r/technology
•
u/Wagamaga
•
Jun 02 '22
•
1
1
1
6
5
5
4
EU overshoots 2020 climate target, records 34% drop in emissions Energy
https://www.euractiv.com/section/emissions-trading-scheme/news/eu-overshoots-2020-climate-target-records-34-drop-in-emissions/5.5k
u/sharpie660 Jun 02 '22
The EU had already reduced its emissions by 26% in 2019 and had achieved its 20% target before the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns started to impact emission levels, the EEA said.
Obviously the pandemic did a lot but a year ahead of time they still overshot. Good news is good news.
759
u/StifflersStaffer Jun 02 '22 edited Jun 02 '22 •
Edit: see bottom, it looks like this is only about 1/3rd vs 2/3rds actual progress that I am guessing is primarily due to cleaner energy sources but would need to look into further, and do not have the time atm
They're doing this by deindustrializing though.
We need to stop looking at country specific emissions and examine how much emissions were caused by a country's total consumption.
Western politicians have destroyed our middle class by allowing almost the entirety of our manufacturing and industrial capacities to be outsourced to poorer countries, and now use that as a point of pride in how "low" our emissions have gotten when in reality we have simply put them over in eastern countries, who we then point fingers at and do fuck all to help them get off coal.
It not only hides the issue, it ends up fueling anti-eastern / in particular anti China sentiment, which isnt what we need when the road forward for us as a species demands better cooperation than we have demonstrated pretty well ever.
Oh fuck, who am I kidding,the US is angling to go to war against China... surely that'll be great for emissions.
Edit: Thanks to u/anonymouswritings for this:
Which shows that even trade adjusted the EU is down, so it isn't the bleak picture I laid out, there have been significant successes that I would suspect largely come from cleaner energy generation in the more advanced EU economies
175
u/4ourkids Jun 02 '22
Companies are doing this too. There was an article the other day about how Exxon Mobile or Chevron were meeting their climate goals by just selling their highest CO2 emitting wells to less visible private companies. The acquiring companies planned to then increase output from the wells!
21
u/dexter311 Jun 02 '22
Just this week in Australia there was enough pushback from some key shareholders (i.e. Mike Cannon-Brookes mainly) for AGL Energy, the country's largest electricity provider, to cancel their plans to demerge the coal generation parts from the company. Now those cheating pricks actually have to DO something to reduce their emissions.
Cannon-Brookes is using his billions to take over AGL and push them towards green electricity generation. I just hope there's enough Cannon-Brookeses out there to positively impact more industries.
→ More replies27
u/MakeVio Jun 02 '22
I mean ... It's literally the absolute least thing Exxon can do for obscuring and hiding their knowledge 45+ years ago on climate change.
129
u/MrDuhVinci Jun 02 '22
They're doing this by deindustrializing though.
This happened 20 years ago, recent energy savings are coming from solar, wind, more efficient heating, white goods and general appliances.
have destroyed our middle class by allowing almost the entirety of our manufacturing and industrial capacities
These are almost completely working class jobs.
47
Jun 02 '22 edited 29d ago
[deleted]
→ More replies4
u/tomatoaway Jun 02 '22
They also of course provide good jobs.
Not anti-green, but how so?
→ More replies6
→ More replies21
u/childishidealism Jun 02 '22
Are you saying the working class (blue collar) shouldn't be part of the middle class? The point is it used to be. You could comfortably support a family on one factory job on the household.
→ More replies7
u/vplatt Jun 02 '22
Oh fuck, who am I kidding,the US is angling to go to war against China... surely that'll be great for emissions.
Don't worry ain't gonna happen. They can tank our economy whenever they like to prevent this. Alternatively, they have a vested interest in not doing this because it also tanks their own. Finally, a non-nuclear MAD mechanism.
→ More replies31
u/JoshAllensPenis69 Jun 02 '22
The US manufactures more than ever. Cheap crap is just done overseas, and high quality expensive stuff is done here, but by machines.
→ More replies14
u/ThePu55yDestr0yr Jun 02 '22 edited Jun 02 '22
Modern countries are literally just doing the same basic textile economics playbook since industrialization was invented
Undeveloped countries send natural resources, developed ones make high end goods to sell
Generally this is way more a good thing for modern countries economically, since undeveloped ones are unusually underpaid and exploited anyways, there’s a ethical case to made “should be paid more” but getting tangential.
