CO2 and methane ("emissions") is one target. A very important one, but let's not forget the other concerns altogether - plastic pollution, contamination of the environment through mineral extraction, etc.
The only path forward is a drastic reduction in overall consumption. Even if we reach 100% emissions-free electricity, we'll end up with an unlivable planet anyway if we don't focus on the other issues too. If we limit warming to 1,5°C — which isn't even realistic anymore — what good will it do to us if our water and arable land are contaminated beyond repair?
There is no way 80% of the planet is willing to give up any comfort to stave off future ecological problems they cannot feel yet. We saw how much effort it took with global warming, and I doubt that will have made subsequent changes for the better easier. In fact, I suspect a lot of 'what, there is another thing wrong according to the scientific bozo's even though I can't see it' that will make people more resistant.
Actually reducing consumption globally won't happen. Not until it is too late. The best we can do is slow down consumption, and make consumption better. We have seen decent improvements in plastic free packaging. And power draw of devices is also getting much more attention.
One big point here is pricing in externalities. That will push people into the less damaging choices.
Not to say that we should give up, nor to say that we should be quiet about other issues, nor even to say that people shouldn't reduce their consumption. My point is that a global reduction of consumption isn't going to happen voluntarily, and therefore shouldn't be the solution we pursue.
But well, the goal is about increasing consumption. No matter if we like it or not, it will increase massively - probably more than an order of magnitude overall - this century, simply because countries that are now poor, will no longer be so once massive amounts of renewable energy become the norm. We have to decrease pollution while also quickly increasing consumption - probably at same rate as in the "main" fossil fuel era - in 1870..1970, between oil becoming a thing, and Arab embargo.
I agree. Also, our planet is limited. Thinking that we can increase production infinitely ( good economist point of view), is just physically impossible
With 10^27 g of Earth (without utilizing extra-planetary resources) each of which can be broken down into around 10^23 mol/g of stuff (without significantly altering the material composition) your infinite string of numbers will only be about 50 digits long.
But well this is the whole reason of existence of humankind and civilisation, the meaning of life: consumption. I struggle to understand how this can be doubted.
I must say, that's quite a depressing outlook. Sure, we consume a lot, but "the meaning of life?" Damn! I sleep a lot too, arguably even more than I consume, but I wouldn't argue that's my whole reason for existing...
Maybe you mean "we need to consume to live," which I agree with a whole lot more. Even then, there's no reason we need to maximize consumption. Food is definitely critical to our existence, but pre-peeled oranges in individual plastic packaging are not.
I know this comment was made in bad faith. "You're not living as an ermite so you're a hypocrite and you have no business suggesting that consumption should be reduced" is an obvious fallacy that gets old quick. But let me entertain you a little. My computer and internet access is essential to my job and to a large part of my personal life. But I do cut down my consumption there (reduce power usage through several different methods, e.g., no power-hungry video games, low resolution videos, low-powered laptop) and in other areas of my life (eating, travel, clothing, and so on).
Now, your turn: what are you doing to help avoid global ecological catastrophe, even a little bit?
i agree, but i also dislike the term "natural gas" sure its natural just like everything in the universe is -- just a bit of greenwashing to go with our CO2 emissions
Saying that it is “greenwashing” is ridiculous. The gas is called natural because when it was discovered it came from nature, not from manufacturing by heating coal. This name is older than marketing or green politics and it is quite natural way to call this gas.
The obvious fix for this is better education and a good understanding of the meaning of words ind different contexts. It is a way better than broadly applying various labels to the point when they become completely void of any special meaning.
Greenwashing is an intentional effort to portray greenhouse gas emissions as safe by relativizing their contribution to the climate change. Calling natural gas natural according to an old tradition is not the same.
Would it be wrong of me to coin the terms Natural Organic Oil and Natural Coal? They are both, in fact, natural and organic after all. Adding a prefix like Natural or Organic definitely resonates with a lot of people and builds a perception that it’s “clean.” It’s not ridiculous to point out this fact, it was clearly chosen with intent to mislead. The problem with Oil and Coal is that it’s hard to sell it this way because they’re already widely known to be disastrous for the environment.
If you could do that in a letter exchange with Humphry Davy, Lavoisier or other scientist in 1750-1850, that would be fine, though they would probably ask why. There were scientific reasons for giving the name to natural gas (to differentiate from manufacturing process). Can you suggest any reason for your terms?
Anyway, if you would do it today, it is really hard to justify, not least because there exist new meanings of the words now and there exist already sufficiently good classifications. Context does matter.
its greenwashing in the sense that its a convenient historical term used to mislead the average (contemporary) punter that its ok for the environment. so it has less emissions than coal, doesnt make it safe... just call it gas and drop the natural.
If you think that the emphasis of the name "natural gas" over other just "gas" or other common terms for it isn't intentional, then you are quite naive.
Education does not change how these sorts of tricks affect our brains. Research has shown that using the term "Natural Gas" creates false impressions of the its environmental impact.
>If you think that the emphasis of the name "natural gas" over other just "gas" or other common terms for it isn't intentional, then you are quite naive.
