a similarly sized vehicle.
As far as what families feel they "need", I think it represents a larger societal issue around how we manage vehicle use and ownership. Most pickup trucks I see on the road aren't hauling cargo. And most 7 or 8 passenger SUVs have 1 or 2 people in them.
> Also, heavier vehicles are safer for the passengers.
Yes, for the passengers in that particular vehicle. More dangerous for others on the road who can't afford or are unwilling to purchase a similarly sized vehicle.
>It's as if they consider outputting tonne after tonne of carbon into the atmosphere as a point of pride.
They absolutely do, it's about spite and punishing other people:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/business/energy-environme...
>“Why don’t you go live in Sweden and get the heck out of our country,” Mr. Blue wrote.” I will continue to roll coal anytime I feel like and fog your stupid eco-cars.”
http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/29/17971903-to-figh...
>The negative impact of environmental messaging became apparent when 210 study participants were given $2 to go light bulb shopping. When energy efficient, but more costly, compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) were sold with a sticker that read "Protect the Environment," conservatives shied away from them.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelt...
>Taking joy in that suffering is more human than most would like to admit. Somewhere on the wide spectrum between adolescent teasing and the smiling white men in the lynching photographs are the Trump supporters whose community is built by rejoicing in the anguish of those they see as unlike them, who have found in their shared cruelty an answer to the loneliness and atomization of modern life.
They absolutely do, it's about spite and punishing other people:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/business/energy-environme...
>“Why don’t you go live in Sweden and get the heck out of our country,” Mr. Blue wrote.” I will continue to roll coal anytime I feel like and fog your stupid eco-cars.”
http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/29/17971903-to-figh...
>The negative impact of environmental messaging became apparent when 210 study participants were given $2 to go light bulb shopping. When energy efficient, but more costly, compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) were sold with a sticker that read "Protect the Environment," conservatives shied away from them.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelt...
>Taking joy in that suffering is more human than most would like to admit. Somewhere on the wide spectrum between adolescent teasing and the smiling white men in the lynching photographs are the Trump supporters whose community is built by rejoicing in the anguish of those they see as unlike them, who have found in their shared cruelty an answer to the loneliness and atomization of modern life.
This comment is not overstating matters. I encourage anyone to go and skim the Wikipedia article on "rolling coal" to appreciate the magnitude of the issue. This isn't quiet resentment of environmentalism we're talking about here, this is open and self-aware rebellion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal
> go and skim the Wikipedia article on "rolling coal" to appreciate the magnitude of the issue
The article just describes what it is. It has no information on how prevalent the practice is.
The article just describes what it is. It has no information on how prevalent the practice is.
I don't think any of the restrictions you mention should be called authoritarian. Nations and the world have made many things illegal in the name of the common good before, e.g. child labor, slavery and leaded gasoline: Taking away someone's "freedom" to poison society and nature with leaded gasoline is really _giving_ the freedom to live a healthy life back to everyone else.
All of the problems you have mentioned are solvable. And I think people's attitude towards environmental restrictions will change much more rapidly than you'd expect: https://www.positive.news/society/must-change-always-be-slow...
All of the problems you have mentioned are solvable. And I think people's attitude towards environmental restrictions will change much more rapidly than you'd expect: https://www.positive.news/society/must-change-always-be-slow...
I agree that it appears unfair that only rich people would end up getting to fly, and that's because it is unfair: we're not used to income/wealth inequality having this particular effect of drastically restricting mobility anymore (though it's only been 50 years[1]).
On the other hand we are very accustomed[2] to inequality having drastic effects in virtually all other respects, including such fundamental ones as how long you live and if you get to have your own room. For both of these, some countries have specialized solutions to absorb some of the shock (e.g. Medicaid, socialized health care, public housing, rent control). I guess it's not inconceivable to have something similar for transportation, no doubt with the same limited effect on inequality as with health care and housing.
But inevitably, global warming is going to affect the lower income groups first and foremost. If we wait, the effects of global warming will just be worse, particularly for them.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_set [2] bizarrely so, in my opinion
On the other hand we are very accustomed[2] to inequality having drastic effects in virtually all other respects, including such fundamental ones as how long you live and if you get to have your own room. For both of these, some countries have specialized solutions to absorb some of the shock (e.g. Medicaid, socialized health care, public housing, rent control). I guess it's not inconceivable to have something similar for transportation, no doubt with the same limited effect on inequality as with health care and housing.
