|
What are the odds that that Paris is a turning point and forces a global compromise on emissions? In pretty pessimistic at this point. Thread title is spot on.
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 00:06 |
|
|
Freezer posted:What are the odds that that Paris is a turning point and forces a global compromise on emissions? In pretty pessimistic at this point. Thread title is spot on. No one is going to do anything. Business interests have too much sway, and China's data showing that they missed their coal usage goals by a wide margin shows nobody has an interest in doing whats right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No one is going to do anything. Business interests have too much sway, and China's data showing that they missed their coal usage goals by a wide margin shows nobody has an interest in doing whats right. What?  Why would they keep burning coal when there's so much money in mitigating climate change, per Trab?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
I remember reading and hearing about all these goals that by 2020 we'd do such and such. Hard to believe that is only 4 years away.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Radbot posted:What? There is money to be made in mitigating it, but there is a huge upfront cost to mitigating it as well. And almost none of the major powers and their economic interests want to confront that startup cost. I.e.: Loss of jobs due to coal mining drying up, closure of coal generating plants, increases in power cost, end to cheap energy due to coal and natural gas.... The whip and buggy energy industries will drag their feet until the bitter end.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Radbot posted:What? Actually, the fact that China updated their numbers is proof of their willingness to followthrough with their climate pledges. Why update the number at all if you don't care about compliance? What would convince yall that China is serious about Climate? It is in the 13th 5-year plan, they're building insane number of nukes, they're committed to more serious climate commitments than Europe, they have a style of government that was able to shut down massive industry....just for some games. I'm very curious what bona fides China could provide to convince you. Anything? Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'm very curious what bona fides China could provide to convince you. Anything? Hmm, maybe accurate data the first time? Although I think it's pretty adorable you believe that "just some games" Olympics industrial shutdowns are indicative of anything to do with climate change. CommieGIR posted:There is money to be made in mitigating it, but there is a huge upfront cost to mitigating it as well. And almost none of the major powers and their economic interests want to confront that startup cost. Of course there's money to be made - by other people. Exxon and Shell aren't particularly well positioned to open up new nuke plants.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Radbot posted:What? If anyone is in denial in this thread, it's Trabisnikof. He's so committed to industrial capitalism and the idea of inevitable technological progress that he cherry picks the most rosy, bright green fantasies and wags his finger at anyone not willing to buy in. When cornered, he falls back on that great Agent of Change, the IPCC (an overly conservative, moribund political body whose alarm bells have been summarily ignored by governments the world over for well over two decades). He's in the grips of what I've seen referred to as The Second Denial.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Hmm, maybe accurate data the first time? Although I think it's pretty adorable you believe that "just some games" Olympics industrial shutdowns are indicative of anything to do with climate change. So because China updated their data, you dismiss out of hand the fact that their master plan for the country includes mitigating climate change? I'm not sure there are any countries on earth that have 100% accurate resource-for-energy data, lord knows the EIA tries but they issue corrections sometimes too. The reason I point out the Olympics shutdown, is that, unlike western governments, the Chinese government can just loving shut down a ton of dirty plants. They did it for the olympics, you think they won't do it to protect their nation? China is going to be heavily impacted by climate change and they know it. edit: Your Sledgehammer posted:If anyone is in denial in this thread, it's Trabisnikof. He's so committed to industrial capitalism and the idea of inevitable technological progress that he cherry picks the most rosy, bright green fantasies and wags his finger at anyone not willing to buy in. When cornered, he falls back on that great Agent of Change, the IPCC (an overly conservative, moribund political body whose alarm bells have been summarily ignored by governments the world over for well over two decades). Or alternatively, you're confusing pessimism for commitment to some ideal. I don't find joy in the fact that the powerful will save themselves at the cost of the poor. I just push back at doomsaying that claims the mantle of scientific credibility but has none. Once again, I am almost always trying to discuss the most likely best outcome, which will be bad. But seeing how even our current pledges will keep us below 4C, this thread's constant refrain of "we are so screwed" only spurs people to inaction. So in the desire to smugly say "I told you so" many people in this thread end up calling for inaction, or waiting until XYZ social norm is fixed then dealing with climate change. