Click to Subscribe to Noahpinion
Post
Conversation
![David Watson 🥑](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="96" height="96"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
Post your reply
We shipped the emissions to China so they could get rich and we could feel virtuous over doing nothing objectively good.
Not to burst your bubble but I urge you to consider the chart in the following way:
- What matters for global warming is the area under that curve (ie, the net amount of carbon in the air). Not the first derivative of the graph!
- Slowing emissions is still increasing carbon in
Cutting the top off of the future emissions curve is great progress, but our trajectory is still far removed from the kind of deep cuts that would be needed to meet Paris Agreement targets.
Only if we figure out how to rapidly draw down the excess heat that has already been absorbed. The temperature anomalies in the poles and elsewhere are far worse than most pundits realise, and the excess is still building despite the steady decoupling of the economy from carbon.
This is the power of regulation.
While other regions reduced emissions through innovation, Europe did it by banning anything capable of producing them.
A masterclass in sustainable stagnation.
This has been obvious to anyone paying attention for a while, which has made tolerating the histrionics of the Greta crew even more painful than it would otherwise have been
Gates' chart compares two different scenarios and two different target years. A more accurate phrasing than "Innovation has cut future emissions by 40% in just 10 years" is "Energy-related CO2 emissions projections for 2040 have declined by just over 20% over the last decade"
Reminds me of this
Quote
Nathan Punwani
@npunwani
In 2008, President George W. Bush pledged that the US’ total greenhouse gas emissions would peak by 2025 with emissions from the power sector declining by 2023
Interesting thing is that both of them started to fall that very year of the speech
@GWBLibrary #ClimateChange
0:53
This is surprising to me because I was under the impression that China was using a ton of all forms of energy at an exponentially increasing rate.
A) is that false?
B) are we able to somehow use fossil fuels with lower emissions or something?
Leftists in college used to laugh when I pointed out that the Soviet Union’s environmental record was worse than America’s and that the best chance to quickly reduce emissions was technological innovation and here we are
1960s Were going to run out of food! Food production exploded
1970s Were going to run out of oil! Oil well discover exploded
2000s Climate change!
Humans are pretty damn smart when given a task
falling (and looking at the chart I see it's rising slower so far) emissions is not the same as falling CO2 levels.
The strengthening of greenhouse effect is here to stay for millenia, unless carbon capture is introduced.
Pray we don't trigger any feedback loop mechanisms.
Is dropping solar costs and increasing adoption the main driver for these revisions?
pretty predictable that the only way out of this was technology. changing behaviors never works
I believe that kind of projection similar to oil use decrease. I mean, not really connected to the reality
Or better to say emissions are controllable. The climate change science is far from a science. Nevertheless I’m supportive of renewable energy and storage. It just makes sense - provided everyone has an abundance of cheap energy. Uk got it the wrong way round on energy prices
The change itself can be mitigated with innovation, even if not reversed.
Innovation also means we can easily adapt to the moderated changes.
Net net, innovation places climate change merely on par with past transitional issues faced by mankind each century upon century.
A lot of this is the result of solar energy outpacing all expectations, thanks to Chinese PV
And the wildest thing about this is that China and India have exponentially increased their CO2 output in that time period.
Markets and innovation work!
Quote
Engineer Investor
@egr_investor
Replying to @EconomPic
I don’t believe the market alone will solve climate change challenges. However, insurance premiums are a strong market mechanism that provides economic incentive to invest in climate solutions.
Encouraging, yes, but insufficient for reaching net zero 2050. Need that number down to circa 15Gt to 20Gt in 2050 emissions equivalent I think. We need to work more diligently as the easier bits already underway. Shipping, aviation, agriculture are tougher, & more vote prone.
No one has cut future emissions yet. The main change since 2014 is in the optimism bias of the IEA, as it swung (uncritically, in my view) behind belief in the technical, economic and political viability of high renewables scenarios.
“Climate change is beatable”without adopting the “degrowth” strategy Gates has advocated for years.
Bjorn Lombord has been spot-on.
Steeply falling emissions beats steadily falling emissions.
Do. Not. Relax. The good fight continues.
accumulated Co2
it’s not methane, it’s Co2
and there is no indication we are even bending the curve at all on kerosene, which is what I believe is what we need to see if this is going to be at all real let alone to any meaningful scale… let alone fast enough in a 4 C world.
There is an engineering solution to every problem !!!. No left wing environmentalists needed.
Aren't the figures wrong? 46 instead of 50 Gt CO2
From the IEA 2014 Report:
Well… We are like 30 decades late in the battle, so it’s good news that we start to have some progress, but we’ll have to tackle both decarbonization AND adaption to adverse impacts of climate change - the latter could have been avoided to a large extent
High-Performance VPS with NVMe SSDs.
Flexible billing: daily, monthly, or annually.
- Blazing-fast NVMe SSDs for max speed
- Full control with Linux OS & root access
- Global data centers for low latency
Scale your projects today! Starting at just $0,15/mo.
This is an enormous success and I think it’s important to remember that this happened due to decades of sustained activism. It would be silly to dismiss climate change now and reverse course just because we’ve rounded the corner.
