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
@jackofalltrades @jgkoomey @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green
Makes me think of the Jevons Paradox:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
@coffee2Di4 @jackofalltrades @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green The Jevons paradox is widely misunderstood and almost always overestimated. Jevons himself made the mistake of attributing to efficiency improvements the rapid adoption of the steam engine, but there were many other reasons why steam engines were widely adopted.
@coffee2Di4 @jackofalltrades @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green These reasons included higher power densities, the ability to store energy, the ability to locate motive power flexibly within factories, the ability to operate underground. Steam engines were what is known as a general purpose technology, which had wide and deep applications across society.
@coffee2Di4 @jackofalltrades @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green Efficiency wasn’t the sole reason for its ascendence, and probably wasn’t the most important reason, but the lesson most people take from this “effect” is that efficiency causes increases in energy use. That conclusion is almost always false.
@coffee2Di4 @jackofalltrades @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green In the same way, people look at aggregate statistics for energy use and say “look, efficiency causes energy use to go up” but there are many other factors pushing energy use upwards. Overall increase in wealth is the most powerful one.
@coffee2Di4 @jackofalltrades @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green People building bigger houses or buying bigger cars isn’t solely caused by efficiency improvements, and efficiency is nowhere near the most important contributor to this effect.
@coffee2Di4 @jackofalltrades @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green Technology change is complex and multifactorial, but people like to boil stuff down to simple explanations, like the Jevons Paradox. Unfortunately, these simple explanations are usually wrong.
@coffee2Di4 @jackofalltrades @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green PS. Anyone talking about this issue needs to distinguish between absolute decoupling of ENERGY USE from economic activity and absolute decoupling of EMISSIONS from economic activity. Achieving the latter is much easier than the former, given the many ways to power modern tech with zero emissions, but people often conflate the two.
@jgkoomey @coffee2Di4 @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green
What are "the many ways to power modern tech with zero emissions"? Can you list some examples?
@jackofalltrades @coffee2Di4 @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green People with houses and EVs powered by solar PVs + batteries is the simplest example. The embedded emissions are a transient phenomenon, once we’ve decarbonized supply chains that issue will be solved.
@jgkoomey @coffee2Di4 @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green
I see. By that definition hydrogen produced by steam methane reforming or biofuels are also "zero emissions".
How do you know that the embedded emissions are a transient phenomenon? Has a single EV, solar PV or battery been produced without any use of fossil fuels, even in a lab setting as a proof-of-concept?
@jackofalltrades @coffee2Di4 @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green No, H2 is problematic for many reasons. Even if generated from electrolysis, H2 itself is an indirect GHG.
In any case, the idea that embedded emissions are a transient phenomenon follows from that fact that almost all embedded emissions come from energy use, and in a zero emissions system, that energy use would have zero emissions.
@jgkoomey @coffee2Di4 @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green
"almost all embedded emissions come from energy use"
That's true if by "almost all" you mean 73%.
Even if you remove *all* emissions from energy, allow the economy to double in the next 30 years and you'll still be left with half the emissions that you started with. Not the place we want to be.
@jackofalltrades @coffee2Di4 @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green There are some embedded emissions from creating certain materials (e.g. aluminum, cement, steel) but in each case there are ways to produce these materials without those process emissions.
@jgkoomey @coffee2Di4 @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green
That's the thing though: in a green growth scenario it is not enough for a solution to merely *exist*. It must also be cheaper and being able to be deployed worldwide very fast and without hindering economic growth in the process. If any of these conditions are not met, either emissions will keep going up or growth will stop.
@jackofalltrades @coffee2Di4 @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green When you count all the costs, the zero emissions solutions are ALREADY cheaper than fossil fuels. Muller, Nicholas Z., Robert Mendelsohn, and William Nordhaus. 2011. "Environmental Accounting for Pollution in the United States Economy." American Economic Review. vol. 101, no. 5. August. pp. 1649–1675. [https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.101.5.1649]
@jackofalltrades @coffee2Di4 @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green Epstein, et al. 2011. "Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. vol. 1219, no. 1. February 17. pp. 73-98. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05890.x]
@jackofalltrades @coffee2Di4 @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green Roberts, David. 2020. Air pollution is much worse than we thought: Ditching fossil fuels would pay for itself through clean air alone. Vox, 2020. [https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2020/8/12/21361498/climate-change-air-pollution-us-india-china-deaths]
@jackofalltrades @coffee2Di4 @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green Vohra, Karn, Alina Vodonos, Joel Schwartz, Eloise A. Marais, Melissa P. Sulprizio, and Loretta J. Mickley. 2021. "Global mortality from outdoor fine particle pollution generated by fossil fuel combustion: Results from GEOS-Chem." Environmental Research. 2021/02/09/. pp. 110754. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935121000487]
@jackofalltrades @coffee2Di4 @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green I would add that current measures of economic activity only imperfectly capture the externalities associated with pollution, so the GDP growth that you now see is partly the result of ignoring real costs of fossil pollution.
@jackofalltrades @coffee2Di4 @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green And of course we’re seeing very rapid growth in renewable power generation + battery storage, doubling every 2-3 years, in part because it’s cheaper even in direct costs terms than alternatives. Because of learning effects, that cost advantage will only increase over time.
@jgkoomey @coffee2Di4 @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green
I appreciate all the references.
They all count externalities though. The producers (and most consumers) don't pay for externalities in our current economic system. That's not the world we live in.
So unless you're suggesting to overthrow #capitalism I don't understand how that argument helps the point you are trying to make.
@jgkoomey @coffee2Di4 @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green
Economic growth is predicated on exploitation and ignoring externalities.
The biggest of which is obviously depletion of non-renewable natural resources, which includes not only fossil fuels, but also copper, aluminum, chromium, nickel, cobalt, etc.
@jackofalltrades @coffee2Di4 @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green Dude, you’re just trolling at this point. You can’t use the reality of the current system to argue that the system can’t be changed to operate differently. Internalize the externalities then change will happen quickly. I’ve explained what I think the logical flaws are in your statements, now it’s time to move on. Good day.
@jgkoomey @coffee2Di4 @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green
OK, "dude".
You sure explained the logical flaws to me.
Thank you for the discussion.
@jackofalltrades @coffee2Di4 @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green Finally, embedded emissions for manufactured products are almost always small compared to direct emissions from their use, even for products created in the current system.
@jgkoomey @coffee2Di4 @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green
"embedded emissions for manufactured products are almost always small compared to direct emissions from their use"
This can't be right, it defies common sense. Most products' emissions come from their manufacturing, not use. In fact, most products don't emit GHGs at all: not my chair, not my pillow, not my carpet, not the roof over my head. Even EVs and PVs take years to pay back their manufacturing emissions.