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So because China updated their data, you dismiss out of hand the fact that their master plan for the country includes mitigating climate change? I'm not sure there are any countries on earth that have 100% accurate resource-for-energy data, lord knows the EIA tries but they issue corrections sometimes too. They shut down those plants yes, but they just ended up building new ones elsewhere outside of Beijing. Their willingness to show they missed their target in no way implies that they are trying to correct it. I hope it means they are, but even with their new nuclear construction, I have my reasons to doubt their commitment. Trabisnikof posted:Or alternatively, you're confusing pessimism for commitment to some ideal. I don't find joy in the fact that the powerful will save themselves at the cost of the poor. The doomsaying is valid. Why? Because we already know how much the climate will take before it becomes disastrous. Its far better to be a doomsayer while at the same time proposing ways to mitigate or correct the risks, than to brush it off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Or alternatively, you're confusing pessimism for commitment to some ideal. I don't find joy in the fact that the powerful will save themselves at the cost of the poor. I think you're confusing realism for pessimism. The sitting POTUS's biggest environmental accomplishment over his term, in the Year of Our Lord 2015 (a full quarter century from when climate change first entered the public consciousness), was saying no to a tar sands pipeline (which won't prevent the tar sands from being refined anyway). Hell, the pipeline already exists, the only thing that has been prevented is a specific leg that is basically a shorter-route duplicate of what's already there. Not significant emissions reductions. Not carbon taxation. Not power grid conversion or use of government incentives to discourage consumption. Saying no to a pipeline that basically already exists. This (along with proposals with far-off deadlines, e.g. all new vehicles produced after 2025 having 55 mpg or better) is the exact kind of half-measure that Av027 is decrying in his posts. Also, none of us find joy in the fact that the powerful will save themselves at the cost of the poor. No need to climb up on your high horse. Trabisnikof posted:So in the desire to smugly say "I told you so" many people in this thread end up calling for inaction, or waiting until XYZ social norm is fixed then dealing with climate change. Because the discussion in this thread has so much influence over the people in the halls of power or everyday consumers. Hey folks, we're determining the very fate of the world right here in good old D&D! Did you know that? I sure didn't! Here's the bottom line: I don't think we should do nothing. None of us "doomsayers" think we should do nothing. I think the only solution that realistically understands the magnitude of the problem is the one that calls for a dramatic change in first-world lifestyles and energy usage. Contrary to popular belief, this issue is a lot bigger than just climate change. At its core, this is a philosophical/moral problem. Humans by and large think that we are "better" than other animals and that our ultimate fate is to control and dominate the Earth. This belief is woefully wrongheaded and we've got to work to correct it. Either we can work to correct it now, while we have a choice, or we will soon be forced to correct it in a way that is very painful to us.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:I think you're confusing realism for pessimism. The sitting POTUS's biggest environmental accomplishment over his term, in the Year of Our Lord 2015 (a full quarter century from when climate change first entered the public consciousness), was saying no to a tar sands pipeline (which won't prevent the tar sands from being refined anyway). Hell, the pipeline already exists, the only thing that has been prevented is a specific leg that is basically a shorter-route duplicate of what's already there. Not significant emissions reductions. Not carbon taxation. Not power grid conversion or use of government incentives to discourage consumption. Saying no to a pipeline that basically already exists. This (along with proposals with far-off deadlines, e.g. all new vehicles produced after 2025 having 55 mpg or better) is the exact kind of half-measure that Av027 is decrying in his posts. Actually I think you might just not have a current understanding of climate mitigation efforts. The Clean Power Plan and the other EPA actions you didn't mention are of vastly more climate importance than keystone. http://www2.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-existing-power-plants I'd suggest reading up more about the developments over the last few years as you'll find that we're doing a lot more than half-measures. Edit: But don't trust me, lets see what the NRDC says: quote:The Clean Power Plan1 announced by President Obama on August 3 is a game changer because it sets the first-ever limits on carbon pollution from power plants, the nation’s largest source of the pollution driving dangerous climate change. We are already seeing the impacts of climate change in extreme weather, drought, wildfires, floods, and many other disruptions to the world we depend on. Limiting carbon pollution from the nation’s power plants is the single biggest step we can take to fight climate chaos. Are we done? Is this the last carbon regulation that will be issued for the energy industry? No. But it isn't just maybe-not-approving a pipeline either. Its a meaningful carbon regulation. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So in the desire to smugly say "I told you so" many people in this thread end up calling for inaction, or waiting until XYZ social norm is fixed then dealing with climate change. Stop projecting your fantasies onto other people. e: Your Sledgehammer posted:Humans by and large think that we are "better" than other animals and that our ultimate fate is to control and dominate the Earth. This belief is woefully wrongheaded and we've got to work to correct it. Oh, this mystical hippie bullshit again. We're objectively a hell of a lot better than any other species at determining the long-term consequences of our actions, even given the current climate problems. Hello Sailor posted:Let me try again. What, to you, is "nature" and why shouldn't we have control over it to the fullest extent possible? Because we sometimes get things wrong? Why should (for example) you be allowed to post, if you have full control over your post and might get something wrong? Hello Sailor fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Actually I think you might just not have a current understanding of climate mitigation efforts. The Clean Power Plan and the other EPA actions you didn't mention are of vastly more climate importance than keystone. In my understanding, the final emissions standards of the Clean Power Plan aren't enforced until 2030. Power plants aren't expected to implement reductions until 2022. poo poo, man, states don't even have to submit their plans until 2018. Is it a step in the right direction? Yes! Is it the historic, gigantic leap it is being billed as? gently caress no. This is a baby step that coddles the coal industry and gives them years to attempt to sue the regulations into oblivion. It is the very definition of a half-measure. Hello Sailor posted:Let me try again. What, to you, is "nature" and why shouldn't we have control over it to the fullest extent possible? Because we sometimes get things wrong? Why should (for example) you be allowed to post, if you have full control over your post and might get something wrong? I don't know why what I have to say makes you so mad, dude, but I suspect it's because I've hit a nerve. To me, nature is the whole biosphere/ecosphere, i.e. the sum total of everything and every system on this planet. We shouldn't have full control of it for a number of reasons: 1. We don't understand nearly enough to regulate it properly. Wolf populations can change the shapes of rivers. This is something we've only recently understood, which suggests to me that our big picture understanding of how the environment works is actually pretty limited. Science tends strongly towards reductionism and attempts to isolate things from their natural environment in order to better understand them, and this is anathema to understanding how things work holistically. If we're going to be in control of nature, we've got to understand it holistically, and we're a long, long ways from that. 2. The assumption that we should have full control of nature fundamentally misunderstands what human beings are. We are tool-using animals, not Gods. 3. The idea that we should determine the fate of other species is wrong on a moral level. Let's imagine the shoe were on the other foot. Suppose we figured out some way to communicate with dolphins, and they were able to tell us that they've decided they're going to be fully in control of the planet. How would you feel? I suspect, given your disproportionate hostility towards me, that you won't find any of these reasons convincing. In that regard, I'd invite you to do a little thought experiment. Let's take it as a given that we somehow can gain full control of nature. Given how things have developed up to this point and what you know about human nature, how do you think such an undertaking would turn out? Your Sledgehammer fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:Humans by and large think that we are "better" than other animals and that our ultimate fate is to control and dominate the Earth. This belief is woefully wrongheaded and we've got to work to correct it. I think one could argue the effort to control climate change is the ultimate expression of the mindset you're rejecting. It's our responsibility to steer the planet towards a future that protects the whole biosphere. In fact we've been at the driver's seat for some time, its only in the last 30 years we took off the blindfold. I think its fair to be pessimistic about what the possible effects of climate change will be, if only because there's a lot of uncertainty and its better to prepare for the worst than hope for the best. However I think we can be optimistic on the possibility of social change. The world is moving, if ever-so slowly, towards accepting and addressing the problem of climate change. Which is not to say urgent political and personal action isn't necessary. I'm not making Arkane's argument btw, that you should put your head in the sand and wait for the free-market and technology to whisk our problems away. Action is clearly needed now more than ever, the urgency of mitigation is greater with every extra mole of CO2 emitted. But in an environment where almost every political body of consequence has accepted the reality of the situation, we should take heart that there's at least space to do SOMETHING. And even an inadequate response is better than doing nothing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
How are u posted:Don't bring children into this world, they will only have hell to inherit. Has there been any discussions on the moral implications of having kids in this thread? Obviously all the kids being born as this post is typed, be it accidental, planned, etc and the ones before it are already out in the wild so to speak. Edit: there's already large and existing moral implications of having kids outside of the existential crisis that is climate change and I suppose I'm not really talking about that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
Banana Man posted:Has there been any discussions on the moral implications of having kids in this thread? Surprisingly, there's been more discussion about that topic than on the "poll the dolphins before we build a seawall" topic that's espoused a few posts above you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
Squalid posted:You just have to adopt his frame of reference. Using an authoritative source like the DOD which is acceptable from his perspective is necessary, but you also need an argument which fits within his ideological narrative. For example if he starts on about Obama's weakness agree with him, and make a point about how he's letting China surge ahead of America in solar and nuclear development. Why does America have to buy CHINESE solar panels? Why is BIG GOVERNMENT giving billions in subsidies to coal and oil companies? Thanks, I like this approach. What is the most repuatble sight that covers all the idiot talking points deniers like to use?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