But inevitably, global warming is going to affect the lower income groups first and foremost. If we wait, the effects of global warming will just be worse, particularly for them.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_set [2] bizarrely so, in my opinion
> Should a flight from Northern Europe to Tenerife really cost 90€ while blowing enormous amounts of CO2 into the damaged atmosphere?
It's not authoritarianism to simply increase taxes for kerosine to be more in line with car fuels. But the Gores and Schwarzeneggers like flying around the globe to Davos and other places to spread their message.
It's not authoritarianism to simply increase taxes for kerosine to be more in line with car fuels. But the Gores and Schwarzeneggers like flying around the globe to Davos and other places to spread their message.
We didn't care that we were not able to create 1:1 replacement jobs when we stopped making buggies and started making cars. I doubt the system will care this time either. I agree with you that convincing people to support these changes would be hard, but fortunately the economy will shift regardless of what the losers want. Electric vehicles are simply better, as are renewable energy sources and other growing technologies. What I'm more worried about is people voting for authoritarians that will artificially prop up dinosaur technology like coal power stations.
As terrible as it sounds, I've kind of stopped caring.
I try to reduce my own impact on the planet (99% bike commuting, don't eat much meat, minimal plastic usage, recycle, etc.) and recommend others do the same, but if humans drive ourselves to extinction in the long term, then that's just how it will play out.
I try to reduce my own impact on the planet (99% bike commuting, don't eat much meat, minimal plastic usage, recycle, etc.) and recommend others do the same, but if humans drive ourselves to extinction in the long term, then that's just how it will play out.
I also have found the combination of personal environmental impact reduction combined with a sort of "Pale Blue Dot" nihilism helpful in my everyday life.
I'm genuinely interested in how you find comfort in nihilism (I currently don't, but I'm not against the thought). Have you genuinely changed your attitude towards the universe, are you just ignoring your sad thoughts, …?
That nothing matters at all in a grand scale frees you from the burden of having to matter. No legacy, no contribution, will ever be capable of cementing you into the permanent fabric of the universe. The most powerful human and all that he has done, is as meaningless as the most helpless and shortest lived; when the last historian dies even Caesar's name shall be dust. Your life effectively has no lasting consequences, so try and do what you actually wish.
I don't personally subscribe to such a worldview but lots of people will find freedom or comfort in that.
I don't personally subscribe to such a worldview but lots of people will find freedom or comfort in that.
I'd describe it as a kind of "constructive nihilism", which some authors argue is near-identical with Existentialism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_nihilism
Nietzsche was kind of a nut, but he had some useful ideas
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/14/books/review/friedrich-ni...
In my teens/20s, I was miserable in the face of all the suffering and destruction in the world. Now that I'm 40, it doesn't hurt anymore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_nihilism
Nietzsche was kind of a nut, but he had some useful ideas
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/14/books/review/friedrich-ni...
In my teens/20s, I was miserable in the face of all the suffering and destruction in the world. Now that I'm 40, it doesn't hurt anymore.
I'm in my twenties now, periodically overwhelmed by the current and potential future misery of the world. However, I have lately been able to cope with my misery by realizing that my misery is only subjective, which softens it. Perhaps that does not make my feelings misery at all.
It will probably take until the first day most of the population goes without easy access to food. Once the markets are empty or too expensive due to crop failures and shortages, change will be swift. The question is whether that will be when it is too late.
>I wonder what more it will take to have something actually be done about this, haha.
It's the CFC/Ozone Hole problem[0], all over again; only at a much larger and far more damaging scale. Humans, despite all of their best qualities, are still going to human.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbon#Environment...
It's the CFC/Ozone Hole problem[0], all over again; only at a much larger and far more damaging scale. Humans, despite all of their best qualities, are still going to human.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbon#Environment...
Just do the same thing you did to handle the overpopulation scare in the 80s.
The problem is that the cost of "actually doing something" and the penalty for doing nothing converge over time. Global CO2 production increases to go up, as does global oil production. These are just the byproducts of the energy needed to pay for our standard of living. The further back in time we go the cheaper and more realistic change would have been. But we live in a world where sustaining our way of life means continuing to use more fossil fuels at a faster rate and produce more co2 at a faster rate.
The issue is and always has been that there is no answer to the problem of "sustainability" that also includes limitless growth, and limitless growth is one of the essential conditions of global capitalism. The very premise of venture capital, the fuel of this forum, is that the proceeds of tomorrow can pay for today.
