Fossil Fuel Use Increasing, Not Decreasing(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Fossil Fuel Use Increasing, Not Decreasing
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/08/climate/fossil-fuels-expanding.html
65 comments
Carbon taxes need a good story for what happens to the tax revenue. Most of the time, advocates want to siphon the revenue into their pet cause, or pay off private interests. This makes an already bitter pill dead on arrival.
I usually figure a simple carbon dividend might be a more effective pitch. If you produce an average amount of carbon, you pay $x in tax and get a refund of $x. If you produce more, you come out negative, and if you produce less you make money on net. So, the clear incentive is to use less than your peers in an eventual race to the bottom.
(One risk is poor folks might actually produce more carbon than the middle class, with older vehicles in disrepair and poorly insulated homes)
At the end of the day though, consent of the public is what will move the needle. Carbon taxes might be Pareto Efficient and popular with economists, but if the public just hates all new taxes and won’t go for it, it’s right in theory but wrong in practice.
I usually figure a simple carbon dividend might be a more effective pitch. If you produce an average amount of carbon, you pay $x in tax and get a refund of $x. If you produce more, you come out negative, and if you produce less you make money on net. So, the clear incentive is to use less than your peers in an eventual race to the bottom.
(One risk is poor folks might actually produce more carbon than the middle class, with older vehicles in disrepair and poorly insulated homes)
At the end of the day though, consent of the public is what will move the needle. Carbon taxes might be Pareto Efficient and popular with economists, but if the public just hates all new taxes and won’t go for it, it’s right in theory but wrong in practice.
> (One risk is poor folks might actually produce more carbon than the middle class, with older vehicles in disrepair and poorly insulated homes)
I would expect flights to be what really sets the average.
I would expect flights to be what really sets the average.
The problem with the dividend is that politicians will say something stupid like "we can't pay the dividends because we already spent the money".
Any sane politician should pay the dividend before the tax is introduced, because that makes the tax more palatable and less delayable, because you're already bleeding money.
Any sane politician should pay the dividend before the tax is introduced, because that makes the tax more palatable and less delayable, because you're already bleeding money.
>we can't pay the dividends because we already spent the money
Carbon fee and dividend proposals often require almost all the money to not be possible to spend on anything besides the dividend.
Carbon fee and dividend proposals often require almost all the money to not be possible to spend on anything besides the dividend.
Planned and sustainable economy is way to go, right now be have almost all the technologies required to create efficient plans
Soviet Union had almost all the technologies to create efficient plans.
I see Soviet Union and modern tech giants as two extremes here. In USSR party people had a final say in planning, often disregarding "efficient" part. In tech giants people are out of the loop and decisions are made "by algorithm".
Which alternative do you like more?
I see Soviet Union and modern tech giants as two extremes here. In USSR party people had a final say in planning, often disregarding "efficient" part. In tech giants people are out of the loop and decisions are made "by algorithm".
Which alternative do you like more?
I don't think so, for eg computation that time is nowhere comparable of today's, computation, automation, information analytics etc
> People don’t seem to have the stomach to accept what’s coming
Whats coming?
If we look at doom&gloom predictions of "climate change" we see - objectively, none of those "whats coming" have happened.
Whats coming?
If we look at doom&gloom predictions of "climate change" we see - objectively, none of those "whats coming" have happened.
Back in the aughts, a specific prediction of flooding in the NYC subway system in a decade was made. And then in 2012, Hurricane Sandy hit the area, flooding the subway, completing that prediction. It's now 2023 and NYC is flooding again.
Or how about wildfires turning the sky orange. Fire existed before global climate change, but it's made the fire season longer and fires more frequent. Fires in Canada made the sky's orany for much of the North Eastern US. It's pretty hard to ignore the sky being the wrong color.
Objectively, yes, things have happened.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/view-indicators
Or how about wildfires turning the sky orange. Fire existed before global climate change, but it's made the fire season longer and fires more frequent. Fires in Canada made the sky's orany for much of the North Eastern US. It's pretty hard to ignore the sky being the wrong color.
Objectively, yes, things have happened.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/view-indicators
That isn't accurate at all. Books have been written since the early and mid-20th century about the effects of a technocratic society and the limits of growth, and those analysis and predictions have certainly come to fruition in various ways.