Junkyard Poodle posted:Thanks, I like this approach. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ for the quick and easy. http://www.ipcc.ch/ if you want the compiled overwhelming evidence. Edit: http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Debunking_Handbook.pdf This is also a nice resource, as it goes through what process will actually start to change a denier's mind, and seeks to avoid the backfire effect. Uranium Phoenix fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ Remember refuting arguments with canned talking points is rarely an effective debating tactic. Contradicting someone causes their pride to flair, the conversation becomes a contest. Many people use climate change as a proxy for other subjects which more directly effect their lives and are emotionally important. In this context you can't convince them of anything via logic or evidence, because they can always challenge your sources, bring-up cherry picked counter evidence. Ultimately their belief comes from unstated assumptions and feelings beyond the "facts," which is what makes people seem like idiots sometimes. In order to engage successfully you have to identify the subtext beyond the fallacies, and convince them anthropogenic climate change isn't contrary to their world view. Millenarian christian? Use an argument about our responsibility as Stewards of God's creation. Libertarian fanatic fearful of an expansive government? Maybe you can't convince them of the need for more regulation, but if you can get them excited about the latest Green Economy tech start-up they might start paying positive attention. edit: beaten
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
Much appreciated! You're right about entrenchment. One time when I was commenting on a recent climate report in front of said uncle, he brought up his suspicion of all consensus science. Eugenics! World is Flat! etc. It's infuriating. He's probably hopeless. FOX devoted baby boomer who ran his Los Angeles roofing company with undocumented workers until he threw all of his money at the Phoenix housing market in 2007 and idolizes the affluent. Godless FYGM who chases trends. The only context that might have hope is his grandchildren. I think I'll just steer the conversation towards baseball.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
How are u posted:Don't bring children into this world, they will only have hell to inherit. Alternatively: raise them on a steady diet of nothing but heavy metal, Mad Max movies, and weapon training. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 08:06
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Millenarian christian? Use an argument about our responsibility as Stewards of God's creation. Libertarian fanatic fearful of an expansive government? Maybe you can't convince them of the need for more regulation, but if you can get them excited about the latest Green Economy tech start-up they might start paying positive attention. Yeah a study was done that showed if you couched it in terms like 'sticking it to the Arabs by achieving energy independence' WAY more people were on board.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:Yeah a study was done that showed if you couched it in terms like 'sticking it to the Arabs by achieving energy independence' WAY more people were on board. always weaponise the stupidity of idiots~
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:Yeah a study was done that showed if you couched it in terms like 'sticking it to the Arabs by achieving energy independence' WAY more people were on board. Conservatives also tend to like things like "industry," so they're more likely to get on board if you talk about large industrial projects like nuclear power plants. Solar and wind have negative "hippy" connotations to them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:I don't know why what I have to say makes you so mad, dude, but I suspect it's because I've hit a nerve. To me, nature is the whole biosphere/ecosphere, i.e. the sum total of everything and every system on this planet. We shouldn't have full control of it for a number of reasons: No, I generally reserve anger for idiots. Your posts are target-rich environments. 1. We've known for some time that vegetation prevents erosion, that vegetation is eaten by herbivores, and that carnivores eat herbivores. I'm sorry that it took a nature documentary for you to put those facts together, but ecologists cottoned on to this much earlier than last year. Science changes over time and we have, in fact, considered more holistic views of complex systems for decades. Reductionism and holisticism are not mutually exclusive viewpoints. We have to be able to quantify individual changes in order to quantify overall changes. 2. Animals modify their environments to better suit them all the time. We're just really, really effective at it. This appears to bother you, apparently because you have some emotional attachment to the Gaia "hypothesis", which is a silly idea that's been repeatedly disproven. 3. I feel like there'd be a lot less dolphins shortly. You sound like a PETA blowhard. Morality is generally species-centric. If you had a rifle and were confident in your aim would you shoot a bear that was eating a human child? What about a bear eating a deer fawn? In response to your "thought experiment": initially poorly, but improving over time. By that rationale, the Wright brothers should have never bothered trying to get off the ground.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Conservatives also tend to like things like "industry," so they're more likely to get on board if you talk about large industrial projects like nuclear power plants. Solar and wind have negative "hippy" connotations to them. I'd be really tempted to take the whole "hey cheap solar panels means you could power cool machines in your garage and do small scale manufacturing in your back yard if you wanted to" route. That or "it'd be way easier to live comfortably in the middle of nowhere if you could hook up your own solar panels."