More renewables, more clean energy and more electric cars are not the answer to a sustainable future. The only reasonable path towards sustainability is less tomorrow then today, but nobody really wants that, and even now nobody would honestly vote for that. So the path we are on is one in which we see if we can grow fast enough to pay for the consequences of that.
The issue is and always has been that there is no answer to the problem of "sustainability" that also includes limitless growth, and limitless growth is one of the essential conditions of global capitalism. The very premise of venture capital, the fuel of this forum, is that the proceeds of tomorrow can pay for today.
More renewables, more clean energy and more electric cars are not the answer to a sustainable future. The only reasonable path towards sustainability is less tomorrow then today, but nobody really wants that, and even now nobody would honestly vote for that. So the path we are on is one in which we see if we can grow fast enough to pay for the consequences of that.
Solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels, today.
There is no reason at all why humans can't continue to use a lot of energy and also cease pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. All that is required is that the changeover be made.
There is no reason at all why humans can't continue to use a lot of energy and also cease pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. All that is required is that the changeover be made.
I don't mean to be rude here, but how else can one respond to such a statement?
What's the source of your claim?
If solar and wind were cheaper everybody would use it. It's not like there is a conspiracy of companies using a more expensive thing instead of a cheaper one to allegedly keep killing the planet.
The only way that it could be cheaper is if you include government subsidies to artificially make it "cheaper" by paying the remaining cost with our tax dollars. But, even if you include that, which is being done to help government friends, it is still not enough.
What's the source of your claim?
If solar and wind were cheaper everybody would use it. It's not like there is a conspiracy of companies using a more expensive thing instead of a cheaper one to allegedly keep killing the planet.
The only way that it could be cheaper is if you include government subsidies to artificially make it "cheaper" by paying the remaining cost with our tax dollars. But, even if you include that, which is being done to help government friends, it is still not enough.
Even without subsidies solar is cheaper than coal - but its only cheaper while it is producing.
In terms of a stable supply noting beats natural gas right now, as solar or wind plus batteries is too expensive. In time that will change. Basically no one is making new coal fired plants any more and many are shutting down as they are too costly up against cheap natural gas.
Subsidy free new plants: https://www.carbonbrief.org/what-does-subsidy-free-renewable...
I can't wait until stored renewable is cheaper though. Bring on the clean air/low green house gas future.
In terms of a stable supply noting beats natural gas right now, as solar or wind plus batteries is too expensive. In time that will change. Basically no one is making new coal fired plants any more and many are shutting down as they are too costly up against cheap natural gas.
Subsidy free new plants: https://www.carbonbrief.org/what-does-subsidy-free-renewable...
I can't wait until stored renewable is cheaper though. Bring on the clean air/low green house gas future.
I can't reply to you - but here is another article with some more detail
https://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2018/11/solar-a...
But no, it is cheaper today to generate energy with renewables when the sun shines or when the wind blows. Backed up with a gas plant which you can quickly shut down in the day when you have heaps of cheap solar coming into the system and then ramp back up at night as needed.
So are renewables a cheap when to generate energy? Yes.
Are they cheaper than most other sources currently? Yes
Are they dispatchable? No.
Will battery tech soon (10 years?) make them dispatchable? Likely.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/plunging-costs-make-solar-wind-a...
https://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2018/11/solar-a...
But no, it is cheaper today to generate energy with renewables when the sun shines or when the wind blows. Backed up with a gas plant which you can quickly shut down in the day when you have heaps of cheap solar coming into the system and then ramp back up at night as needed.
So are renewables a cheap when to generate energy? Yes.
Are they cheaper than most other sources currently? Yes
Are they dispatchable? No.
Will battery tech soon (10 years?) make them dispatchable? Likely.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/plunging-costs-make-solar-wind-a...
Pardon me for my lack of understanding. If I understand it right, you are saying that solar is cheaper than coal if you exclude all the factors that make it more expensive from the analysis?
I can't wait for that same thing. The problem is, that they are not true now as the parent of my comment stated and will not be for a long while.
I can't wait for that same thing. The problem is, that they are not true now as the parent of my comment stated and will not be for a long while.
From your reference:
"Last week saw the announcement of the world’s first “subsidy-free” offshore windfarm, the 750 megawatt (MW) Hollandse Kust Zuid scheme, due to be built by 2022 off the coast of the Netherlands, by Swedish state-backed utility Vattenfall."
