|
|
|
|
|
|
by peterpathname
4696 days ago
|
|
|
I call BS.
for rich developed nations, gas is an unnecessary and dangerous distraction from the genuine renewable and sustainable energy alternatives which are already taking shape around us.
there is an argument about using gas in the developing world (where they need cheap energy fast), but wealthy nations should be leapfrogging into the same renewable energy solutions that will inevitably dominate our futures, rather than 'investing' in new gas plants with their long 30-40 year lifespan. |
|
|
To limit global warming to 2°C we would need to leave 80% of already discovered hydrocarbon resources unused. This is same as producing CO2 at current level next 18 years and then stopping completely forever. We are already warmed +0.8°C and effects have been worse than expected.
To be realistic, there is no signs that we are even trying to reduce global CO2 emissions, we are just trying to slow down the increase. There is no sign in stock markets that all those hydrocarbons will be left into the ground. From developed nations only Germany is trying to leapfrog, but it might fail due to economic/political reasons when the cost becomes clear to voters (well see).
According to FAO, meat production causes 17% of global greenhouse gas emissions. That's more than traffic. If we would be serious, we would have to solve that ASAP. Nobody is even thinking doing that.
All actions in democratic countries are result of two forces: what people feel comfortable giving up and how much people fear global warming. People are not comfortable giving up anything even lightly significant even if they live in rich countries. There is not enough investments and technology is not advancing at the pace we would need to have to live comfortable life and saving the environment.
If you have kids, take them diving to see coral reefs. It's last time to see.
http://oceana.org/en/our-work/climate-energy/ocean-acidifica...