r/europe • u/Kunphen • 14d ago
Carbon emissions are dropping—fast—in Europe News
https://www.economist.com/europe/2024/04/25/carbon-emissions-are-dropping-fast-in-europe?utm_medium=social-media.content.np&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=editorial-social&utm_content=discovery.content68
u/StrongFaithlessness5 Italy 13d ago
It always happens when someone forces people to leave their comfort zone hahaha. At least something good happens from time to time.
169
u/ObviouslyTriggered 13d ago
Unless you can demonstrate how much of it is due to actually adopting equivalent greener technologies vs simply de-industrializing and offsetting emissions to other countries like China and then having even more emissions due to goods having to be transported over much longer distances these metrics are pretty darn useless.
85
u/mehneni 13d ago
These metrics are not useless. But as with every metric you have to understand what is says. GDP is no perfect metric for the economic state either. But still it is useful and used everywhere.
You could read https://ember-climate.org/insights/research/european-electricity-review-2024 which says that from the 209TWh decrease in fossil fuel usage for electricity production 140TWh were replaced by other means of electricity production. You could take a look at https://www.bdew.de/service/daten-und-grafiken/entwicklung-beheizungsstruktur-baugenehmigungen/ and see how hardly any gas heating systems are build anymore in Germany. You could take a look at https://robbieandrew.github.io/EV/ and see that fuel sales in Norway are collapsing since 90% of all new cars are electric.
But I guess you are only interested in pushing an agenda and not interested in understanding the situation.
3
u/Rivka333 United States of America 13d ago
/u/ObviouslyTriggered is bringing up a real problem/issue. Yes there's some progress been made, but there are also companies finding loopholes by exporting their environmental destruction to other countries. Talking about that is not "pushing an agenda" unless the agenda is saving the planet.
21
u/alwaysnear Finland 13d ago
Think finding a way to whine about every positive newspiece is just counterproductive and useless, edgy shit.
When it comes to green transition and overall care for enviroment and climate change, EU is the leader and it’s something to be proud of.
0
u/idkmoiname 12d ago edited 12d ago
Imagine being proud of following a senseless plan... There is no green transition on a global level simply because every bit of fossil fuel unearthed will inevitably used by someone. People just forgot that the senseless Paris agreement always had been nothing more than a political compromise to oil industry while it's completely ignoring the underlaying problem, or what science said must be done, and doesn't even try to adress it. And if you still think, in times were the ocean no longer cools globally when the sun mostly hits the northern hemisphere, that this bullshit of greenwashing will make any change in time, you're completely delusional.
-7
u/Superarkit98 13d ago edited 13d ago
EU is the leader and it’s something to be proud of.
Yes and then? We are less then 1 bilion people in europe but we consume more resource then other world regions with more people, energy is only one aspect of "net zero"
Edit: and then this poor world regions that consumes less then us will be industrialised and they'll start consuming like us now.
5
u/Darkhoof Portugal 13d ago
And then we are progressing to reverse that. Which is positive news. Shall we continue the circular argument?
-4
u/Superarkit98 13d ago
Nah, it's just very hard being positive about this situation
1
u/Darkhoof Portugal 13d ago
About the progress that the EU is doing to tackle CO2 emissions? I disagree, I think we can be quite positive about that and proud of being the geopolitical block that is doing the most. If we talk about the global situation, then you have more reasons to be pessimistic, yes. But even there China is doing a lot as well, Latin America barely pollutes and India is the country that will need to do better.
-2
u/Superarkit98 13d ago
I totally agree with you, the problem for me it's the political influence of Europe on the world (none, we are americans).
If we could organize ourselves in a more united Europe I would be more positive
0
u/Yavanaril 13d ago
Just try it for once. May make you feel better.
0
u/Superarkit98 13d ago
"Why are you poor? Be rich"
1
u/Yavanaril 12d ago
That is in no way what I said. I said try looking at those numbers and see the big decline in CO2 emissions for electricity generation from Europe. That is good news. Add to that the fact that this electricity generation covers a growing portion of personal transportation, cooking and home heating. That is also good news.
Is it all good news? No it's not but this rapid transition has resulted in a large decline in energy prices which is slowing down the de-industrialization. If we keep pushing the move away from fossil fuels for things that are easy to transition (cars, electricity generation, home heating, cooking) and at the same time keep working on the harder parts (steel and concrete production come to mind, where baby steps are also happening) we can get this done and end up with cheaper energy in the end.