I know that we are living in a time where words don't actually mean what they used to, but even here it is a stretch.
See how they use quotes between the term "subsidy-free"? It's because the money comes from a Sweden state-backed company. Where do you think that money comes from? The profits that the government generates from the value they product? No. It comes from taxpayers.
A couple of paragraphs below:
"These include a 650MW onshore windfarm at Markbygden in Sweden. Set to be the largest onshore scheme in Europe, it is under construction and due to be completed by the end of 2019. In November, aluminium firm Norsk Hydro agreed to buy a fixed amount of electricity from the windfarm for 19 years."
Hummm...so there is a company that promised to buy the energy from this other company for 19 years. Can we see the terms of the deal? As far as I can tell, this is all subsided somehow. If not directly, into the new plant, indirectly through tax-breaks for the buyers of the energy.
Last excerpt:
"At its simplest, subsidy-free means deployment without government-mandated support in the form of the types of scheme mentioned above. So, for example, without a FiT or CfD. On this measure, almost all of the projects listed above would count as subsidy-free."
A few more paragraphs below they even recognize that this is not subsidy-free.
If you keep going down the article, there is more admission about what they mean by "subsidy-free" and it's not what everyone who reads the headlines thinks it is.
"Last week saw the announcement of the world’s first “subsidy-free” offshore windfarm, the 750 megawatt (MW) Hollandse Kust Zuid scheme, due to be built by 2022 off the coast of the Netherlands, by Swedish state-backed utility Vattenfall."
I know that we are living in a time where words don't actually mean what they used to, but even here it is a stretch.
See how they use quotes between the term "subsidy-free"? It's because the money comes from a Sweden state-backed company. Where do you think that money comes from? The profits that the government generates from the value they product? No. It comes from taxpayers.
A couple of paragraphs below:
"These include a 650MW onshore windfarm at Markbygden in Sweden. Set to be the largest onshore scheme in Europe, it is under construction and due to be completed by the end of 2019. In November, aluminium firm Norsk Hydro agreed to buy a fixed amount of electricity from the windfarm for 19 years."
Hummm...so there is a company that promised to buy the energy from this other company for 19 years. Can we see the terms of the deal? As far as I can tell, this is all subsided somehow. If not directly, into the new plant, indirectly through tax-breaks for the buyers of the energy.
Last excerpt:
"At its simplest, subsidy-free means deployment without government-mandated support in the form of the types of scheme mentioned above. So, for example, without a FiT or CfD. On this measure, almost all of the projects listed above would count as subsidy-free."
A few more paragraphs below they even recognize that this is not subsidy-free.
If you keep going down the article, there is more admission about what they mean by "subsidy-free" and it's not what everyone who reads the headlines thinks it is.
A state backed supplier is different to a subsidy.
In the past the only way that solar and wind were economical was if the state covering part of the cost of the energy created - so the company could sell at x cents a unit and the govt would pay a proportion of that or a fixed amount per unit, agreed before the plant came online.
The state owning an energy production company is a different thing and is relatively common in Europe.
Also - do you know how much nearly all govt subsidise all engery suppliers? Coal, gas and nuclear? It is huge! I'll find some stats, but nuclear couldn't exist without massive subsidies and without the state picking up the cost of decommissioning. Even gas and coal get major breaks and deals - these are just the price that states pay for power (yes even in the US).
The aluminium company buying energy options again is not that unusual - I agree understanding if there are tax breaks would be good, but I wouldn't assume there are until I saw it documented.
In the past the only way that solar and wind were economical was if the state covering part of the cost of the energy created - so the company could sell at x cents a unit and the govt would pay a proportion of that or a fixed amount per unit, agreed before the plant came online.
The state owning an energy production company is a different thing and is relatively common in Europe.
Also - do you know how much nearly all govt subsidise all engery suppliers? Coal, gas and nuclear? It is huge! I'll find some stats, but nuclear couldn't exist without massive subsidies and without the state picking up the cost of decommissioning. Even gas and coal get major breaks and deals - these are just the price that states pay for power (yes even in the US).
The aluminium company buying energy options again is not that unusual - I agree understanding if there are tax breaks would be good, but I wouldn't assume there are until I saw it documented.
> A state backed supplier is different to a subsidy
I can agree if we change it to "A state-backed supplier could be different to a subsidy".
Let's take Brazil, my home country, for example. The last government used tax-payers money to keep Petrobras from raising the gas prices for too long. You can call this a subsidy or not. I know I do. It's the same case: Petrobras is a state-backed company and look at what happened?