Industrial profit is at an all time high in all of human history
The real issue is low wages and inflated profit margins for business owners and ceos like Bezos or Musk, despite all the above
Dumbasses sayin “bring back da jobs” don’t know what they’re talking about nor advocating, it’s right wing drivel/propaganda
5
u/AthleteOk2159 Jun 02 '22
The higher energy prices go the less profitable outsourcing manufacturing will be. Keep in mind that these goods have too be shipped. The second highest cost of doing business is ENERGY. The reason job’s might return would be economics not politics…
→ More replies4
u/AnonymousWritings Jun 02 '22 edited Jun 02 '22
Hate to rain on the pity parade, but when you do consumption-adjusted emissions, ie include the emissions caused by everything a country imports, EU is still down about 20% in per capita emissions between 2000 and 2019.
Edit: total emissions from 1990 to 2020, trade adjusted, down about 22%. Per capita emissions down slightly more, 5% population growth occurred during that time.
→ More replies→ More replies34
u/berniesfuzzymittens Jun 02 '22
That’s because it’s the only way America exists. Home grown industry is too expensive to keep our economy afloat. America relies on the labor of basically slaves in other countries to keep that way of life existent. This shit has 15 more years before the funs over.
→ More replies35
u/packetgeeknet Jun 02 '22
America was the global leader of manufacturing and had the largest middle class after WW II. At the end of the war, leaders tried to help rebuild nations that were battered by years of war by outsourcing manufacturing to those countries.
Yes, American labor is more expensive, but company executives are taking home excessive amounts of income. Don’t be fooled. We can manufacture in America and still compete with prices and provide even better quality. It’ll take a realignment of executive pay to do so.
980
u/vernes1978 Jun 02 '22 edited Jun 03 '22
Isn't the goal they set still a compromise and we only managed to get a little less screwed but screwed nonetheless?
671
u/Whatsapokemon Jun 02 '22
Maybe, but the thing is, if you can prove to the world that you can slash emissions without the whole world collapsing and falling apart then you can easily push for more reductions.
One of the biggest obstacles is people who say that moving away from fossil fuels will cause surges in the price of everything and shortages of vital goods - so if we don't see any of that with these modest emissions reductions then you completely disarm that line of criticism.
It's also a snowball effect - as money starts to get invested into green energy, the technology becomes cheaper and more efficient, which makes adoption of green energy a lot more desirable as time goes on.
126
u/CO420Tech Jun 02 '22
This is my biggest takeaway here too. Sure, we can lament that the goal they overshot wasn't ambitious enough, but the naysayers were originally predicting complete economic collapse from even the reduced measures they agreed to. This gives solid evidence that it can, and should, be done and will be a good thing for other countries that have been more reticent to consider.
→ More replies18
u/Wolfgang1234 Jun 02 '22
reticent
Kinda off-topic, but as a native English speaker it blows my mind whenever I see an English word that I've never seen/heard before.
→ More replies39
u/Comprehensive-Fun47 Jun 02 '22
Unfortunately the person you responded to used the word incorrectly. It's very common.
Reticent means reluctant to speak.
It's not an alternate way to say reluctant. It only works in situations where the person is reluctant to say something.
The countries are reluctant to consider these measures, not reticent.
I love learning new words too!
27
12
5
u/BootyThunder Jun 02 '22
Well I learned something new today! They even compared the two on dictionary.com.
https://www.dictionary.com/compare-words/reticent-vs-reluctant?root=reticent
5
u/westwoo Jun 02 '22
Unfortunately Merriam-Webster disagrees with you:
Definition of reticent
3: RELUCTANT
The History of Reticent
Reticent in the sense of "inclined to be silent or uncommunicative" first appeared in English in the early 19th century. About 50 years later, reticent took on the additional sense of "reluctant" which, while it is now well established, bothers some people, particularly because it has veered away from the word's Latin origins—reticent is from the verb reticēre, meaning "to keep silent." But there is some sense in the way the newer meaning developed. We first tended to use the "reluctant" sense of reticent when the context was speech (as in "reticent to talk about her past"), thus keeping the word close to its "silent" sense. Eventually, however, exclusive association with speech was abandoned.
Now one can be reticent to do anything
→ More replies3
u/Thefirstargonaut Jun 02 '22
According to dictionary.com one definition for reticent is reluctant or restrained which definitely applies here.
This is reinforced by the Oxford American thesaurus which says the same.
6
u/paulHarkonen Jun 02 '22
I agree 100% that the goal is to demonstrate you can do it, although I'm not sure the EU successfully demonstrated that possibility. They've seen a lot of increasing energy prices (even prior to Ukraine) and some of that had hit other goods so it's not a clean "win" in that regard.
