this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2023
51 points (98.1% liked)

Green - An environmentalist community

5325 readers
1 users here now

This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!


RULES:

1- Remember the human

2- Link posts should come from a reputable source

3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith


Related communities:


Unofficial Chat rooms:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Right now, could you prepare a slice of toast with zero embodied carbon emissions?

Since at least the 2000s, big polluters have tried to frame carbon emissions as an issue to be solved through the purchasing choices of individual consumers.

Solving climate change, we've been told, is not a matter of public policy or infrastructure. Instead, it's about convincing individual consumers to reduce their "carbon footprint" (a term coined by BP: https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oil-coined-carbon-footprints-to-blame-us-for-their-greed-keep-them-on-the-hook).

Yet, right now, millions of people couldn't prepare a slice of toast without causing carbon emissions, even if they wanted to.

In many low-density single-use-zoned suburbs, the only realistic option for getting to the store to get a loaf of bread is to drive. The power coming out of the mains includes energy from coal or gas.

But.

Even if they invested in solar panels, and an inverter, and a battery system, and only used an electric toaster, and baked the loaf themselves in an electric oven, and walked/cycled/drove an EV to the store to get flour and yeast, there are still embodied carbon emissions in that loaf of bread.

Just think about the diesel powered trucks used to transport the grains and packaging to the flour factory, the energy used to power the milling equipment, and the diesel fuel used to transport that flour to the store.

Basically, unless you go completely off grid and grow your own organic wheat, your zero emissions toast just ain't happening.

And that's for the most basic of food products!

Unless we get the infrastructure in place to move to a 100% renewables and storage grid, and use it to power fully electric freight rail and zero emissions passenger transport, pretty much all of our decarbonisation efforts are non-starters.

This is fundamentally an infrastructure and public policy problem, not a problem of individual consumer choice.

#ClimateChange #urbanism #infrastructure #energy #grid #politics #power @green

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jackofalltrades@mas.to 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@jgkoomey @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green

Note that for any given efficiency improvement to have the desired effect of reducing emissions it not only must be invented, but it also must be distributed across the world, again at a pace greater than overall economic growth.

2/5

[–] jackofalltrades@mas.to 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@jgkoomey @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green

As an example, global meat production doubled in the last 30 years. If a new method of factory farming is invented that cuts methane emissions by 10%, for it to actually reduce emissions it would need to be adopted on every farm in the world in less than 3 years.

After which point we'd need another such invention to keep pace with the economic growth.

3/5

[–] jackofalltrades@mas.to 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@jgkoomey @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green

It's also worth noting that currently all nations follow a recipe for development through industrialization based on fossil fuels. There is not a single country on a "green" path. That means fossil inertia in the system is very high.

On top of that, all our "green" technologies currently require input of fossil fuels in their prodution processes. That includes #solar panels, #wind turbines, hydroelectric dams, EVs, etc.

4/5

[–] jackofalltrades@mas.to 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@jgkoomey @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green

Absolute decoupling would mean that all sectors of the economy that grow would be fully decarbonized, i.e. growth in the economy would not result in any additional emissions.

Given how our economy looks today (as explained above) and how little time our civilization has left (because of both effects of #ClimateChange and resource depletion) it seems quite implausible that absolute decoupling is a viable way forward.

5/5

[–] jgkoomey@mastodon.energy 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

@jackofalltrades @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green What we have to do is unprecedented, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done. And your judgment about what is “plausible” isn’t evidence either. My point is that absolute decoupling is possible, we just need to do it. Most people use historical examples to argue that it can’t be done, which is invalid and wrong. Will it be hard? Absolutely. But it is possible.

[–] jackofalltrades@mas.to 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@jgkoomey @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green

In other words, absolute decoupling is a statement of faith that requires ignoring all examples from history in a belief that humanity will invent a replicator from Star Trek.

[–] urlyman@mastodon.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@jackofalltrades @jgkoomey @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green I’ve stayed relatively quiet on Jonathan’s push back because, frankly, I don’t share his optimism, but that doesn’t mean I’m a doomer: we should fight like hell for conserving as much biosphere as we can.

What we are up against is of a scale none of us can make robust sense of. Our different dispositions and attachments mean we each seize upon different territories of plausible probability…

[–] urlyman@mastodon.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@jackofalltrades @jgkoomey @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green …If we can make a jump to being serious at scale we’ll know soon which of those territories we are actually in. And if we can’t it’ll mostly be moot

[–] jackofalltrades@mas.to 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@urlyman @jgkoomey @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green

We agree then: we should fight for the conservation of the biosphere, and that should be our focus. Preserving GDP growth is what's killing us, and it should be abandoned as a goal.

In my view it's already clear what path we're on. Having hope for a "green growth" future requires, as Jonathan said, ignoring history.

[–] urlyman@mastodon.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@jackofalltrades @jgkoomey @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green I’m in the same place as you Jack. I’m just trying to acknowledge that we’re talking about turning round an unimaginably huge super tanker and we haven’t even got our hands on the controls yet.

As Mike Berners-Lee has said “If aliens were observing us they would conclude we haven’t even noticed we have an atmosphere problem”.

Right now the most important thing to do is to begin to turn.

(inadequate mixed metaphors end)

[–] wall0159@aus.social 1 points 1 year ago

@jgkoomey
what do you think it would take to achieve a global absolute decoupling?
I think we'd need a global renewable manufacturing industry that could produce/distribute/install renewables faster than the rate of energy consumption increase -- and that this industry would, itself, need to be powered by renewables.
Is that the sort of thing you have in mind?

@jackofalltrades @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green