DrAnaQueirosNov 6, 2023
Gernot Wagner

For the mathematicians in the room, that's the second derivative pointing in the right direction at last.

For the rest of us: bathtub overflowing, and we are no longer turning up the spigot even further.

Good news. Now, to get CO₂ emissions down, to zero.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-could-peak-as-soon-as-2023-iea-data-reveals/
#climate

Analysis: Global CO2 emissions could peak as soon as 2023, IEA data reveals - Carbon Brief

Global carbon dioxide emissions from energy use and industry could peak as soon as this year, according to Carbon Brief analysis of figures from the IEA.

Carbon Brief
Oct 27, 2023 at 11:08amWeb
Show threadDavid FetterOct 27, 2023

@gwagner as a species, we need to get net CO₂ WAY below 0. We can only do this with nuclear energy deployed at titanic scales worldwide.

Only nuclear can manage this because everything else is a net carbon emitter over its full life cycle even if all it does during that life is try to pull out the CO₂ emitted by building and siting it.

Show threadShane KerrOct 28, 2023

@davidfetter @gwagner I don't understand this comment.

Nuclear power requires concrete, mining operations, shipping fuel and waste around, all of which are currently things that emit carbon.

There is no carbon dioxide removed from the air by nuclear power plants.

In what sense is nuclear energy not a net carbon emitter?

Show threadDavid FetterOct 28, 2023
@shane_kerr @gwagner it's not fundamentally one because it at least can, over the course of its lifetime, capture and turn into, say, graphite, more atmospheric carbon than was emitted in building it. Wind turbines cannot. Solar PV cannot. Their lifetime expected energy output is too small, often by an order of magnitude.
Show threadSmokeyGeoOct 27, 2023
@gwagner 'SMART' goals are important in management - the 'A' stands for 'achievable.' I've always wondered about 'net-zero' advocates because their goal isn't achievable, considering the vast difficulties of converting the entire transportation, electricity, aviation, steel, concrete industries and so on. Why not pick an achievable target, like a 30% reduction by year 2035 - which is sill a HUGE lift? Throw in India, China and Russia, large carbon emitters who are not on a trajectory to reduce emissions at all and accounting for an increasing worldwide proportion- and maybe focusing on them instead of attempting perfection in the western world, where everyone would have to become a vegan, use electrolytically generated hydrogen for aviation fuel or something. I just don't get the perfectionism of the net-zero zealots - I really don't
Show threadJiří Fiala Total LandscapingOct 27, 2023
@smokeygeo @gwagner It's a tricky balance. Achievable goals lead to non-action as these won't be met anyway or people don't believe it's as dire. Basically there's two types of people - those who spring into action with achievable and those who do with super challenges
Show threadSmokeyGeoOct 27, 2023
@stooovie @gwagner how is it possible to maintain enthusiasm about "super challenges" when China, Russia and India are not on board?
Show threadJiří Fiala Total LandscapingOct 27, 2023
@smokeygeo @gwagner I don't know
Show threadÉricOct 28, 2023
@smokeygeo @stooovie @gwagner One argument is that they will become on board as most of the world will implement such measures, by mimetism or just foreign pressure/sanctions.
Show threadJiří Fiala Total LandscapingOct 28, 2023
@gileri @smokeygeo @gwagner Typical "everyone waits for everyone else" thing
Show threadSmokeyGeoOct 28, 2023
@gileri @stooovie @gwagner that’s the best argument but it goes only so far since it makes no sense for everyone in the West to become vegans while others are building coal plants. But it makes sense to build transmission and increase renewables especially where these are economic
Show threadMatunosOct 27, 2023
@smokeygeo @gwagner 'why not focus on the poorer developing world cause the developed world making more drastic cuts would be too painful for us!'
Show threadPeter RelphOct 28, 2023

@gwagner

I wonder who the IEA is believing.

How does the reality match 'policy'?

I hope they aren't depending on Australian actuality matching Australian 'policy', because that would be silly.