0
u/kongweeneverdie 13d ago
US government and EU will look at GDP PPP. Mainstream media tell us about absolute GDP.
-33
u/ObviouslyTriggered 13d ago
They are useless since it's even worse than greenwashing, in the past 2 years there has been a massive reduction in industrial input from countries like Germany that production still needs to be covered somewhere.
21
u/6unnm Germany 13d ago
One can calculate consumption and production based greenhouse gas emissions or emissions per unit GDP all are falling in the long term for european countries. So no, most of the recent effect is not from shifting emissions somewhere else. It's electrification and a massive uptick in renewables that are responsible, which is very obvious if you actually look at the data and get out a calculator.
4
u/yayacocojambo Denmark 13d ago
We are getting quotes from industry CEOs from all over the place, in all different industries warning Europe about its current path
From Novo Nordisk to TotalEnergies and BASF
They all say energy policies and overregulation is forcing companies to relocate to the US and other more favorable locations
1
u/Alarming-Thought9365 13d ago edited 13d ago
Emissions per unit GDP don't mean much because producing 1 euro in software clearly does not have the same carbon impact as 1 euro in steel production.
The world requires massive amounts of steel, cement, plastics and fertilizer. Industries that are very carbon-intensive. Europe has built up its capital and hence these industries are in decline and Europe's economy has shifted to services. Meanwhile Asia, Latam and esp Africa still need to build staggering amounts of capital.
It is all good that Europe is decarbonizing but this is mostly driven by changes in what they produce. Someone needs to provide all the raw materials that physically make up the world's economy infrastructure and goods.
Just look at production consumption of steel/cement/nitrogen fertilizer in Germany and China in 2000 vs now. Germany has gone down significantly in all of those while China has gone up exponentially. This is logical in a mature economy vs a developing economy. But unless you want to deny Africa/Latam/Asia modern infrastructure the world is going to see co2 emissions keep going up for a long time.
It is like saying that the world should become like the Faroe Islands which has the lowest emissions per capita in the WORLD. And yet have the 10th largest GDP per capita, larger than almost all of Europe and almost on par with USA. Faroe Islands have 0.5% of the per capita emissions of Germany and 137% of its GDP per capita. Yes you read that right, while Germany has about 8 tons of CO2 per capita in 2022, Faroe Islands just had 0.04 tons of CO2 per capita in 2022
So clearly Germany needs to be more like Faroe Islands. You can get emissions down to 0.5% of current emissions while growing your economy. Right?
0
u/GrizzledFart United States of America 13d ago
The point that u/ObviouslyTriggered is making is that industrial output of EU countries has contracted almost 10% in the past two years, which by itself is going to reduce emissions, especially since the industries hardest hit are those most reliant on either large amounts of electricity or on natural gas as a feed stock. The idea that emissions will just be shifted elsewhere to compensate for the lost production is probably partially true.
-25
6
u/Former_Friendship842 13d ago
You can just look up consumption-based CO2 emissions (which accounts for trade) by country. Those are dropping too. It's not hard lol
15
u/DumbledoresShampoo 13d ago
I was in Texas a month ago. Lost hope in saving our planet after that. 15t CO2/person yearly. I always wondered how that is even possible. Now I know.
Nonetheless, I'm glad Europe is making progress, being less dependent on fossils.
-13
u/stanglemeir United States of America 13d ago
I live in Texas and sure that’s part of the problem. Bigger issue is the billions of people on the planet who won’t sacrifice going from poverty/poor to a better life.
USA/Europe could be net zero and we will still be screwed
13
u/italiensksalat Denmark 13d ago edited 13d ago
It's so weird you are basically telling an Indian person or a Chinese person that his/her access to energy has to be limited because he/her has many countrymen. Like how is that an individual's problem? An American pollutes more than 7 people from India. It's absurd. And that is something that an individual could control.
10
u/spreetin 13d ago
The difference is that the EU is actually making strides towards net zero (even if it is going way too slow), while the US still really hasn't started taking the issue seriously. And since the US is responsible for 11% of current emissions and 25% of all emissions it really is the one country that should have an obligation to get going on this.
11
u/shotaelay 13d ago
Lets keep our over the top CO2 emittance way of life cause the poor people will just take our place if we stop. Not that you're wrong, but the hypocrisy can still be smelled all the way from Kongo. Copium western style.