What is scary about the climate and the environment is that they are highly dynamic systems. If anyone has studied dynamical systems, there are certainly points where everything is "fine" and then boom, a sudden critical point is hit and things go off the rails. The worry is that we seem to be constantly teetering on a critical point. Or we are simply in slow motion destruction. Or both.
Take any closed ecosystem (which the Earth is) and imagine doing to it what we do to the Earth. Is it any surprise things are going off the rails? Resources are not infinite and almost none of them are mined/gathered without major consequences to the environment.
Have you watched any documentaries? Animals and plants are struggling heavily in a myriad of ways and just flat going extinct at increasing rates. Glaciers are going away. Oceans are poisoned and hypoxic. Animals and even humans are filled with microplastics. Technology and capitalism is ripping society apart in a way in which a certain class of people have their thumbs over everyone else. There are literally plastic rocks being formed. Weather events are getting more extreme. Wildfires are increasing.
> objectively, none of those "whats coming" have happened
Search for any of those things and please tell me you still feel this way. Even something specific as a search for "birds filled with plastic" will show that this is not true. Does this look like things have not objectively happened with the climate? https://www.greenmatters.com/weather-and-global-warming/pict...
What is scary about the climate and the environment is that they are highly dynamic systems. If anyone has studied dynamical systems, there are certainly points where everything is "fine" and then boom, a sudden critical point is hit and things go off the rails. The worry is that we seem to be constantly teetering on a critical point. Or we are simply in slow motion destruction. Or both.
Take any closed ecosystem (which the Earth is) and imagine doing to it what we do to the Earth. Is it any surprise things are going off the rails? Resources are not infinite and almost none of them are mined/gathered without major consequences to the environment.
Have you watched any documentaries? Animals and plants are struggling heavily in a myriad of ways and just flat going extinct at increasing rates. Glaciers are going away. Oceans are poisoned and hypoxic. Animals and even humans are filled with microplastics. Technology and capitalism is ripping society apart in a way in which a certain class of people have their thumbs over everyone else. There are literally plastic rocks being formed. Weather events are getting more extreme. Wildfires are increasing.
> objectively, none of those "whats coming" have happened
Search for any of those things and please tell me you still feel this way. Even something specific as a search for "birds filled with plastic" will show that this is not true. Does this look like things have not objectively happened with the climate? https://www.greenmatters.com/weather-and-global-warming/pict...
> That isn't accurate at all. Books have been written since the early and mid-20th century about the effects of a technocratic society and the limits of growth, and those analysis and predictions have certainly come to fruition in various ways.
No need to hide BS behind long wordy sentences to look smart. Nothing has "come to fruition" - nor doom&gloom predictions of Maldives going under water or any sorts of that.
Definitions like yours are easily dismissed when we start talking specifics and look what "climate change" adepts preached 10-20-30 years ago. It's easy to look smart talking about vague books.
If you old enough to remember, popular preaching in 70s was "global cooling" with predictions about would freezing by 21st century. Needless to say it went the same road predictions about "global boiling" are heading to - be proven by historical data as made up and out of context.
No need to hide BS behind long wordy sentences to look smart. Nothing has "come to fruition" - nor doom&gloom predictions of Maldives going under water or any sorts of that.
Definitions like yours are easily dismissed when we start talking specifics and look what "climate change" adepts preached 10-20-30 years ago. It's easy to look smart talking about vague books.
If you old enough to remember, popular preaching in 70s was "global cooling" with predictions about would freezing by 21st century. Needless to say it went the same road predictions about "global boiling" are heading to - be proven by historical data as made up and out of context.
What? Just this summer we had a string of the hottest days ever recorder for like 2 weeks. Last year temps were in the high 20°C's for up to mid-november. Once-a-decade wildfires now happen every year. Hurricanes destroy large parts of the southeast US every summer. Europe is starting to get hit by storms as well. The Gulfstream, arguably the single most important ocean current to the western world, is collapsing.
This isn't a matter of opinion; objectively, these things are happening, and there is no reason for them not to get worse.
This isn't a matter of opinion; objectively, these things are happening, and there is no reason for them not to get worse.
This a bunch of emotional responses, if you pardon my bluntness. It it a matter of opinion and has nothing to do with the word "objectivity".
I would call for some historical data and do some data-backed comparisons, but given your emotional responses it likely will be pointless.
I would call for some historical data and do some data-backed comparisons, but given your emotional responses it likely will be pointless.