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Since this thread is getting rather old and people seem to want to discuss the issue, would people be interested in starting a new one that focuses more on solutions to climate change? I know that there's a verity of perspectives on that, ranging from pessimism to primitivism, so if people want to write up concise summaries of a position they have for a new OP, I'd be willing to work on consolidating them and merging them. It's also pretty clear that people aren't exactly reading even a few pages of this thread before posting, so I doubt it'll be missed. I finally got off my rear end and did this, though "concise" is a rather strong word to use on the result. My goal was to review the main lines of debate I kept seeing, and also have a place where people could get answers to the questions that keep popping up over and over in the thread. Feel free to post/PM feedback to make my OP less poo poo.  --> NEW THREAD <-Paging Fried Chicken to close this abomination.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Link to a talk or a paper or an article or anything? Find this very hard to believe that you are characterizing their arguments correctly, because it is kinda obvious that battery storage is on the near term horizon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Link to a talk or a paper or an article or anything? Find this very hard to believe that you are characterizing their arguments correctly, because it is kinda obvious that battery storage is on the near term horizon. The Tesla PowerWall started shipping two months ago, and they/we are just scratching the surface with getting the prices down. The Tesla Powerwall is basically just a ton of slightly better laptop batteries wired together, which is really basic stuff. It's just that outside of things that are by definition off-grid but not large enough to justify having a generator running 24/7 (e.g. RVs, small boats) nobody has bothered to implement large scale battery storage for consumers. The point where battery storage for the masses and not just rich early adopters makes sense is when energy dense batteries stop using large amounts of rare earths or other materials with very limited supplies, and last for decades instead of a few years. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Nov 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
The climate change summit is already shaping to be darkly humorous. On the one hand there's France saying poo poo is hosed unless we act but on the other hand they're also doing this: "The mighty of the world gathered in Paris". I want to print it for future generations to see. I joke, but another French TV channel showed a report on the impact of climate change on agricultural yields (in France) in the future. It's all going downhill except for (maybe) rice. The production of wheat, for instance, will decrease by 6% for each degree above present temperatures . The anchorperson followed that up by saying that truffles would spread northward. Yay.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Found this thing on imgur. Thought I'd share it, just to beat a dead horse some more, quite like the presentation of it." What's Really Warming the World posted:
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Anyone got any good information on emissions from manufacture and use of consumer electronics as opposed to other consumer goods?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
And what of the Paris Summit? Will it blend or will it bust?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:And what of the Paris Summit? Will it blend or will it bust? Optimistic position: large emitters have already started making noises about limiting co2 emissions and fossil fuels so a nonzero amount of progress might happen. Realistic position: it's a loving climate change summit, of course it'll be underwhelming at best with every country doing precisely what they wrote into the introductory statement at most and not a bit more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 09:59
|
|
|
Freezer posted:What are the odds that that Paris is a turning point and forces a global compromise on emissions? In pretty pessimistic at this point. Thread title is spot on. No one really cared before, and after the Paris attacks, even fewer people care. Maybe they'll try again in five years, when it's almost too late.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:Maybe they'll try again in five years, when it's almost too late.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
TACD posted:I think this is the 'five years later and almost too late' effort after Copenhagen. Everything I've seen is saying it's Paris or bust. No one that matters gives a flying gently caress about climate change, so bet on "bust" and you're going to come out ahead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Countries that need energy the most are the least enthused to do anything. China emits twice as much CO2 as the US, and 3x more than all of Europe combined. India will pass the United States in emissions in 5-10 years. These countries have gigantic populations, many of whom live in dire poverty with no electricity. They really could not give two shits if the Earth is warmer a hundred years from now. That is a meaningless problem to them compared to the need to grow their economies out of poverty. Short-term mitigation policy has always been a silly fantasy. Technological advancement remains the only surefire way to reduce carbon emissions per capita. If a solar project is cheaper per gigawatt than a coal-fired plant, they're going to build a solar project. If it's not, they're going to build a coal plant. Until parity is reached (as it has been in some parts of the United States for both wind & solar), you're going to see worldwide carbon emissions increase. One bit of good news is that the cost of solar is skyrocketing downward as input costs decrease and efficiency increases.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 00:06 |
|
|
"Skyrocketing downward", that's a new one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 20:47
|
|