I know there is a lot of energy subsidies and if it was by me I'd say cut'em all and let the market figure it out.
I can agree if we change it to "A state-backed supplier could be different to a subsidy".
Let's take Brazil, my home country, for example. The last government used tax-payers money to keep Petrobras from raising the gas prices for too long. You can call this a subsidy or not. I know I do. It's the same case: Petrobras is a state-backed company and look at what happened?
I know there is a lot of energy subsidies and if it was by me I'd say cut'em all and let the market figure it out.
[deleted]
So far it looks like, at least in the US, renewables are being used to expand energy capability, not replace fossil fuels. It's also worth that 45% of US "renewables" are biomass, so biofuels and wood burning.
Even if we do see replacement we still haven't solved the problem with wind and solar which is that they are intermittent power sources. You seriously cannot have a majority solar+wind for the foreseeable future, the storage necessary for a majority wind+solar grid is not a solved problem yet.
Then you haven't touched on the transportation energy problem, which is a much bigger problem. Efficient transport of resources around the planet is the essential ingredient in global capitalism. You need high-energy density fuels to do this (otherwise the fuel becomes the cargo). We have absolutely no solution for this currently.
Finally the fact that any suggestion that sustainability necessitates a drastic change in quality of life gets immediately downvoted is further evidence of how much trouble we are in. If, on HN, in a discussion of climate change, you can't say "maybe our lifestyle is inherently unsustainable" just shows how impossible the change necessary is to achieve.
Even if we do see replacement we still haven't solved the problem with wind and solar which is that they are intermittent power sources. You seriously cannot have a majority solar+wind for the foreseeable future, the storage necessary for a majority wind+solar grid is not a solved problem yet.
Then you haven't touched on the transportation energy problem, which is a much bigger problem. Efficient transport of resources around the planet is the essential ingredient in global capitalism. You need high-energy density fuels to do this (otherwise the fuel becomes the cargo). We have absolutely no solution for this currently.
Finally the fact that any suggestion that sustainability necessitates a drastic change in quality of life gets immediately downvoted is further evidence of how much trouble we are in. If, on HN, in a discussion of climate change, you can't say "maybe our lifestyle is inherently unsustainable" just shows how impossible the change necessary is to achieve.
I wonder too. I'm completely convinced it will take top-down control by governments or nothing will change. There is absolutely no reason to believe the "will of the people" will do the right thing now for the first time in history.
Summer of 2017 was dull and rainy, 2018 was scorching heat. So what? This isn't a direct indication of climate change, we have had varied seasons since forever. You didn't take the cool summer of 2017 as an example of debunked climate change either... silly article.
Anyone know where the highest res image data sets are available? I tried looking on https://www.copernicus.eu/en but it's a bit of a maze
Although it is not stated in the article, I suppose it is Sentinel2 (with highest resolution 10m for bands Red, Green, Blue and Near Infrared).
The data is available for free and accessible via Copernicus or at major cloud providers.
The data is available for free and accessible via Copernicus or at major cloud providers.
"Heatwaves and little rain led to rarely seen forest fires in Sweden in July 2018."
Rarely seen, as in, seen before, presumably before the current level of climate change.
I wish articles like this would give some context, such as rare: once in 10/100/1000/10000/100000 years?
Also, satellite images in the last several years can't be compared with satellite images 100 years ago because man-made satellites didn't exist back then. So this is more of a snapshot with little context.
How does this compare with the medieval warming period as far as impact on agriculture?
Rarely seen, as in, seen before, presumably before the current level of climate change.
I wish articles like this would give some context, such as rare: once in 10/100/1000/10000/100000 years?
Also, satellite images in the last several years can't be compared with satellite images 100 years ago because man-made satellites didn't exist back then. So this is more of a snapshot with little context.
How does this compare with the medieval warming period as far as impact on agriculture?
> How does this compare with the medieval warming period as far as impact on agriculture?
It’s been so dry in germany that river levels sunk far enough to make so-called hungerstones visible again. These mark historic low levels that are associated with severe droughts and starvation. The fact that we’re not starving is a testament to how much modern agriculture improved our resilience, but there’s a limit to that.
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerstein_(Wasserstandsmar...
It’s been so dry in germany that river levels sunk far enough to make so-called hungerstones visible again. These mark historic low levels that are associated with severe droughts and starvation. The fact that we’re not starving is a testament to how much modern agriculture improved our resilience, but there’s a limit to that.