Assumption about my personality doesn’t make your statement right or make sense. Of course it was intentional, just not the way you suggest here. The name “natural gas” exists in many languages, literally means “coming from nature” and is being used for centuries. Major suppliers outside USA use this name in contracts etc. Nobody is going to rename it just because American education system is so bad that people are getting confused.
>Education does not change how these sorts of tricks affect our brains. Research has shown that using the term "Natural Gas" creates false impressions of the its environmental impact.
Proof link? What factors were controlled in that research?
That's true, but the term itself is archaic; at the time (early 19th century) the most widespread gaseous fuel was coal gas, also known as "town gas" because we piped it to urban homes for lighting. There's not much need for the distinction anymore, plus "methane" aligns with the other trade names for other fossil gases (propane, butane).
The argument is that humans are part of nature and therefore anything made by humans is still natural.
I tend to agree with this - there is a dichotomy here, but it is "natural" vs. "supernatural" - not "natural" vs "synthetic". I think it would be fine if for most cases we simply said "man-made" vs "not man-made" as it succinctly describes the dichotomy we're aiming for.
The "greenwashing" here is that you _could_ call anything that's not a ghost or a god "natural" by a certain definition...
> The argument is that humans are part of nature and therefore anything made by humans is still natural.
Sure, if you completely disregard the context. “Natural” when talking in the context of humans is “nature vs man”.
A beaver dam is nature. The Hoover dam is man-made. If you want to red herring you could say “but man is part of nature” - there’s no point to doing so other than to argue semantics, but you could.
"Natural gas (also called fossil gas, methane gas or simply gas) is a naturally occurring mixture of gaseous hydrocarbons consisting primarily of methane in addition to various smaller amounts of other higher alkanes." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas
Alright, so it goes by several names but it's sold to consumers as "Natural Gas". I'm not sure if it was green washing, but obviously the marketers were going for the most palatable name for consumers.
Natural gas was merely a name to differentiate between 'gasoline', short form 'gas' for many english speaking countries. And the name is valid, it's mostly in its natural form, compared to 'gasoline aka gas', which required loads of processing to create it from oil.
And the name comes from a time before most of the population had even heard of global warming, at a time before people cared about using fossil fuels. There was in no way any attempt to greenwash, because absolutely no one cared one iota back then!
And the same is true for being palatable. It was just fuel. There was no reason to make it sound better. This was the age when most homes were heated by heating oil, or wood, or coal even!
People didn't get "triggered" back then, not in the 1950s or whatever. No one really cared except in the most extreme of cases. The earliest marketing concern over a name I know of, is "canola" oil, created by Canadian research programs, first on market I believe in the 70s, which is rapeseed oil.
(Rapeseed oil was added to cattle feed before this, but was considered too bitter for people until processing improvements were developed.)
It was thought that women would associate rapeseed with rape, and not buy it. This was in North America, the rest of the world generally, at the time, just called it rapeseed oil.
> Natural gas was merely a name to differentiate between 'gasoline', short form 'gas' for many english speaking countries.
No, it has absolutely nothing to do with gasoline. Other languages, e.g. Russian, which don’t use the word gasoline also call it natural gas (coming from nature). This extra confusion is a late American thing.
There is a grain of truth in the previous speaker's comments.
"Naturally occurring gas" does not magically transform itself into energy. The process along the way from being a resource to being usable as energy is usually anything other than "natural" and "green."
It's because Americans use the term "gas" to mean the liquid fuel they put in their cars. In the UK it's just "gas".
It would be far better if we called it methane, but that's not really accurate either. It might contain ethane, propane, butane pentane and hexane. A lot of that stuff is condensed out before use, but not all.
People’s perceptions around the word “natural” has always been a bit unnatural to me. Plenty of things, good, bad, and every gradation in-between are “natural”, but the word itself got greenwashed somewhere along the way.
Having a few terms like “natural gas” as a way to counteract people’s perceptions of the niceness of “natural” isn’t so bad.
If only you folks would stop using the word “gas” for car fuel, which isn't a gas at all, then you could drop the prefix “natural” without confusion like in the rest of the world.
electric cars are greenwashing. not that CO2 is actually a problem, but if it were and it was even mildly urgent you would be rightly yelling for more natural gas. because that actually kills coal plants while electric cars are responsible for increased coal usage
Try to look beyond 10 years. Calling for more nat gas over anything else will just lead to 60% Nat gas and 0% coal in a decade. Ok, now what? Still 60% high emissions and ICE cars according to you. No, we should be yelling for solar, electric cars, wind, batteries, and nuclear. Our priority is not a half measure that helps a bit now but makes nat gas stick around even longer.
Policies like generation shifting encourage movement from coal to gas. They have been implemented in the US but were then undone by Trump and later declared unconstitutional by conservative supreme court justices.
Which isn't trivial but there is no perfect solution, even wind and solar have externalities. We will always have some impact on the planet, but I will take erosion over a totally broken ecosystem. Erosion is inevitable over time, and if we don't reduce emissions and the seas rise, erosion will be abit of a moot point.