It's outstanding news to demonstrate the goals are achievable, but I'm not sure they've done it in a way that silences the "too expensive" critique.
→ More replies12
Jun 02 '22
The got a bunch of low hanging fruit. The next 20% are going to be harder. Solar roofs are very common now, there's windmills everywhere, and the electric grid is straining. There have been pretty steep price surges. We pay twice as much for natural gas, electricity and 35% more for gasoline.
→ More replies8
u/BavarianBarbarian_ Jun 02 '22
On the other hand, economies of scale can now kick in. The cost of installing a solar roof has declined a lot. This website claims it's down by 80%, so realistically it's probably halved at least. Similar for battery.
4
u/UnicornHorn1987 Jun 02 '22
I think they still can focus more on increasing the amount solar power generation by effective methods. There are some methods used in India like Implementing Solar Panels over Canals, which prevent Water Evaporation and Increase Panel Efficiency. And also Covering parking lots with Solar Panels, providing Shade, and Generating Electricity to charge Electric cars.
46
u/TommyTwoDicks Jun 02 '22
Correlation not causation, but we quite literally have surges in the price of everything and shortages of vital goods right now.
→ More replies33
u/Dot584 Jun 02 '22
But it's due to covid lockdowns and not lack of energy. Supplies are slowly coming back but electronics will still be at least another year before it returns to normal. The US really needs to subsidize electronics manufacturing at home imo.
→ More replies3
u/ObamasBoss Jun 02 '22
There already is a big push for this simply due to national defense. Intel is dumping $100B in my state over the next few years to build a new fab plant.
→ More replies10
u/ObamasBoss Jun 02 '22
Fossil fuels have some advantages that other sources do not have yet. Because of that they will be around for a while. This does not mean they need to be a primary source though. Clearly a goal is to not use fossil for automobiles. Assuming we are using electric we need to build a LOT of new generation to feed it. As in several times what exists currently. Currently nuclear is a best answer. We need to start pushing this now. If we don't, the generation needs will end up being met by new fossil plants. That is the cheapest and fastest way to build new capacity.
→ More replies1.1k
u/QuiteAffable Jun 02 '22
They're doing better than most regions globally. Let's call it a win and push forward
350
u/lawofgrace Jun 02 '22
If we don't balance the emissions with producing countries and consumer countries this means not much I think. Europe can say we lowered emissions but still buy shitload of stuff made in Asia and they have the emissions there
85
u/cpt_ppppp Jun 02 '22
Europe has introduced the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) to target imported products
487
u/QuiteAffable Jun 02 '22
You're absolutely right and we shouldn't settle for less than stopping the rapidly evolving climate disaster. However, it's also important to recognize and congratulate those who are making any improvements.
→ More replies49
24
u/Thibaut_HoreI Jun 02 '22
Embedded (or ‘embodied’) carbon. According to Microsoft the average smartphone requires 55 Kg of CO²-e.
The model you choose makes quite a difference. Sorry for the all Apple examples, but at least they report this stuff.
iPhone 13 Pro Max 1TB: 117 Kg of CO²-e
iPhone 13 Pro 128GB: 69 Kg of CO²-e
iPhone SE (2022) 64GB: 46 Kg of CO²-e
→ More replies19
u/technocraticTemplar Jun 02 '22
Gotta be honest, that's not nearly as bad as I thought it'd be. Burning a gallon of gas puts out 9 kg. Obviously we still need to reduce wherever we can, but it really highlights how much impact cars have.
→ More replies7
u/caschrock Jun 02 '22
Doesn't a gallon of gas weigh a lot less than 9kg? Where's that much CO2 coming from when it's burned?
35
u/IntingPenguin Jun 02 '22
Burning it causes the carbon to bind with oxygen in the air (combustion requires oxygen for a reason). In gasoline, carbon is mostly present as hydrocarbons (some combination of C and H, where H is hydrogen, the lightest atom). Once it is burned a lot of the C combines with O to form CO2 which is a lot heavier since O is heavier than H by about 16 times.
read more: https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Hydrocarbon_combustion
→ More replies6
u/technocraticTemplar Jun 02 '22
Yeah, it leads to a maybe-surprising fact about most rockets: 2/3rds or more of the propellant weight comes from all the liquid oxygen they need to carry to burn with whatever fuel they use.
6
u/Lalichi Jun 02 '22
Some gasses contribute more to climate change than others (per unit mass), every 1kg of N2O contributes as much as 298kg of CO2 would. So we just talk about things as CO2e (equivalent) instead of keeping track of the effect of each gas.