I'm guessing it's this at work: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
> I'm guessing it's this at work: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
But prices haven't dropped isn't?
But prices haven't dropped isn't?
[deleted]
The IEA predicts that energy-related CO2 emissions will peak in 2025.
My guess is that a fair chunk of the predicted extraction by 2030 will never happen.
My guess is that a fair chunk of the predicted extraction by 2030 will never happen.
The IEA has done a pretty terrible job of predicting the mix of energy sources over the recent past, largely being overly biased towards fossil fuels. I honestly wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in their predictions even if their claim is that energy-related CO2 would peak in 2025.
I hope these predictions are somewhat more accurate than their previous projections for solar energy. https://nitter.net/AukeHoekstra/status/1507047932226375688#m
"I mean, at every level, we are racing madly towards total catastrophe under the leadership of sociopathic fanatics. It’s as if some evil demon decided to take over the human species and drive them to self-destruction. Much of the world is trying to counter it, almost all the world, but the United States and Brazil are the extreme cases of racing with dedication towards disaster."
- Noam Chomsky, 2020
- Noam Chomsky, 2020
We are clearly in trouble with climate change, but really our priorites are reenacting WWII and making people see more ads.
And chances are it will only get worse, because the bleaker a rational look at the future gets, the bigger the lure of irrational fantasies and "explanations"
This is addiction mechanics at play. Like an individual who won't think of changing until hitting rock bottom and even then it's a toss up.
Society won't be serious about climate change until disastrous levels are reached. And even then we'll have plenty of actors willing to burn fossil fuels clandestinely. We're in for a rough ride for the next century or so.
Society won't be serious about climate change until disastrous levels are reached. And even then we'll have plenty of actors willing to burn fossil fuels clandestinely. We're in for a rough ride for the next century or so.
It's worse than that, because tragedy of commons is at play and those who pretend that the pie will grow forever will get most of whatever crumbs will be left.
[deleted]
I am not surprised. As long as we pretend we can still operate a growth economy while "doing something" about climate change, we are going to have a huge problem trying to curb the use of fossil fuels. In the short term, new competing energy sources will lower the demand of fossil fuels and hence the price, so that more will be used to compensate.
But even besides the issue of alternative energy sources, we insist on growing our consumerist, capitalistic economy being made more efficient by THE DAY by soulless tech companies like Google, so what do you expect?
Countries should re-tool to be more self-sustainable in terms of the basics of food, shelter, and basic products. We should strive to make economies less efficient and more self-sufficient.
But even besides the issue of alternative energy sources, we insist on growing our consumerist, capitalistic economy being made more efficient by THE DAY by soulless tech companies like Google, so what do you expect?
Countries should re-tool to be more self-sustainable in terms of the basics of food, shelter, and basic products. We should strive to make economies less efficient and more self-sufficient.
This isn’t about capitalism.
Wealthy nations are seeing reductions in total CO2 emissions. US dropped from 6 billion metric tons in 2007 to 5 billion metric tons in 2022. That’s back to 1988 levels despite 40% population growth, increased prosperity, and all those crossovers and giant SUV’s. Including imports and exports changes these numbers slightly, but doesn’t change the overall trend.
Developing countries are adopting zero carbon technologies because their cost effective, but they are also ramping up fossil fuel use because they are simply growing so quickly. Ethiopia’s real GDP growth rate is 6.1%/year and that’s a good thing in almost every context except pollution.
Wealthy nations are seeing reductions in total CO2 emissions. US dropped from 6 billion metric tons in 2007 to 5 billion metric tons in 2022. That’s back to 1988 levels despite 40% population growth, increased prosperity, and all those crossovers and giant SUV’s. Including imports and exports changes these numbers slightly, but doesn’t change the overall trend.
Developing countries are adopting zero carbon technologies because their cost effective, but they are also ramping up fossil fuel use because they are simply growing so quickly. Ethiopia’s real GDP growth rate is 6.1%/year and that’s a good thing in almost every context except pollution.
Yup.
For instance, China's demand for new energy means they're building more of everything. More nukes, solar, wind, AND coal.
Solar is the cheapest option, and getting cheaper. Installed capacity is doubling every 20 (?) months. China is adding more solar every year than the rest of the world combined.
But it's still not enough. Therefore, China is compelled to add more coal too.