We can do without beaches. We can give up some land, and some spawning grounds for fish. If it means we can help against global warming, it is clearly the lesser of two evils.
I wonder what is worse: the consumption of sand for manufacturing, construction, and man-made islands & beaches or the loss of sand generation that dams cause.
As a counter point, the danger of damns stops when the damn is empty. The danger of nuclear waste is on a longer time-scale. Hence it might be that there are future deaths due to current nuclear power that are not being counted.
I say might, because there is no way of knowing how many deaths will occur (or even statistically should be expected to occur) simply because we don't know what will happen to the nuclear waste.
I favor nuclear, but I'd love to see hard numbers on the 'headroom' nuclear has on deaths/GWH compared to dams, with some argument about whether long-term nuclear waste storage is likely to be less deadly than that headroom.
Because it's false? Nothing is emissions-free: making solar panels and wind turbines create emissions, and since they are all made in China, just transporting them around the world where they are used cause emissions as well. And when they become garbage they are shipped once more around the world to be disposed (and not recycled). So it's only "emissions-free" if you ignore the whole supply chain.
> So it's only "emissions-free" if you ignore the whole supply chain.
Actually, burning natural gas does result in emissions of nearly all types of air pollutants and carbon dioxide (CO2).
About 117 pounds of CO2 are produced per million British thermal units (MMBtu) equivalent of natural gas compared with more than 200 pounds of CO2 per MMBtu of coal and more than 160 pounds per MMBtu of distillate fuel oil.
The article also specifically says that natural gas is not emissions-free: "The explosive growth of natural gas in the US has been a big environmental win, since it creates the least particulate pollution of all the fossil fuels, as well as the lowest carbon emissions per unit of electricity. But its use is going to need to start dropping soon if the US is to meet its climate goals, so it will be critical to see whether its growth flat lines over the next few years."
Well everything that burns fossil fuels also needs to be built, therefore also is part of the problem, the difference is they have ongoing emissions where as something like a wind turbine doesn’t.
This argument lacks substance. Are you suggesting the benefits of emissions-free operation are set-off, wholly or to a substantial degree, by the emissions produced in the manufacture of those products? The answer is clearly "no". There is a net benefit. That is all that is needed, and it's not a marginal benefit, it's significant.
I think this concern is often vastly exaggerated. Even with current "dirty" production and transport, renewables have orders of magnitude lower lifetime emissions than fossil fuels. And this will only get better once production and transport increasingly use renewable energy.
I don't understand the arguments that "solar panels and wind turbines use mined resources and are transported around the world". And coal, oil, and gas waft down into our arms from trees in the backyard?
The argument being made is that solar and wind aren't "emission free" .. that they don't waft into our neighbourhood from trees in our backyard.
Everybody (one would hope) understands that about coal, oil, and natural gas.
Many people (it seems) overlook that for wind, solar, and battery technology.
It's akin to ignoring | being wilfully ignorant of what happens to material in the recycle bin.
Think of it more as a plea to remember that all this clean energy comes with a boatload of waste that needs addressing, that is often in other people's backyards, and the you don't get $64 billion US worth of copper without the digging up of what some consider to be sacred ground.
What is the action this realization is supposed to help us come to though? Should we stop the transition to cleaner energy until we find a 100% clean energy source throughout its life cycle before we begin the transition? It is simple really. Wind, solar, and so on are cleaner than fossil fuel sources of energy, so we should gradually transition to them. Cleaner mining and responsible recycling and reuse of the infra we build can be worked on over time.
We are where we are because the 1970s kicked a can down the road rather than take action on C02 when it was clear there was a problem.
In another 50 years we will have a pile of toxic waste as a direct result of scaling solar and wind up from the sliver it is now to enough to replace fossil fuels in world electricty production and replace fossil fuels in transport and build out enough batteries to ride out at least 10 hours of global demand.
> Cleaner mining and responsible recycling and reuse of the infra we build can be worked on over time.
How's that going so far - I can point to a few examples of mine reclaimation .. these are dwarfed by the majority that are left as problems for later on.
It's simple really, high consumers should consume less and as resources are used there should be focus on remediation and harm reduction from the outset.
Typically the worst offenders greenwash the nasty away and tut-tut about waste piling up in third world | southernn economies.
Most wind turbines are made in China, because China is installing most wind turbines. Nobody ships 120m long blades around the world, it's hard enough to ship them within one country.
China produces about 80% of all solar panels in the world. Coindicentally or not, it is also the #1 country by coal production; it has the largest number of coal plants of any country (in absolute terms), and the government has recently been ramping up the rate of new coal plant construction after a few years of trying to keep it more or less in check. Most of electricity in China comes from coal (>60%, compared to US’s <20%).
The only path forward is a drastic reduction in overall consumption. Even if we reach 100% emissions-free electricity, we'll end up with an unlivable planet anyway if we don't focus on the other issues too. If we limit warming to 1,5°C — which isn't even realistic anymore — what good will it do to us if our water and arable land are contaminated beyond repair?