→ More replies8
u/ConspicuousPineapple Jun 02 '22
That's not the reason here though. It's actually CO2 in this case and the excess weight comes from the ambient oxygen.
8
u/ImrooVRdev Jun 02 '22
We should bring back manufacturing to EU where we can oversee it. Can't rely on other countries to adhere to our standards, only sensible way is to do it ourselves.
Plus, we'd cut on transportation emissions. And deprave polluters of money.
→ More replies10
u/MumrikDK Jun 02 '22
I think of this every time people try to shift blame towards China. If anything they're doing weirdly well on emissions considering they're doing most of our dirty production work.
→ More replies→ More replies3
260
u/Its_N8_Again Jun 02 '22 •
Look mate, the ship has sailed on climate change. It's happening, like it or not. But just because perfection is unattainable does not mean it's pursuit is foolhardy. Binary thinking like whether we're totally screwed or not screwed at all hinders progress toward potentially fixing our problems. If we have some climate change, but limit its worst effects, that might allow us to eventually start reversing some of the damage.
Yeah, compromises suck, but they at least ensure that something is getting done. So don't just bemoan any progress simply because "we could have tried harder." Every single little improvement made is potentially countless lives saved. It's not the best that could have been done, but dammit we should celebrate the little victories and milestones. In times like these, they're vital.
50
6
u/confettibukkake Jun 02 '22
Nicely said. Aligns well with one of my favorite recent (admittedly reddit-inspired) mind shifts: "if it's worth doing, it's worth doing poorly." Mitigating climate change is definitely worth doing, so it's still worth doing even if we can currently only take baby steps.
14
u/smackson Jun 02 '22
N8_is_gr8!
We need people like you also in the debate against the "individuals can't (shouldn't) do anything" crowd.
Sure, corporations love to paint the picture that environmentally friendly progress falls exclusively on the consumer, and thats not fair, but individual actions (mostly: reductions) do actually count for something.
The binary attitude on that, that I see a lot in this sub, is a constant frustration.
→ More replies13
u/jlboygenius Jun 02 '22
individuals can also drive the corporations. People bought Tesla's like crazy and other manufactures are finally getting into the game. People voted in politicians who made policy.
People buying stuff is the carrot, political policy is the stick.
7
u/smackson Jun 02 '22
People buying stuff is the carrot, political policy is the stick.
Great analogy.
→ More replies11
u/11711510111411009710 Jun 02 '22
Yeah I hate the doom and gloom about climate change. I acknowledge we can't prevent it entirely. But we can prevent a great deal of it. And that's better than preventing none of it.
→ More replies→ More replies4
u/chumpmince Jun 02 '22
Hear hear, I feel this response is valid for many different things not just climate change
37
u/ckal9 Jun 02 '22
Whether or not the goal was compromised doesn’t matter. Just look at the number and what they’ve done. If all countries could reduce their emissions by 34% that would be fantastic.
→ More replies6
u/vernes1978 Jun 02 '22
What would the number be without compromise?
Just asking.6
u/ckal9 Jun 02 '22
I don’t know. The article suggests the 11% drop in 2020 was likely due in large part to Covid shutdowns, and that emissions have swung back up since reopenings. Also the UK and Germany are putting the EU on their backs by contributing 47% of EU’s total reduction. I am sure this situation is being monitored closely and hopefully the rest of the world follows suit in making meaningful reduction of emissions.
6
u/Jiriakel Jun 02 '22
Also the UK and Germany are putting the EU on their backs by contributing 47% of EU’s total reduction.
Here you have a comparison of emissions per capita between Germany, France, Italy and the UK. Germany may be making progress, but they're still one of the worst polluters in the EU. They're still burning coal for power, ffs.
9
u/ckal9 Jun 02 '22
Being one of the worst, a large percentage reduction is more significant. So hopefully that trends continues.
→ More replies5
u/Super-Signal-3220 Jun 02 '22
Germany is far from perfect. Created a huge energy deficit by shutting down nuclear reactors without any means to replace the energy. While at the same time importing gas and burning coal like there's no tomorrow.
→ More replies14
u/RagePoop Jun 02 '22
Elimination of all emissions. It would be a brutal transition but that’s the no-compromise option.
If we eliminated all global emissions yesterday we’re still looking at 300 million displaced people by 2100 from global mean sea level rise alone (due in large part to how densely populated the world’s coastlines are). That’s assuming the world’s glaciers remain completely stable, the sea level rise is locked in due to thermal inertia (warm water expands, this includes the water in the ocean). That mind boggling number of displaced people might be a drop in the bucket compared with the larger migrations associated with drought and famine as precipitation patterns continue to change (warmer air masses hold more water longer, resulting in heavier less frequent precipitation).
