Clean energy is able to somewhat solve the problems of fossil fuel. However they do not solve other environmental problems like a massive crisis in soil depletion from industrial agriculture, over fishing, pesticides and many other things destroying biodiversity and so forth. The only way we can solve those is by using earths resources better. Since economic growth and resource consumption are linked, that means we have no chance of solving those problems, if we continue to grow our economy no matter what. That is also true for the climate crisis, but clean energy helps.
Seems fine to me. It says that it’s the growth obsessed economy part that’s doing the tipping. The word “still” is being used in its adveb sense to mean that the transition to green energy won’t be enough to stop that tipping on its own.
“clean energy” . . . :)
this idea of “clean” electricity seems to makes people think they can use as much electricity as they like even when its marginally all generated with gas or coal…
Like a 30-50% “clean” grid can magically double in capacity to accomodate every cnts tesla charging and new heating loads without more fossil fuel gen.
“oh that doesn’t matter it will be 100% renewable soon.”
" oh what no, I didn’t mean you can build a nuclear powerstation there, can’t they build it in india or china or africa and ship the power to us?"
“no matter, we’ll invent cold fusion soon”
The difference between average vs marginal generation is something that a lot of electricity proselytes want to handwave away in order to keep selling energy intensive lifestyle and aspirations.
Its much harder to sell people a modest life, or a lower energy inensity - or a lower population density.
You want high population density as it makes sharing resources easier. The per capita emissions of a Londoner are at 3.3t. However UK is at 6t.
Also some processes make sense to be moved to the grid, even when they increase electricity generation. EVs are lower emissions then a petrol engine, even with coal electricity.
Otherwise a decrease in consumption is key. However only to a level, where we can provide the basics for everybody. Right now that means we also need more green tech.
Downvoting for the ‘tip us into ecological disaster’.
Please anyone correct me if I’m wrong but from what I understand clean energy will slow that disaster down, not tip us into it.
Hmm? The text says that a growth-obsessed economy will tip is into ecological disaster, which is true.
Clean energy is able to somewhat solve the problems of fossil fuel. However they do not solve other environmental problems like a massive crisis in soil depletion from industrial agriculture, over fishing, pesticides and many other things destroying biodiversity and so forth. The only way we can solve those is by using earths resources better. Since economic growth and resource consumption are linked, that means we have no chance of solving those problems, if we continue to grow our economy no matter what. That is also true for the climate crisis, but clean energy helps.
Seems fine to me. It says that it’s the growth obsessed economy part that’s doing the tipping. The word “still” is being used in its adveb sense to mean that the transition to green energy won’t be enough to stop that tipping on its own.
“clean energy” . . . :)
this idea of “clean” electricity seems to makes people think they can use as much electricity as they like even when its marginally all generated with gas or coal…
Like a 30-50% “clean” grid can magically double in capacity to accomodate every cnts tesla charging and new heating loads without more fossil fuel gen.
“oh that doesn’t matter it will be 100% renewable soon.”
" oh what no, I didn’t mean you can build a nuclear powerstation there, can’t they build it in india or china or africa and ship the power to us?"
“no matter, we’ll invent cold fusion soon”
The difference between average vs marginal generation is something that a lot of electricity proselytes want to handwave away in order to keep selling energy intensive lifestyle and aspirations.
Its much harder to sell people a modest life, or a lower energy inensity - or a lower population density.
You want high population density as it makes sharing resources easier. The per capita emissions of a Londoner are at 3.3t. However UK is at 6t.
Also some processes make sense to be moved to the grid, even when they increase electricity generation. EVs are lower emissions then a petrol engine, even with coal electricity.
Otherwise a decrease in consumption is key. However only to a level, where we can provide the basics for everybody. Right now that means we also need more green tech.
not globally