This (pathetic) NYT article explains none of that.
For instance, China's demand for new energy means they're building more of everything. More nukes, solar, wind, AND coal.
Solar is the cheapest option, and getting cheaper. Installed capacity is doubling every 20 (?) months. China is adding more solar every year than the rest of the world combined.
But it's still not enough. Therefore, China is compelled to add more coal too.
This (pathetic) NYT article explains none of that.
The accounting for CO2 emissions is a bit lopsided. Why do you think developing nations are developing so quickly to become more like the US? The only reason is because they are aided through technologies developed by first-world countries in the first place, the reasons for which are primarily consumerist. If all first-world countries stopped producing so many things to consume and returned to simpler lifestyles, then there would be much less "development" in developing nations.
> all first-world countries stopped producing so many things to consume and returned to simpler lifestyles, then there would be much less "development" in developing nations.
When you say simpler lifestyles you mean higher infant mortality, poor sanitation, dirt roads, and all those other ills from poverty. Yes people living in the tropics also want AC, so do we.
This isn’t about people in Bangladesh/US wanting an iPhone or designer clothing. Electronics barely move the CO2 needle, it’s things we take for granted like clean drinking water that takes massive infrastructure and tons of concrete.
When you say simpler lifestyles you mean higher infant mortality, poor sanitation, dirt roads, and all those other ills from poverty. Yes people living in the tropics also want AC, so do we.
This isn’t about people in Bangladesh/US wanting an iPhone or designer clothing. Electronics barely move the CO2 needle, it’s things we take for granted like clean drinking water that takes massive infrastructure and tons of concrete.
Good point. People often forget that the quality of life we have today comes from energy consumption and technological innovation. It all started with fire...
I disagree. I mean less consumption of non-essential things like upgrades to smartphones every year, keeping 3G as opposed to 4G, 5G, no AI use, no plastic packaging, slower but functional internet, no imports of cheap things from China, no social media, etc. In other words: the reduction of mostly useless technologies on a voluntary basis.
Less imported food instead of home-grown food, less imported clothes, less new things that replace perfectly good old things...
Less imported food instead of home-grown food, less imported clothes, less new things that replace perfectly good old things...
Again non of that has a particularly significant impact on climate change.
Air travel, ICE cars, fossil fuel or municipal waste power plants, concrete, steel, etc matters. 3G vs 5G really really doesn’t.
Grocery stores hand out plastic bags so happily because they are cheap. Stuff being cheap means it’s associated with very minimal CO2 because releasing CO2 means using a valuable resource. Further all that carbon in the bag ends up sequestered in a dump making plastic packaging a great way to use up oil reserves without burning them.
PS: Upgrading phones every 2 years is like buying a car, that old phone generally gets traded in and someone else uses it instead of simply dumping it.
Air travel, ICE cars, fossil fuel or municipal waste power plants, concrete, steel, etc matters. 3G vs 5G really really doesn’t.
Grocery stores hand out plastic bags so happily because they are cheap. Stuff being cheap means it’s associated with very minimal CO2 because releasing CO2 means using a valuable resource. Further all that carbon in the bag ends up sequestered in a dump making plastic packaging a great way to use up oil reserves without burning them.
PS: Upgrading phones every 2 years is like buying a car, that old phone generally gets traded in and someone else uses it instead of simply dumping it.
> If all first-world countries stopped producing so many things to consume and returned to simpler lifestyles, then there would be much less "development" in developing nations.
And there would be much more poverty, disease, and death. Not to mention that we wouldn't be able to have this conversation since the medium in which we are having it requires an industrial, technological society, which "simpler lifestyles" can't support.
And there would be much more poverty, disease, and death. Not to mention that we wouldn't be able to have this conversation since the medium in which we are having it requires an industrial, technological society, which "simpler lifestyles" can't support.
> Wealthy nations are seeing reductions in total CO2 emissions. US dropped from 6 billion metric tons in 2007 to 5 billion metric tons in 2022.
Probably mostly outsourcing manufacture and associated pollution elsewhere (e.g. China).
Probably mostly outsourcing manufacture and associated pollution elsewhere (e.g. China).
Nope, if anything imports are flat over that timeframe: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/impo... (In constant 2021 dollars that’s 3,129B in 2007 vs 3,401B in 2021.) https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
Really we’re talking a 17% drop in CO2 emissions it would take quite a lot to offset it.
