Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   simsa03 (simsa03@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Wednesday, 19-Jun-2024 05:12:59 JST simsa03

   • Walkaway Friendly Localist 🌿
   Sigh. Ok, you believe in renewables and their ability to not only provide the electricity for the current needs but for what is necessary in the decarbonisation of ultimately fossil fuel-run industries. You believe that we're not already *not* reaching #peakrenewables (e.g., all current installed wind turbines worldwide will have to be replaced by 2050) but you think that societies will even be capable of financing that transition. (A recent McKinsey report estimates that for Germany alone to transform all its energy needs throughout all sectors until 2045 roughly cost € 500 billion annually.) Somewhere down my bookmarks I have the numbers and estimates of the fossil fuel and carbon emissions needed to extract all the minerals the world would needs to build all the renewables and storage systems. I won't get into that discussion tonight, but I don't see *any* chance to attenuate the climate crisis by adding more of the same, even if it comes with catchy phrases like "circular economy". (And in all of that we haven't even touched the issue that progress in one sector is pretty much erased by inventions in another – see, e.g., how the rise of cryptocurrency mining has wiped out the emission reductions reached by 30 years of PV deployment, or the projected electricity consumption of AI that will turn the goals of decabonisation into a child's play.)
   
   "Circular economy" like "lesser material consumption for renewables" will turn out like "degrowth": Nice to have, but only possible on-top, and in that presupposing the full functioning of the system they intend to replace.
   • Embed this notice
     Walkaway Friendly Localist 🌿 (woodbark@kolektiva.social)'s status on Monday, 17-Jun-2024 18:09:59 JST Walkaway Friendly Localist 🌿

     "EU nations and US alone are responsible for more than
     half of the globe’s material consumption, despite housing just around one-
     tenth of the world’s population. The world's wealthiest 1% are responsible for the carbon emissions of the poorest two-thirds, and have accumulated nearly double the money of the bottom 99%."

   • Embed this notice
     simsa03 (simsa03@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Tuesday, 18-Jun-2024 06:38:06 JST simsa03

     in reply to

     • Walkaway Friendly Localist 🌿
     time-frame for these allegations?
   • Embed this notice
     Walkaway Friendly Localist 🌿 (woodbark@kolektiva.social)'s status on Tuesday, 18-Jun-2024 15:10:51 JST Walkaway Friendly Localist 🌿

     in reply to

     @simsa03 The source slapped at the end of this is the Oxfam "Climate Equality: A planet for the 99%" Report from 2023, the context in which it is stated (p.18 of the report) makes it appear to be 21rst century.

     simsa03 likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     simsa03 (simsa03@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Wednesday, 19-Jun-2024 04:25:16 JST simsa03

     in reply to

     • Walkaway Friendly Localist 🌿
     Thank you. Wonder about the impact of China, India, and parts of South America, though. Esp. the recent 20 years of industrialization of China and the staggering resource extraction for the various Green plans seem to me neglected in that statement. And given the future prospects of necessary mining and processing of rare earths and other materials, this will increase material consumption not just in the "Global North Werst" on a hitherto unprecedented scale. Furthermore, given the economic catch-up races of South-East Asia and Africa plus the demands of any form of energy transition, this Oxfam statement amounts to West-bashing while ignoring that, e.g., we're on the brink of a global mining activity unprecedented in human history.
   • Embed this notice
     simsa03 (simsa03@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Wednesday, 19-Jun-2024 05:40:30 JST simsa03

     in reply to

     • Walkaway Friendly Localist 🌿
     @woodbark
     Here is one article I rely on with regard to mining: https://bfrandall.substack.com/p/copper
     
     One take away: The good and easy to reach sites are already exploited; ore deposits dwindle worldwide, are harder to reach and of lesser quality. That is, need more, not less energy to find, mine, extract, process.
     
     On the supply chain for PV, e.g.: https://www.theverge.com/22785274/clean-renewable-energy-supply-chain-crisis-climate-mining-manufacturing
     
     To manage decarbonisation we need working supply chains. Which we don't have (pandemics, wars). Beside electricity production (mining, processing, building) and electricity trading (spot markets, subsidies, offsetting) there is the aspect (or: problem) of electricty distribution (network and grid expansions, transport). There is no reasonable time, money, qualified personnel to achieve that in the coming 20-30 years. Which leads me to keep the #infrastructure as is, refurbish and adapt it to more electricity interchange between players on the basis of current power plant technology (nuclear being my favourite). But that only as a side note.
   • Embed this notice
     simsa03 (simsa03@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Wednesday, 19-Jun-2024 07:51:25 JST simsa03

     in reply to

     • Walkaway Friendly Localist 🌿
     @woodbark
     add this: https://bfrandall.substack.com/p/john-lee-pettimore-mine-tailings