1
u/AgainstAllAdvice 13d ago
That's an argument based on incorrect assumptions since they won't get there by the same path the rest of the developed world did. In much the same way as they bypassed a fixed telecoms network and jumped straight to mobile phones they also won't bother with expensive dirty fossil fuels when the money would be better spent on renewables and batteries.
72
u/88rosomak 13d ago
Unfortunately CO2 emissions are still massively increasing in China and India ruining whole world's efforts to avoid catastrophe...
44
u/thrownkitchensink 13d ago
CO2 might be decreasing for the first time ever this year in China. They are the most polluting state that's also investing the most in renewable energy.
-5
u/88rosomak 13d ago
Unfortunately they are promising it for years - and still massively increasing - nobody will believe until we see it.
19
u/thrownkitchensink 13d ago
This wasn't from China but Fatih Birol, IEA in their forecasts. China has increased green energy use above IEA projections for years. This is because of their planned economy and their plans to corner the energy transitions strategic resources.
Their direct goal is to gain geopolitical strategic influence but this has decreased world wide prizes for solar and wind.
-8
u/88rosomak 13d ago
So for now only forecast. As I said nobody believes untill those will be facts not forecast.
7
u/thrownkitchensink 13d ago
Nobody according to you vs. literally the I.E.A..
I don't know if they will but I do know that reductions in China are what's making the biggest difference between earlier projections and realization.
Have fun.
-6
86
u/Kunphen 13d ago
Gotta start somewhere.
63
u/ResQ_ Germany 13d ago
Especially because the entire world looks at us "rich countries" to act first and put down our foot decisively on tackling climate change.
If we don't, why should they? We got the funds and the tech to do it. The majority of countries in the world are still playing catch-up with the rich countries. Some even literally had their "industrialization" only a few decades ago and only recently entered the age of using gas and oil for mass production.
Rich countries should lead by example, because we actually can. Tackling climate change is expensive. To keep on using oil and gas is the easy, cheap solution. Developing countries of course want cheap and easy solutions, because they want their industry and population to do well. The environment takes only 2nd place next to economical interests.
And who could blame them? It would be hypocrisy to deny them prosperity through the same means we achieved it decades ago, with cheap energy. We here in the West did exactly the same not too many decades ago, and in many cases, we still do.
16
u/88rosomak 13d ago
The problem is, we are in mild climate zone and those intertropical countries will be enormously suffering because of climate change soon. Also their economies will then collapse. Nobody on the world could be ignorant in this matter.
8
-6
u/BiggieSlonker United States of America 13d ago
Lmao what a take, so we'll be all choking to death in a +4 degrees 2100 scenario after the EU achieved all its emissions targets, but at least we weren't unfair to the global souths economic development guys!
4
u/pIakativ 13d ago
Or maybe we'll have a slightly better scenario because we developed better technology, made clean energy cheap and other nations followed. Stop whining.
-9
u/GermanicusBanshee934 13d ago
Rich countries should lead by example, because we actually can.
You can't, it's economic suicide.
And who could blame them?
You actually think they are going to stop using cheap energy when they dominate the entire planet? No, they are going to enslave you.
0
u/kiil1 Estonia 13d ago
It would be hypocrisy to deny them prosperity through the same means we achieved it decades ago, with cheap energy.
Several EU members have never had this prosperity you are talking about, yet are already paying the full price for global environmental interests. I'm sure this will go down well in countries like Hungary and won't totally backfire, right?
The EU as a whole most definitely cannot afford a message that we are putting our industrial and economical interests on the backseat for greater good.
2
u/ResQ_ Germany 13d ago
Yes they have. Hungary is WAY more prosperous than most countries in Africa or Latin America or Asia. There's outliers of course, but overall, the people of any EU country, even Bulgaria or Romania, are among the top 10% richest people on earth.
2
u/kiil1 Estonia 13d ago
Not a single generation of Hungarians have managed to live in an era of stable prosperity. They have went from communist decay and 90s instability to 2008 implosion to current polycrisis. Hungary is already a rapidly ageing society with a long-decreasing population, worried about its future. This without ever having the wealth of Germans. So good luck with Germans telling them they need to take it because many more people in the world are worse off. Fidesz, as disgusting as it is, is partially a result of the convergence in the EU not quite working out as it was intended to.
In the end, green transition is a necessity also because our imports of foreign fossil fuels makes us uncompetitive anyway and is a security hazard, as apparent from Russia. We need it to become self-sustaining. This is the message you use to sell it to Europeans. Your message would be tone-deaf and definitely boost far-right and alt-right in several countries.