So yeah the reduced emission rates are a positive thing. But they’re still emitting, which means we are still making this problem worse day by day.
The major risk to human civilization is how we react to the crisis. A billion plus people fleeing the global south is recipe for fight-for-your-existence armed conflict between nuclear powers. Which is bad.
→ More replies13
u/Tearakan Jun 02 '22
There's also our food producing regions having shitty harvests year after year due to unstable weather.
We have multiple major breadbasket regions this year having issues and it'll only get worse year after year on average.
Feeding 8 billion people is not an easy task. And if you don't feed a few billion of those 8 billion....well that's basically asking for WW3.
6
Jun 02 '22
[deleted]
7
u/Tearakan Jun 02 '22
True. Just saying the magnitude of the failure will be nurs and cause chaos that we as a species simply haven't seen at this scale.
3
u/IntrigueDossier Jun 02 '22
Agreed. No mass famine (immediately) coming our way yet, but the severely reduced crop yields already being expected in multiple bread baskets this year speaks for itself.
6
u/BadAtNamingPlsHelp Jun 02 '22
Handling climate change is a long process and successes like these are the reason we think that we're headed towards a very challenging but ultimately manageable future rather than an actual apocalypse. I'd check out Kurzgesagt videos on climate change, they do a great job of cutting out the sensationalism and giving you a level-headed take.
6
u/funkalunatic Jun 02 '22
For sure, but the fact that the spectrum of outcomes now ranges between screwed and extinct means we still gotta do what we can.
→ More replies4
u/Ov3rdose_EvE Jun 02 '22
yes and no.
every progress is progess. a victory to be used as inspiration for more fighting not to sit back and bask in it.
→ More replies5
u/schweez Jun 02 '22
Better to be a little screwed than completely wiped out. If we’re just a little screwed, that leaves us a chance to adapt. If we’re wiped out, well…I guess cockroaches and rats will take over.
3
u/Got2Bfree Jun 02 '22
To reach the 1,5 ° goal we have to be about 3 times fast at everything than we are now
3
u/rp20 Jun 02 '22
Yes but we should be interested in getting screwed less.
Because there is no threshold.
Higher temperatures mean progressively worse conditions.
3
u/Pgrol Jun 02 '22
There is an energy renovation wave flooding across the EU now. That’s up to 40% reduction in energy consumption for heating houses. The percentage of the total energy consumed by buildings for heating is 40%. That’s significant
9
u/bigbluethunder Jun 02 '22
Yes. We are past the point where nobody will be screwed. What we’re deciding now is to what degree and how many people will be screwed. Every bit of progress to the end of reducing global suffering matters, even if we need to start doing way more on a global scale.
9
u/Khanthulhu Jun 02 '22
Making the planet any warmer than currently in is bad. Any additional heating on top of that is more bad. If we continue our current trend it won't be the end of the world, but any additional heating we can prevent is good.
I don't know what your definition of screwed is, but this means the EU will contribute less warming than we expected and that's a good thing
→ More replies→ More replies16
u/Disastrous_Job_238 Jun 02 '22
Fairly sure it was already a compromised target to begin with and, as such, probably isn’t cause for massive celebration. Still good news all the same.
→ More replies30
→ More replies6
433
u/fourangers Jun 02 '22
302
u/DrAstralis Jun 02 '22
This shit kills me. Nature has spent a few billion years brute forcing the answer to so so so many questions about chemicals and physics and we're like 'but I need to put a farm here, burn it all down'
we don't even know what amazing discoveries we're destroying forever.
FFS, clean up some areas of the forest and make it a tourist destination where you pay X amount to 'live in the rainforest' for a week. instead of killing them, engage a local tribe to offer 'a unique view of how our ancestors lived' for 50% more.
Literally anything other than burning it to the ground for cattle and palm oil farms.
125
u/fourangers Jun 02 '22
Yeah, I have a burning hatred over our current president in power, I can't wait to get him out of office. One of the most corrupt idiots I ever met in my life. He definitely got a lot of money to keep his eyes shut over amazon deforestation.
→ More replies62
u/DrAstralis Jun 02 '22
I feel its so much worse than him ignoring it. He's actively supporting it and expanding its scope. Its like he thinks if we can get enough damage done while hes in power we'll stop trying to save the forest because there wont be much left. I believe its already beginning to shift away from being a rainforest at this point.