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerstein_(Wasserstandsmar...
I've not understood how this demonstrates unprecedented climate change, since presumably there is past precedent that laid the hungerstones in the first place. This seems to demonstrate this level of warming happened before in the medieval ages, before human caused global warming was possible. Wouldn't this mean hungerstones count as evidence against human caused global warming?
Depends, how many uncorrelated rare (in the no global climate change hypothesis) events are simultaneously occurring?
Yes, that's a good point. But, then what is our basis of comparison? When the hungerstones were laid was there not similar warming going on elsewhere? Without knowing this, it is hard to draw conclusions from the hungerstones.
It's not like we have been wrong about this a hundred and twenty-three times before.
In 2014, "science" was telling us for sure that the big lakes would go dry in just a few years due to climate change effects [0].
It is 2019 now and the same lakes that were disappearing, less than five years ago, are now reaching record levels [1].
If something is wrong, someone has to do something, right? We can't just sit on our asses and wait. Hey, government! Go do something!
[0] - https://thinkprogress.org/the-great-lakes-go-dry-how-one-fif... [1] - https://www.weather.gov/mkx/highlakemichiganwaterlevel
In 2014, "science" was telling us for sure that the big lakes would go dry in just a few years due to climate change effects [0].
It is 2019 now and the same lakes that were disappearing, less than five years ago, are now reaching record levels [1].
If something is wrong, someone has to do something, right? We can't just sit on our asses and wait. Hey, government! Go do something!
[0] - https://thinkprogress.org/the-great-lakes-go-dry-how-one-fif... [1] - https://www.weather.gov/mkx/highlakemichiganwaterlevel
From your first link:
> Increasingly, scientists believe that climate change is driving the warming waters and setting up a new regime in the Great Lakes that may lead to lower lake levels and a permanently altered shoreline.
...
> “The El Niño-driven warmer temperatures are a surrogate for what the future climate might be. The lower lake levels during that time may be a signal of what might be happening under longer term climate change.”
I don't see where it says scientists were saying anything for sure, the claim is just that the lower water level "may" be caused by climate change. The truth is that climate is complex and climate models are imperfect; there's a lot we don't know for sure. What we _do_ know for sure, however, is that atmospheric CO2 has a big influence on the earth's climate, that periods of higher levels of CO2 has historically been at the same time as higher temperatures, and that we are seeing actual measurable changes in things like average temperatures.
The effects those changes have on any particular lake, wether its water levels will drop due to increased evaporation, or rise due to wetter summers, is hard to say for certain; we can just strive for making ever more accurate predictive models.
Also, the graph in your second link isn't loading, so I can't comment specifically on that.
> If something is wrong, someone has to do something, right? We can't just sit on our asses and wait. Hey, government! Go do something!
Yeah. Other than a revolution, the most realistic way to make sure that happens is to vote for people who care about this stuff, and against e.g people who claim climate change is a hoax.
> Increasingly, scientists believe that climate change is driving the warming waters and setting up a new regime in the Great Lakes that may lead to lower lake levels and a permanently altered shoreline.
...
> “The El Niño-driven warmer temperatures are a surrogate for what the future climate might be. The lower lake levels during that time may be a signal of what might be happening under longer term climate change.”
I don't see where it says scientists were saying anything for sure, the claim is just that the lower water level "may" be caused by climate change. The truth is that climate is complex and climate models are imperfect; there's a lot we don't know for sure. What we _do_ know for sure, however, is that atmospheric CO2 has a big influence on the earth's climate, that periods of higher levels of CO2 has historically been at the same time as higher temperatures, and that we are seeing actual measurable changes in things like average temperatures.
The effects those changes have on any particular lake, wether its water levels will drop due to increased evaporation, or rise due to wetter summers, is hard to say for certain; we can just strive for making ever more accurate predictive models.
Also, the graph in your second link isn't loading, so I can't comment specifically on that.
> If something is wrong, someone has to do something, right? We can't just sit on our asses and wait. Hey, government! Go do something!
Yeah. Other than a revolution, the most realistic way to make sure that happens is to vote for people who care about this stuff, and against e.g people who claim climate change is a hoax.
I don't know who downvoted you, but I upvoted you because I think it's unfair to downvote someone just because they have a different opinion.
I have been downvoted too many times before with no explanation so it's just right that I do what I think is right for others.