It’s a solved problem. Has been since wind and solar were profitable. Anything profitable grows exponential.
Most people think linear; can’t see exponential. This is as good as done.
Uh. You're comparing 'current policy' 2014 and 'stated policy' 2024.
Given that we're doing a lot of things, but not following stated policy, it'd be worth getting a comparison of current/current.
We hope so but note that anything beyond 2025 is still just projection It is less dramatic than the downslope of your extended chart.
Thats nice curve fitting data. A random sample from 2014 compared to one in 2024. Its meaningless
Don't we need to reach 0 by 2050 to avoid major risks for humans? It's progress but still way off the target.
That’s too bad. The increased carbon levels have been a boon for worldwide food production, and higher temperatures are needed to reduce human hypothermic deaths.
The more interesting question is: should we beat climate change?
Much of the world reflexively assumes climate change is bad, but those who say so tend to be climatologists not economists. Living in a cold area, the benefits here are obvious (sorry to tropical island residents!)
What's important to note though is the declining is only because of the prior rising and expectations of such. We knew we were heading for a cliff and so invested extensively in tech to mitigate that. Ppl talk about ozone depletion as if it were a hoax and this too but it's the
We would be even further along if it wasn’t for all those prominent environmentalists trying to shut nuclear power plants down.
This shows decelerated warming, that's a long shot from where we want to be
This is the most intellectually dishonest post I think I’ve ever seen you post. Wtf dude?! This is a sliver of the picture. Total forcing and the co2 already in the atmosphere make this too little too late.
WOW, INNOVATION CUT EMISSIONS? EVERY REPUBLICAN FOR ALL OF THE DEBATE WAS RIGHT? SHOCKING
Appwrite is an open-source cloud platform built for developers who like to get stuff done.
Backend, auth, storage, serverless, real-time, web hosting, CDN.
All in one place.
We could cut emissions 90% and still be emitting more than we were in 1900 when we were already changing the climate. And even if emissions stopped entirely the planet would continue to warm for decades.
Not yet it isn't. We're currently in the red line trajectory. We need to change our "current policies" to the "stated policies" in order to get there
It was never real, not in the context you made it out to be. The Earth receives vastly more energy from the sun each day (around \(1.04\times 10^{22}\) Joules) than humanity uses in a year (around \(5.2\times 10^{20}\) Joules). In fact, the daily solar energy that hits Earth is
That isnt total emissions, it is energy emissions. Global co2 output is the highest it has ever been.
Quote
Ben See
@ClimateBen
Limiting global warming to 1.5°C is now considered impossible. And for 2°C, emissions obviously won't fall 25-50% in the coming 50-60 months. We still face 3°C. This is progress? x.com/RARohde/status…
No way they would change their predictions because climate tech benefactors shifted every dollar to AI. No, they would never...
Want to turn your tax bill into Bitcoin miners?
Keep your BTC exposure, earn mining income, and claim bonus depreciation, all in one product.
Discover how TaxShield works.
And yet directly measured atmospheric CO2 tells a different story.. The rate of increase in actual CO2 as measured has increased year over year, except for that blip shown in 2020 (which had nothing to do with Paris agreement, btw).
Absolutely! The shift in projections is remarkable and shows the power of innovation and policy action. Clean energy is becoming more economically viable faster than expected. We need to maintain this momentum and keep investing in sustainable solutions!
“Climate change” is a cult, even this data will not relax its true believers.
Your VIP Pass to Victory! 
Build your city faster with launch rewards designed to kickstart your empire.
Get free troops and chips now, crush rivals later.
Build your city faster with launch rewards designed to kickstart your empire.
Get free troops and chips now, crush rivals later.
Nothing changed except the models became more accurate.
Also climate change isnt beatable because its not static and never will be.
Climate scientists don't share the optimism. They think the situation is dire.
Grok says the IEA’s climate projections are unreliable and they use technologies that don’t currently exist in a workable form to get overly optimistic results for mid century.
As I predicted. Failed doom scenarios will end with declaring “victory”.
“We did it!” - all while global CO2 emissions continue to go up.
Carbon Dioxide emmisions are beatable, Climate Change has been going on for millenia and isn't beatable.
A battle we might not have needed to fight. Glorious. The study found that carbon dioxide emissions have zero impact on the Earth’s global temperatures. sciencedirect.com/science/articl
And all we gad to do was invent AI.
Thank goodness climate change got solved just as soon as tech-billionaires required higher energy production.
Global climate is linked to the cycles of the sun so can't be changed.
Re-modelling predictions is easy.
Blah blah… you lost me a “predictions”, because all so called past “predictions” from climate alarmists have been wrong.
Climate is going to change anyway CO2 has very little effect on climate.
It's not about being ready someday, it's about being ready every day. Train at home with your own personal VR shooting simulator.
Long -term and short-term perspectives on climate change requires bold thinking.
Climate change is also a justice issue that can’t be confined to one part of intellectual spectrum.
When you see how inaccurate the last prediction was, how do you justify your faith in this one?
Lol they need energy for Ai and suddenly climate change doesn't require no energy! Some people are so gullible.
Climate change is inevitable.
It will get hotter.
It will also get colder.
And Co2 will have almost nothing to do with it.