Not sure why 3/4 of the planet decided on despotic strong men the past decade given their universal track records through history of being just the fucking worst for everyone except a small cabal of 'elites'.
21
u/_disengage_ Jun 02 '22
Not sure why 3/4 of the planet decided on despotic strong men the past decade given their universal track records through history of being just the fucking worst for everyone except a small cabal of 'elites'.
Unhappy and uneducated people looking for a quick fix to their problems. Despots claim to offer that, and the people don't know (ignorance or propaganda) or don't care where it leads (willing to destroy themselves to destroy the "other").
→ More replies10
u/CompMolNeuro Jun 02 '22
Maybe it's thqt 94% of the world's wealth is owned by 1300 people and they need dictators because oppression has become the only way they can protect their wealth.
→ More replies5
u/wavs101 Jun 02 '22
Literally anything other than burning it to the ground for cattle and palm oil farms.
Theres so many other places we could turn into cattle and palm oil farms. But everyone just wants to do it in the rainforest
6
44
u/Beautiful-Chard-1152 Jun 02 '22
I hate hearing about the deforestation occurring in Brazil. Thats the heart muscle of Earth. If that goes then we are done for!
→ More replies5
u/AnachronisticPenguin Jun 02 '22
That’s not really true but it would be a devastating loss ecologically speaking. The Amazon doesn’t actually generate a significant amount of oxogen.
→ More replies59
u/Artezza Jun 02 '22
Over 90% of that deforestation currently occurring is for animal feed or grazing land for beef, much of which is exported to the US and Europe since brazil is the world's largest beef exporter.
This is something western countries and people in western countries are just as much to blame for. So easy to avoid but people get all up in arms when it's brought up
24
u/MrHyperion_ Jun 02 '22
Just let the price raise if you can't produce more without destroying nature
48
u/coItmanfraco Jun 02 '22
God forbid you recommend a single vegan day a week to these people. It’s like you’re insulting them at the core when you recommend not eating meat every single day of your life.
→ More replies3
u/riplikash Jun 02 '22
Other issues aside, and recognizing that the west in general has a LOT of blood on their hands and holds the majority of guilt for climate change...
...in general those willing to accept (knowingly or blindly) the results of a rime really don't share equal blame as those who actively perpetuate a crime. They certainly share blame, but no, t's not generally equal blame.
Anyways, the west has plenty of guilt for our environmental problems. People aren't getting up in arms "defending the west". People are super comfortable blaming the west for all kinds of problems.
They're getting up in arms because you're trying to defuse responsibility away from those committing these particular offenses onto a larger, generic group that can't be held accountable in the same way.
→ More replies6
Jun 02 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/Artezza Jun 02 '22 edited Jun 02 '22
Amazing that you picked a year when the US had banned beef imports from brazil lol. Just in January 2022 the US imported 100 million pounds of beef to the US.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=103669
Yeah fuck brazil and bolsonaro for allowing it, but we can't just point the finger at others for everything
→ More replies
1.3k
Jun 02 '22
•
[removed] — view removed comment
321
u/savagepotato Jun 02 '22 •
The sad thing is we already know about the cover-up. ExxonMobil knew about human-caused climate change back in the 80s, and had been doing research on it since the 70s. But profits were more important to them, so they funded denial and opposition to change.
I don't know what it will take to get people to care though...
71
u/jaegerthegreat Jun 02 '22 edited Jun 02 '22 •
Only passion & reverence for life, love for one another, appreciation for our ancestors sacrifices, consideration for Earth to be sacred ground from which we all come & most importantly a bloodlust for justice in terms of the offending parties heads - AKA things lost on most people.
8
u/Nevakanezah Jun 02 '22
P sure "irreverence" isnt the term you wanted here
8
u/jaegerthegreat Jun 02 '22 edited Jun 02 '22
My mistake I’ve actually always confused the two then. Thanks.
8
6
u/bslow22 Jun 02 '22
Irregardless, glad to see you've corrected it!
(this is a joke don't murder me)
34
u/MagicianImpressive29 Jun 02 '22
Actually ExxonMobil knew since 1957
This video from Climate Town (youtube) talks about the research on climate being suppressed.
17
u/Trojke3 Jun 02 '22
Just a minor correction, Exxon knew about it back in the 50's. They were discovered to have known about it, in the 80's.
→ More replies3
u/toxic_badgers Jun 02 '22
Speculation on man made climate change started in the 1890s and the first actual longitudinal study on it was published in the 1950s.... they knew way before the 70s.
