I don't think that fossil fuel driven global heating is that important as a narrative. Yes, we are ina fix with vested interests effectively blocking teh action we need. But consider whether counterfactuals would change teh narrative. Just suppose we had seriously embraced nuclear power as was hoped in the post WWII era. Global warming w…
I don't think that fossil fuel driven global heating is that important as a narrative. Yes, we are ina fix with vested interests effectively blocking teh action we need. But consider whether counterfactuals would change teh narrative. Just suppose we had seriously embraced nuclear power as was hoped in the post WWII era. Global warming would have been far slower and much reduced, yet the same factors preventing wealth and income distribution would have remained. Similarly, if we finally embrace renewable energy and reduce fossil fuel use to a minimum, nothing would change other than teh main players in the economy. There are other environmental issues that loom as large as GW, biodiversity loss, chemical and garbage pollution of the air and water, deforestation, etc, etc. Would mitigating these and reversing the damage change anything? I don't believe so.
For the long term, yes. However, cities layouts cannot be rebuilt. European city centers ahave remained the same layout for centuries. The US housing stock may be replaced in 50 years. So the grid layout of most US cities assumes automobile travel rather than public transport like buses and trams. The time scale is too long to decarbonize by changing travel technology. The best we can hope for is to decarnonize existing vehicles which have a shorter replacement cycle, and increase energy efficiency in homes. Other industries that are major carbon emitters include construction (with concrete) and agriculture. It is all doable, but it needs to be done at a faster rate than currently. I don't see being able to reduce methane consumption as alternatives, e.g. hydrogen, are not really feasible and too costly for the homeowner to replace all gas appliances without massive public funding. All we can do is ensure that all new and rebuilt housing stock is all electric requiring only cooking pots and pans to be replaced. In California, the cost of gas energy is still far cheaper than electric when the energy coversions are made. This implies that converting to electricity from gas is going to add higher running costs to the capital costs. IMO, this will result is pushback against any forced energy conversion.
Agree on the time scale, and would add the hypothesis that it won't happen without a real Green New Deal + WWII-esque effort. It's the biggest of asks, but what happens if it doesn't happen? Big Project Polanyi, for sure.
I don't think that fossil fuel driven global heating is that important as a narrative. Yes, we are ina fix with vested interests effectively blocking teh action we need. But consider whether counterfactuals would change teh narrative. Just suppose we had seriously embraced nuclear power as was hoped in the post WWII era. Global warming would have been far slower and much reduced, yet the same factors preventing wealth and income distribution would have remained. Similarly, if we finally embrace renewable energy and reduce fossil fuel use to a minimum, nothing would change other than teh main players in the economy. There are other environmental issues that loom as large as GW, biodiversity loss, chemical and garbage pollution of the air and water, deforestation, etc, etc. Would mitigating these and reversing the damage change anything? I don't believe so.
The main tech we need is major urbanization/de-automobilization. That's no side topic.
For the long term, yes. However, cities layouts cannot be rebuilt. European city centers ahave remained the same layout for centuries. The US housing stock may be replaced in 50 years. So the grid layout of most US cities assumes automobile travel rather than public transport like buses and trams. The time scale is too long to decarbonize by changing travel technology. The best we can hope for is to decarnonize existing vehicles which have a shorter replacement cycle, and increase energy efficiency in homes. Other industries that are major carbon emitters include construction (with concrete) and agriculture. It is all doable, but it needs to be done at a faster rate than currently. I don't see being able to reduce methane consumption as alternatives, e.g. hydrogen, are not really feasible and too costly for the homeowner to replace all gas appliances without massive public funding. All we can do is ensure that all new and rebuilt housing stock is all electric requiring only cooking pots and pans to be replaced. In California, the cost of gas energy is still far cheaper than electric when the energy coversions are made. This implies that converting to electricity from gas is going to add higher running costs to the capital costs. IMO, this will result is pushback against any forced energy conversion.
Agree on the time scale, and would add the hypothesis that it won't happen without a real Green New Deal + WWII-esque effort. It's the biggest of asks, but what happens if it doesn't happen? Big Project Polanyi, for sure.