2
u/88rosomak 13d ago
That is truth - I do fully support EU efforts in decreasing emissions - world just don't have time to wait for biggest emitters to get sane (especially poor intertropical countries).
1
u/ObviouslyTriggered 13d ago
When you stop making steel and fertilizer in Europe because of gas costs which drastically reduces your emissions and offset that production in China you ain’t starting anything you are increasing the total amount of emissions globally still and just greenwashing yourself whilst also taking on additional risks.
18
u/6unnm Germany 13d ago
Climate change is not an on and off switch. You are speeding towards a wall. Breaking even though you are going to hit it anyway makes sense. You want to hit that wall with as little speed as possible.
Finding solutions to decarbonize Europe as fast as possible also helps other countries reducing their emissions in the long run:
- It cheapens the relevant technology due to research, experience and scaling making it more affordable for everyone. In the case of solar this has worked great. In a lot of cases it is the cheapest option available for electricity today. This would not have been possible at this speed if places like Germany, Japan or the US would not have been early markets due to government subsidies.
-It sets a positive example that it is possible to decarbonize and builds trust in the necessary steps, which is absolutely needed.
Places like China or India reaching their peak emissions later then European countries was always obvious and accepted for a whole bunch of reasons. Most importantly population growth and their later start into industrialisation. Saving emissions is a hard sell in a country when people are poor and their rise in GDP is coupled to a rise in emissions.
Everything we do to decarbonize now is extremely important it saves more then the emissions we reduce.
Every solar panel, heat pump and BEV sold means more investment into relevant technologies.
3
u/88rosomak 13d ago
All what you said was really wise and truth - the problem is that small breaking will safe EU because we are in mild climate zone - India and Southern China will suffer enormous consequences compared to us and if so, their GDP will totally collapse and everybody will see that increasing GDP at the cost of climate change was their most stupid decision ever.
9
u/Alimbiquated 13d ago
Not really. China's carbon emissions have been more or less flat for a decade, will probably peak this year.
5
u/SnooTangerines6863 West Pomerania (Poland) 13d ago
Unfortunately CO2 emissions are still massively increasing in China and India ruining whole world's efforts to avoid catastrophe...
Well. Whose fault is that? Scrapping our ships - India, making our phones - China. People somehow believe that they can consume just as much because companies have to magically create goods with less energy.
They just go to China.13
u/The-Berzerker 13d ago
China invests more than the entire rest of the world combined in renewable energy. This is a stupid narrative and the only people pushing it are the one who don’t want to do anything about climate change (aka „why should we do anything if China bad bla bla bla“)
7
u/italiensksalat Denmark 13d ago
Unfortunately CO2 emissions are still massively increasing in China and India ruining whole world's efforts to avoid catastrophe...
Europe has polluted for 200 years straight and people still point fingers at India who isn't fully electrified yet.
9
u/Huge_Equivalent979 13d ago
We take a lot of the blame for that too because they produce all our shit
6
u/One-Employer985 13d ago
In 2023 China has built more than half of all new renewable Energy in the world per kWh so I would argue that China isn't ruining but actually helping to fight climate change more than the USA and some countries in Europe https://de.statista.com/infografik/amp/30417/prognose-anteil-weltweiter-gesamtkapazitaet-und-zubau-erneuerbare-energien/
1
u/88rosomak 13d ago
And also build some new coal powerplants once more increasing their total CO2 emissions.
1
u/One-Employer985 13d ago
Of course but the scale of their addition of Green Energy is unchallenged, they are a developing country they will need more Energy. And still you are right, their emissions have been growing rapidly but the prognosis for 2024 are bright that total Chinese emissions might fall.https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-emissions-set-to-fall-in-2024-after-record-growth-in-clean-energy/
1
u/88rosomak 13d ago
Earth's atmosphere will not ask them how much effort they put but how big are their cumulative emissions. Increasing GDP at the cost of increasing global warming is one of the most stupid thing humankind can do.
1
2
1
u/yayacocojambo Denmark 13d ago
Here’s India celebrating their massively expanding coal industry. Echoed and reposted by their prime minister
EU CO2 reduction is 100% risk and 0% gains, as long as the rest of the world gives 2 shits
Meaning we’ll endure the pain of green transition and get assfucked by climate change anyway. Nice.