Really we’re talking a 17% drop in CO2 emissions it would take quite a lot to offset it.
> This isn't about capitalism.
How is unconstrained growth at all costs not part of this?
> Wealthy nations are seeing reductions in total CO2 emissions
Because they are off shored, are they not? And developing countries are increasingly using fossil fuels because of their adoption of capitalism and of technologies (i.e., customers) from developed countries, are they not?
How is unconstrained growth at all costs not part of this?
> Wealthy nations are seeing reductions in total CO2 emissions
Because they are off shored, are they not? And developing countries are increasingly using fossil fuels because of their adoption of capitalism and of technologies (i.e., customers) from developed countries, are they not?
It's about the trend lines.
Population continues to grow. Energy per capita in the developing economies continues to increase.
Whereas in the developed economies energy per capita is decreasing, it's still much higher than in developing economies.
The only way thru this is adding more renewable energy capacity faster, for everyone, everywhere. A lot more. Fast enough to both replace fossil fuels and keep up with demand.
Population continues to grow. Energy per capita in the developing economies continues to increase.
Whereas in the developed economies energy per capita is decreasing, it's still much higher than in developing economies.
The only way thru this is adding more renewable energy capacity faster, for everyone, everywhere. A lot more. Fast enough to both replace fossil fuels and keep up with demand.
"How is unconstrained growth at all costs not part of this?"
It may be a part, but it may also be a lazy ideological distraction.
For example, here north of the Alps, a significant factor in the total CO2 budget is heating of homes, which cannot be offshored and cannot be simply banned; previous generations had this problem, too, and they cut down most of the primeval forests for the same purpose. (Europe is now significantly more forested than in the 16th century.)
Looking back at my childhood in the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, our heating was notoriously dirty, burning low-quality coal directly in houses, streets full of stinking smoke. Our centrally planned economy stagnated (degrowth!), so replacing old dirty coal-based equipment with something more modern was economically challenging.
It may be a part, but it may also be a lazy ideological distraction.
For example, here north of the Alps, a significant factor in the total CO2 budget is heating of homes, which cannot be offshored and cannot be simply banned; previous generations had this problem, too, and they cut down most of the primeval forests for the same purpose. (Europe is now significantly more forested than in the 16th century.)
Looking back at my childhood in the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, our heating was notoriously dirty, burning low-quality coal directly in houses, streets full of stinking smoke. Our centrally planned economy stagnated (degrowth!), so replacing old dirty coal-based equipment with something more modern was economically challenging.
This is a little like saying that because blood sugar disregulation can come from T1 diabetes that it can't come from T2 diabetes.
Just because a socialist country caused pollution, doesn't mean that capitalism cannot cause pollution for its own reasons.
Just because a socialist country caused pollution, doesn't mean that capitalism cannot cause pollution for its own reasons.
If one economic system does X then it’s a function of that economic system, if every single economic system does X then it’s a function of humanity.
Yes, but an important distinction lies between every single economic system vs every implemented economic system. Extrapolating universal human behavior under the latter is, as I'm sure you would agree, tempting, but easily to blunder.
I would argue humanity is the limiting factor for which economic systems get implemented.
But I get your point.
But I get your point.
It is sort-of a warning for idealists who think that socialism treats nature better. I notice lionization of socialism among young Americans quite often, it is a distant and luring ideal for them, with no personal experience to correct the image.
Pretty much the universal experience from east of the Iron Curtain was the opposite. Ecological initiatives were a part of the coalition of the unhappy that brought the regimes down at the end of the eighties.
Pretty much the universal experience from east of the Iron Curtain was the opposite. Ecological initiatives were a part of the coalition of the unhappy that brought the regimes down at the end of the eighties.
Throughout human history, energy consumption has increased along with quality of life and number of humans on Earth. Can quality of life improve with less energy consumption and less humans? I'm not too sure...
Increased quality of life comes from new technological discoveries and abundant resources per capita. Increased fossil fuel usage is one way to achieve that but it's far from the only way. From a high level, if we increase investment on electrification of appliances, use greener forms of transportation, and design denser cities with less car dependence while also increasing nuclear energy output, we can probably increase energy consumption and have even more people living a better quality life without needing fossil fuels.
Absolutely!