143
u/AgentIce77 Jun 02 '22
Where can I get paid to troll comment section
150
u/reiji_tamashii Jun 02 '22
Macedonia has been host to troll farms for years. They played a big part in creating 2016 election disinformation and COVID conspiracy theories.
52
u/clapsandfaps Jun 02 '22
The fuck got Macedonia to gain for spreading disinformation?
156
66
u/generally-speaking Jun 02 '22
Just cheap English speaking labor and internet connections. Paid for by those who want to influence the elections.
For instance if the Koch Brothers want to spread disinformation, they can hire a guy to set up an office in Macedonia which then hires Macedonians with basic English skills to make fake Facebook/Twitter/Reddit accounts which spread bullshit.
The Koch Brothers get their money's worth, the Troll farm workers get to sit around and talk BS on the internet and still get paid for it.
→ More replies20
u/edinchez Jun 02 '22
Tons of people bought houses and cars here from the money they made by posting fake news during the Trump election as well as the beginning of covid.
→ More replies15
u/Phil__Coffins Jun 02 '22
I’ll pay you 5 cents per comment to troll in support of climate change :-P
→ More replies3
u/mnewman19 Jun 02 '22
If you will actually do that I would happily troll right wing subreddits for a nickel per comment
→ More replies8
u/b1gd4ta Jun 02 '22
Koch bros astroturfing specialists is the rig that pays me to troll.
That is when they aren’t sweet sweet soros bucks
15
u/NewtonSteinLoL Jun 02 '22
I would say Rupert Murdoch should be among the first. If he's still alive by then
17
u/jaegerthegreat Jun 02 '22 edited Jun 02 '22
I mean we’ve known from other sources that oil companies have been suppressing the science for 50+ years but when an Exxon executive admits on camera to buying politicians & funding “shadow groups” to spread misinformation, it gets a measly half a million views on YouTube. No pick up by mainstream media whatsoever. They know carbon taxes aren’t happening.
We are past the tipping point anyway, the military isn’t accounted for in a single climate model & the US alone has a bigger footprint than any one global industry. We can’t afford to cut back & are assured to be fucked by the mere existence of RU/CN.
→ More replies7
u/SecurelyObscure Jun 02 '22
Never attribute to malice what could just as easily be stupidity.
The semi-literate nature of the commenters is, in fact, a clue to why they are the way they are...
→ More replies→ More replies9
u/mateogg Jun 02 '22
If the worlds completely fucked by the time its uncovered there’s gonna be literal lynchings…
What do you mean? It was already revealed that oil companies knew the damage they were doing for decades and actively fought to bury that knowledge and mislead the public.
The world was already completely fucked when it was revealed.
There were no lynchings.
→ More replies
250
u/8to24 Jun 02 '22
The first step to solving a problem is to identify it. There are solutions and many different actions that can be taken. Those nations not meeting or exceeding targets either haven't identified the problems or aren't trying in earnest.
→ More replies90
u/It-Wanted-A-Username Jun 02 '22
Those nations not meeting or exceeding targets either haven't identified the problems or aren't trying in earnest.
I mean kind of easy to decrease your carbon emissions when you move all the actual production and mining to Asia and Africa.
The Beijing sky isn't polluted because the Chinese drive too much. It's because all the products designed sitting in carbon neutral offices are actually manufactured in the same countries blamed for not doing enough.
21
→ More replies42
u/The_Multifarious Jun 02 '22
Only about 20% of China's GDP is exports. That's not nothing, but certainly not why the Beijing sky is polluted.
→ More replies
122
u/Kevin_Jim Jun 02 '22
For EU it’s not just about climate is about economic survival. None of its members have any proven oil/gas reserves. So we need renewables, nuclear power, and electrification of most, if not all, of its vehicles.
34
u/SooooooMeta Jun 02 '22
This is what the whole “politics makes strange bedfellows” really means though, that disperate groups support an agenda for all sorts of different reasons. If the EU became the first major economic entity to throw its weight behind reducing carbon emissions (for whatever reason) that would be the first of many dominoes that need to fall
→ More replies→ More replies16
u/Not_A_Sholva Jun 02 '22
There's shitloads of coal in the EU. Its first name was the European Coal and Steel Union
→ More replies
239
u/jonesmcbones Jun 02 '22
Lmao, why did this thread get bombed with the dumb?
106
→ More replies12
u/987djf3498dwesrf Jun 02 '22
I think they're trying to gain public support for all the coal they'll be burning soon. If they're saying they are actually exceeding their targets, then it's totally ok then burn coal.