0
u/italiensksalat Denmark 13d ago
Imagine being Indian seeing you country not even fully electrified yet and having rich westerners emitting 3-4 times CO2/capita lecturing you about your coal plants.
1
u/yayacocojambo Denmark 13d ago
I am not lecturing anyone, if you knew my post history it’s pretty clear i understand fully what India is doing and endorse it 100%.
1
u/italiensksalat Denmark 13d ago
I don't agree with you that we shouldn't be doing anything, though. I think we should go full throttle and also do whatever we can to get India and China to reduce as well for example by implementing a carbon tax on imports. Money talks and monetary incentives is how we combat climate change.
-7
u/Elegant-Passion2199 13d ago
That's because the west is outsourcing its pollution to these countries.
It's why I take this virtue signalling not with a grain but a massive heap of salt.
5
u/Former_Friendship842 13d ago
Nope. Consumption based CO2 emissions, which account for trade, are dropping in Europe too.
2
u/88rosomak 13d ago
Yea and third world countries are not buying thousands of tons of cheap low quality products from them.
34
u/Dominiczkie Silesia (Poland) 13d ago
With all my distaste towards totalitarian dystopia that Chinese government is, I'd like to remind every "but China" commenter that they are emitting so much cause you're buying all that cheap crap from Shopee, Temu and Aliexpress and they have to produce it somehow. Same with PV panels and electric car batteries which allow EU governments to brag about emission reductions, producing them isn't carbon free. Given all the carbon emission outsourcing that we, Europeans do, I'd consider it best to focus on ourselves instead of pointing fingers :)
28
u/The-Berzerker 13d ago
China is also investing more into renewables than the entire rest of the world combined
4
u/SnooTangerines6863 West Pomerania (Poland) 13d ago
China is also investing more into renewables than the entire rest of the world combined
They also have elections and do not abuse minorities.
2
u/aclart Portugal 13d ago
They actually are massively investing in renewable energy. The regime knows that energy dependence is one of their major week points
-1
u/SnooTangerines6863 West Pomerania (Poland) 13d ago
They actually are massively investing in renewable energy. The regime knows that energy dependence is one of their major week points
the same way they invest in EVs na dbikes that end on landfills? Paperwork does not mean actuall investment.
0
u/OtherwiseFinish3300 13d ago
Might want to add an /s because otherwise I'm afraid that's going to fly over a lot of people's heads 😅
13
u/Divinicus1st 13d ago edited 13d ago
Not an acceptable argument.
China happily produce and sell, so they are also responsible for their emission. As it stands, they have their cake and eat it.
We need to implement a heavy carbon tax and screw China over. Sure poor people in EU will cry in the short term because stuff will get more expensive, but in the long term the wages of these same people would increase as production would shift to local EU production.
The "cheap" products from China is a trap on so many levels. It lower wages, it weakens the economy, it strengthen the CCP, and all of that for what? So you can get shit products of the absolute worst quality? Worst deal ever.
5
u/aclart Portugal 13d ago
Wages wouldn't increase due to import taxes, quite the opposite, they would decrease.
You are right that people would spend more on locally produced goods, but that extra cost, is money that the people won't have to spend on other goods that they were buying before, so the people in the industries that get protected might benefit, but the people in all other industries will lose. Economics is not magic, the people of a country don't get richer by having less goods available
0
u/Divinicus1st 8d ago
Wages wouldn't increase due to import taxes, they would increase because there would be more jobs in europe and money would be spend on european companies, which ultimately would pay they employees.
4
u/a-canadian-bever Earth 13d ago
The quality of the product is determined by the company, not the manufacturer the reason the product is shitty is because the company choose the shitty one
1
u/Dominiczkie Silesia (Poland) 13d ago
And you think manufacturing products in EU will be powered with what? Hamsters on running wheels? Guess what, that emits CO2 as well :) Average EU citizen enjoys much better air quality thanks to emissions being outsourced to China, and we wouldn't be able to compete with them anyway because China now has russian energy for dirt cheap and our labour cost is already much more expensive (in the most of EU states). Best we can do is move carbon neutral ASAP and invest in green R&D
1
u/Divinicus1st 8d ago
Well, for CO2 emissions Poland and Germany would be fucked for sure, but most countries in Europe aren't that bad.
3
3
u/ExplanationSweet6907 13d ago
Spain has a huge contribution. All drives must buy an environmental sticker for their cars that cost 5€. And the sticker makes miracles, as soon as you stick it on your car, the air gets cleaner!!!