But if you're a third world country trying to improve your quality of life fossil fuel is the most accessible. Until rich countries make other options cheaper and readily available.
Solar has made incredible strides but not sufficiently enough to replace fossil fuels. Civilian nuclear has been demonized and is not easily accessible.
I fail to see how we can reduce fossil fuel increase throughout the world without viable alternatives.
But if you're a third world country trying to improve your quality of life fossil fuel is the most accessible. Until rich countries make other options cheaper and readily available.
Solar has made incredible strides but not sufficiently enough to replace fossil fuels. Civilian nuclear has been demonized and is not easily accessible.
I fail to see how we can reduce fossil fuel increase throughout the world without viable alternatives.
Are fossil fuels the only source of energy?
Absolutely not! Hydro, nuclear fission, solar, wind, etc. Tons of other options. My point is you need energy to cook food and have hospitals. Without those basic needs covered, a society can't function. If we want to continue improving our lives, we need more energy.
During my childhood we lit our homes with ridiculous incandescent lights that were powerful enough to fry an egg (a trick my friends and I used to pull off with a floodlight.) Our entertainment came from TVs that used enormous energy-hungry cathode ray tubes. Our home PCs used dozens of times more power than the iPhone I have in my hand, despite being a million times less powerful. Today I drive an electric car that is somewhere between 2-8x more efficient than the gasoline clunkers of my childhood. I could probably go on about heat pumps, but you get the point. At the same time, nearly everything I own or use is nicer and more luxurious than the things I had when I was a kid, even though those things are rose-tinted in my memories.
Meanwhile the cost of energy is going down faster than at any time in my entire life. They’re building an 800MW offshore wind plant off my coast, and another 2000MW is scheduled to go in down in Virginia. The per-watt cost of solar is now below most fossil fuels, and continues to plummet each year. None of this is perfect - there are still challenges related to capacity and demand matching - but it’s hard to argue that we’ll be facing some kind of long term society-limiting energy crisis in my lifetime, absent a world war. If anything we’re about to enter a period of absurd energy abundance we don’t yet know what to do with.
Meanwhile the cost of energy is going down faster than at any time in my entire life. They’re building an 800MW offshore wind plant off my coast, and another 2000MW is scheduled to go in down in Virginia. The per-watt cost of solar is now below most fossil fuels, and continues to plummet each year. None of this is perfect - there are still challenges related to capacity and demand matching - but it’s hard to argue that we’ll be facing some kind of long term society-limiting energy crisis in my lifetime, absent a world war. If anything we’re about to enter a period of absurd energy abundance we don’t yet know what to do with.
There’s tons of energy out there. It’s not feasible to switch our infrastructure to using those forms of energy using them as effectively as cheaply as we do fossil fuels.
One of the benefits to carbon taxes is unironically rationing. We will run out of oil slower. We value keeping oil in the ground WAY too lowly, that basically preserves it indefinitely for free, in a form that doesn’t result in environmental chaos. I don’t know why people don’t think of oil in the ground as a strategic reserve.
One of the benefits to carbon taxes is unironically rationing. We will run out of oil slower. We value keeping oil in the ground WAY too lowly, that basically preserves it indefinitely for free, in a form that doesn’t result in environmental chaos. I don’t know why people don’t think of oil in the ground as a strategic reserve.
The entire world's economy is based on fossil fuel. If there's even a hint of not growing -> stock markets crash. How could anyone expect a decrease in anything consumed, fossil fuel especially?!
Well, yes. The only block of countries reducing it are the EU (making our life miserable), the USA at most is maintaining it, and China, India, all of Africa and mostly all others, are pumping out more and more of it.
European are sacrificing themselves for no practical results. All in the name of appearances and what now counts as some perverted political correctness.
European are sacrificing themselves for no practical results. All in the name of appearances and what now counts as some perverted political correctness.
Cleaner air is a practical result - well, if we can persuade people to stop driving larger and larger petrol driven cars.
Living in London and seeing a visible build up of black dust on my window frames every month or two I'd like cleaner air.
Living in London and seeing a visible build up of black dust on my window frames every month or two I'd like cleaner air.
Then move to the sticks! Dirt and crime is part of the city experience. "Part and parcel" some might say.
This is a "sell their houses to who, Ben?" Moment. Just avoid the problem area! Its folkish to try to make your community a better place where... checks notes breathing clean air is possible, just go somewhere else!