Back to the topic at hand. If you tell me that by giving you the essay backed by scientists the article I provided is missing, will help change your opinion I will hunt it down and provide it to you.
> Yeah. Other than a revolution, the most realistic way to make sure that happens is to vote for people who care about this stuff, and against e.g people who claim climate change is a hoax.
We don't need a government to do anything or a revolution. We actually need the opposite. Keep the government out of it and you will see how much better our lives will get. Freedom is the path to success.
I have been downvoted too many times before with no explanation so it's just right that I do what I think is right for others.
Back to the topic at hand. If you tell me that by giving you the essay backed by scientists the article I provided is missing, will help change your opinion I will hunt it down and provide it to you.
> Yeah. Other than a revolution, the most realistic way to make sure that happens is to vote for people who care about this stuff, and against e.g people who claim climate change is a hoax.
We don't need a government to do anything or a revolution. We actually need the opposite. Keep the government out of it and you will see how much better our lives will get. Freedom is the path to success.
"What we _do_ know for sure, however, is that atmospheric CO2 has a big influence on the earth's climate"
So what's the Climate Sensitivity, and to what sigma?
"and that we are seeing actual measurable changes in things like average temperatures"
The absolute best, gold standard temperature measurement network, the USCRN, has seen little warming since it first began measurements back around 2005. 15 years or so is too short to confidently argue trends, but it is getting close. While the US is, what, 2% of the surface area of the globe, surely this result requires some consideration. Check the data yourself:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/
So what's the Climate Sensitivity, and to what sigma?
"and that we are seeing actual measurable changes in things like average temperatures"
The absolute best, gold standard temperature measurement network, the USCRN, has seen little warming since it first began measurements back around 2005. 15 years or so is too short to confidently argue trends, but it is getting close. While the US is, what, 2% of the surface area of the globe, surely this result requires some consideration. Check the data yourself:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/
Here is the link for an article that cites all the relevant sources: https://realclimatescience.com/2019/03/latest-shameless-frau...
ps: please ignore the inflamed content. The sources are good
ps: please ignore the inflamed content. The sources are good
[answer to a flagged comment] Not really, I think the unfortunately monickered mr assblaster makes a valid point free of bias. We are in an era of unprecedented imagery and data access for the first time. We don't know if the last few years when this technology evolution happened overlaps with outlier weather events. There may well be effects from tripling the atmospheric carbon too.
That ignores the entire body of climate researches over many decades and probably millenia of person-years of research, ice cores, glacial/polar ice cap melt, etc. It seems like a valid point, but it really isn't.
edit: it really isn't. We know the current warming is without precedent in rate, and has an upper limit around the PETM (about 50 Ma). It's like someone who had never seen a car before presuming it was powered by ghosts. It maybe reasonable within their frame of reference, but it is their frame of reference that is flawed in an objective context.
edit: it really isn't. We know the current warming is without precedent in rate, and has an upper limit around the PETM (about 50 Ma). It's like someone who had never seen a car before presuming it was powered by ghosts. It maybe reasonable within their frame of reference, but it is their frame of reference that is flawed in an objective context.
Remember that the resolution of the data increases with time: ice cores, etc, give a resolution much less than second-by-second temperature data today.
Comparing rate change from millions of years ago to today over days/weeks/months/years is impossible.
Comparing rate change from millions of years ago to today over days/weeks/months/years is impossible.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Bitcoin has earned a lot of the blame here:
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ywbbpm/bitcoin-mi...
>one transaction now uses as much energy as your house in a week
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/17/bitcoin-e...
>In November, the power consumed by the entire bitcoin network was estimated to be higher than that of the Republic of Ireland. Since then, its demands have only grown. It’s now on pace to use just over 42TWh of electricity in a year, placing it ahead of New Zealand and Hungary and just behind Peru.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ywbbpm/bitcoin-mi...
>one transaction now uses as much energy as your house in a week
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/17/bitcoin-e...
>In November, the power consumed by the entire bitcoin network was estimated to be higher than that of the Republic of Ireland. Since then, its demands have only grown. It’s now on pace to use just over 42TWh of electricity in a year, placing it ahead of New Zealand and Hungary and just behind Peru.
https://viewer.terrascope.be/terrascope/?language=en&date=18...
This may well be before/after harvest or early vs. late July images on bloomberg.com - it's such things that have made me very skeptical about the climate change debate. And of course, some people are quickly downvoting facts they don't like.