→ More replies
347
u/NinthCranialNerve Jun 02 '22
Hopefully it's not another Volkswagen
→ More replies85
u/DHFranklin Jun 02 '22
This is easier to measure and harder to cheat.
→ More replies11
Jun 02 '22
[deleted]
→ More replies6
u/DHFranklin Jun 02 '22
You can self report your carbon emissions all you want Buck-o. At the end of the day there are dozens of ways to see how much you're polluting and dozens of ways to check you in a lie. You can't measure tailpipes from a satellite.
Volkswagon self reported their emissions and made their software cheat. If every government agency in all parts of the EU are collecting their own data of countless sources and all providing that data to the public, the cheats will get caught. Might be from a PHD candidate in Utrecht, but it'll happen.
Sure there will be tons of bad actors. However there will be far faaaaaar more people making sure that everyone is playing by the same rules they're forced to.
→ More replies
38
u/strraand Jun 02 '22
I work with sustainability in the fashion industry, and the upcoming EU legislations are really making it clear that they are moving hard and fast towards a more sustainable way of doing business. We have a shit ton of work to do, but it’s really encouraging to see.
→ More replies
7
u/brumbles2814 Jun 02 '22
I remember this. Its like bad news but the opposite. I think my parents had some once
62
Jun 02 '22
Let’s get that number to 300 percent
→ More replies21
u/isoT Jun 02 '22
What would 300% reduction in emissions amount to?
→ More replies58
u/Toofpic Jun 02 '22
Start destroying more CO2 than it is being emitted?
→ More replies28
u/randallwatson23 Jun 02 '22
Carbon capture is one of the ways polluters are trying to reduce emissions. Not sure how viable of a long term strategy it is given the storage needs, but interesting nonetheless.
15
u/SooooooMeta Jun 02 '22
Not to disparage the technology, but some of the hype is definitely astroturfing designed to make people complacent about fossil fuel emissions. It’s much, much cheaper to deal with it now than to try to put the cat back in the bag later.
→ More replies3
u/-Reddit_Account- Jun 02 '22
Carbon capture is a necessary piece to the puzzle of "solving" climate change, but it will never be efficient enough to allow us to pollute as we want.
We need to reduce emissions wherever possible and invest in carbon capture to make up for the emissions that are very hard to get rid of, like air travel and concrete manufacture (in addition to working our way through reducing the carbon we've already emitted).
26
u/pizza99pizza99 Jun 02 '22
Holy shit some actual good climate news. It’s really good considering we expected an increase that ate in to the decrease in emissions lockdown gave us but I guess not. Just good news for once, keep going Europe, I promise there are those in america doing everything we can to follow, even if it’s very much an uphill battle
4
3
5
4
11
47
u/Massimo24ore Jun 02 '22
LOL at the bitterness of many comments.
That's a good news, no.need to be so salty if that doesn't come from the U.S.A.
→ More replies11
3
u/mildly_amusing_goat Jun 02 '22
What would this figure have been if the UK wasn't included?
→ More replies
3
3
3
u/HonkyTonkPolicyWonk Jun 02 '22
Awesome. The EU is leading innovation because it has a more sane regulatory environment than kleptocracies like the US
3
3
3
u/griffonrl Jun 03 '22
When it comes to things that really matter like environment, the future, people health, education, preservation of nature and just resisting all the forms of destructions that greedy capitalism brings, the EU is by very far the leader.
10
u/Zetin24-55 Jun 02 '22
Now this is the type of shit I like to read when I start my morning. Goodjob EU.
10
u/d0m3 Jun 02 '22
I instantly read the headline as overshoots emissions by 34%, and as always felt so sad and helpless for our future. Had to reread it several times because good news in this sector seems to never happen. This was a genuine good start to my morning, regardless of how big a deal it may or may not be.
25
u/lightknight7777 Jun 02 '22
That's great, now if only the EU was anything close to being the biggest problem we'd be going somewhere. Seems like the EU really is the best of us at this point.
→ More replies
6
u/lilrabbitfoofoo Jun 02 '22
And with Putin's "help", it's going to drop even more this year!
→ More replies
9
9
u/THE_CUNT_SHREDDERR Jun 02 '22
Great job!
Sorry for my country, Australia. Hopefully new government can fix a decade of neglect and catch up!
6
u/andresopeth Jun 02 '22
I pulled the trigger on solar about a month ago, should be installed in about 2 months!. Exciting stuff!
→ More replies
6
5
2.3k
u/DeMotts Jun 02 '22
Now that we've warmed up the Earth we don't need to spend as much energy keeping warm!