In the future but I doubt right now.
> the EU (making our life miserable)
That's a strong statement. Can you be more specific ? I live in the EU and I have no complaints related to Union-level climate policies.
That's a strong statement. Can you be more specific ? I live in the EU and I have no complaints related to Union-level climate policies.
Minimum wage where I live is 830€/month. Fuel is taxed at about 60% (mostly with environmental excuses from the state).
Electricity is at an all-time high because we spend a huge amount of money making it "green". People can't even heat their houses in the winter. It's literally 13C inside right now at my parents house.
Meanwhile, France is deemed "un-green" because union-level climate policies mark cheap nuclear power as not "green", while Germany is burning biomass and expensive natural gas, therefore is tagged "green".
Union-level climate policies completely at fault here, and so are many government policies that are just an excuse to extract more taxes under the righteousness of "fighting climate change".
I don't know who is getting rich and achieving a better life out of this, but it's certainly not the European common citizen.
Electricity is at an all-time high because we spend a huge amount of money making it "green". People can't even heat their houses in the winter. It's literally 13C inside right now at my parents house.
Meanwhile, France is deemed "un-green" because union-level climate policies mark cheap nuclear power as not "green", while Germany is burning biomass and expensive natural gas, therefore is tagged "green".
Union-level climate policies completely at fault here, and so are many government policies that are just an excuse to extract more taxes under the righteousness of "fighting climate change".
I don't know who is getting rich and achieving a better life out of this, but it's certainly not the European common citizen.
Not to quibble, but...
- Fuel taxes are national policy, not EU ?
- Electricity was stupid high mainly because of the war ? (and FWIW "green" is not yet king - given that there is still new coal capacity coming online [thanks, Poland] in spite of its utter stupidity)
- Agreed that natural gas policy is kind of all over the place - policy is lagging reality
The EU is not rich in own energy resources, so placing taxes & other restrictions imports keeps cash at home to plow into renewables - improving security of supply.
So I'm still not convinced that the EU has got it willfully wrong.
- Fuel taxes are national policy, not EU ?
- Electricity was stupid high mainly because of the war ? (and FWIW "green" is not yet king - given that there is still new coal capacity coming online [thanks, Poland] in spite of its utter stupidity)
- Agreed that natural gas policy is kind of all over the place - policy is lagging reality
The EU is not rich in own energy resources, so placing taxes & other restrictions imports keeps cash at home to plow into renewables - improving security of supply.
So I'm still not convinced that the EU has got it willfully wrong.
> The only block of countries reducing it are the EU (making our life miserable), the USA at most is maintaining it, and China, India, all of Africa and mostly all others, are pumping out more and more of it
US is a large country with considerable amounts of coal (and oil to a lesser extent). China also owns a considerable amount of coal on their territory. Several African countries are significant oil producers. (overall even if it's oversimplifying: it makes sense that large countries with low density of population have larger amounts of natural resources per capita...)
Since EU imports > 95% of the fossil fuels it uses and since the volume of oil extracted from earth will soon peak and then decline (in a context where the countries who extract it will keep more and more for themselves, therefore even less to be available on the market), it is indeed wise that EU learns to organise with less fossil fuels (independently from any climate/environmental concerns, which are another good reason). If EU doesn't then it will anyway have to face such a decline, without being properly organised...
US is a large country with considerable amounts of coal (and oil to a lesser extent). China also owns a considerable amount of coal on their territory. Several African countries are significant oil producers. (overall even if it's oversimplifying: it makes sense that large countries with low density of population have larger amounts of natural resources per capita...)
Since EU imports > 95% of the fossil fuels it uses and since the volume of oil extracted from earth will soon peak and then decline (in a context where the countries who extract it will keep more and more for themselves, therefore even less to be available on the market), it is indeed wise that EU learns to organise with less fossil fuels (independently from any climate/environmental concerns, which are another good reason). If EU doesn't then it will anyway have to face such a decline, without being properly organised...
Let’s repeal the tax and wait for the good times people say. They’re not anti-environment they say, they just want to try unspecified different solutions, so long as it costs them nothing. Once we burn a little more fuel, the good times will be here, and we can lay off a bit.
People don’t seem to have the stomach to accept what’s coming even to the extent they’re willing to act together to ensure we all have a better future. I never expected people to do much. Yet I was never this pessimistic.