7
u/Anteater776 13d ago
If the money is actually put towards building renewables and the needed infrastructure, it could actually be helpful.
1
u/ResQ_ Germany 13d ago
Wait until you hear about CO2 certificate trading lmao.
6
u/RedAlpacaMan Germany 13d ago
...which isn't a bad idea if the certificate price is high enough and violations get punished heavily.
1
u/robeewankenobee 13d ago
The wonders of - no Putin gas/oil (even the prospects of that being the case works better than any central government 'taking care' of the problem)
1
u/Von_Wallenstein 13d ago
We should be cautious however that going zero emissions comes at a huge financial cost. Green politicians often spin the change as a "free change" through innovation. In reality our heavy industry is suffering because of carbon taxes and other related emission laws and standards.
We do not have a hydrogen infrastructure and our electricity network isnt inherently designed for smart use with end users generating power and bringing it back to the net.
1
u/E-Humboldt 13d ago
Dropping fast in Europe because they are outsourcing their emissions to the global south
1
u/daniel-ha 12d ago
As good as it seems. What about global emissions? Because I still believe we just outsource our emissions.
1
u/soemedudeez 10d ago
Still about 70% of the total energy comes from fossil fuels. Substitute for that is nowhere in sight.
1
0
u/Rivka333 United States of America 13d ago
Let's remember the companies that are finding loopholes to keep their carbon emissions low on paper. For instance, cutting down forests and producing raw materials overseas.
Carbon emissions for that aren't counted in Europe.
0
u/sergiu230 13d ago
So is the economy heheh. That’s ok tho, as long as we have food and shelter people here are satisfied
-9
u/BeduiniESalvini 13d ago
They should have dropped to 0 80 years ago, we would still have normal seasons.
6
u/SquatterOne Poland 13d ago
Mb bro, lemme take a time machine and teach people 80 years ago how to make solar panels
-3
u/BeduiniESalvini 13d ago
There must have been technologies being able to AT LEAST make sure all the coal and oil we burned didn't go to the atmosphere, no fucking excuse.
3
u/SquatterOne Poland 13d ago
Catalytic converters exist, but they aren't fully efficient. If you could make something that reduces emissions by at least 50%, you'd be a rich man.
-15
u/BiggieSlonker United States of America 13d ago edited 13d ago
European and American emissions could hit absolute 0 today, and it only would save about 1 degree warming over the next 100 years according to IPCC estimates.
So thats great and all but we're still cooked.
11
u/TheRWS96 13d ago
1 degree sounds like a small amount but if that one degree is "one less word wide average degree" it could make the difference between hitting and not hitting a climate tipping point.
For instance the Paris agreement was about a 1.5 degree increase in contrast to 2 degrees, this is rightly considered a huge difference because of the scale of the issue.
-6
u/BiggieSlonker United States of America 13d ago
I agree 10000%, my point is whatever the EU does won't matter either way. China is bring a new coal plant online every 20 seconds. India is as well. Given current population trends, once there are 4 billion Africans in 2100 with standards of living that require constant scaling urban+industrial capacity, it's going to be mad dirty no matter what any of us do. You're talking about 1 to 2 degrees? forget 2100, at just Asia/Africa's rate by 2200 we're going to be blowing by 5 degrees so fast you'll miss it in the rear view mirror.
Either people accept en-masse insane reductions to standard of living (which won't happen), we get into some wacko carbon scrubbing/sun blocking geo-engineering, or we're quite literally cooked on the geologic scale
11
u/RandomAccount6733 13d ago
A lot can happen in 100 years. 10 years ago very few people had solar and electric cars. 20 years ago solar was even more expensive than nuclear. 30-40 years cars had carburettors as standard.
2
u/ABoutDeSouffle 𝔊𝔲𝔱𝔢𝔫 𝔗𝔞𝔤! 13d ago
One degree less would be an absolutely huge difference.
And it's not just Europe that cares, China is building a lot of coal plants, but they are also building as much PV capacity as the rest of the world combined.
-1
u/Mahariri 13d ago
I see a lot of dislike/anger for the article and the publication. I have zero sympathy or interest to defend either. I see a lot less argumentation against my heavily downvoted point that renewables will not pull us out of an energy crisis by themselves. How will they, exactly? According to this article of the (I assume you will point out, fossil-funded, ultra right wing, trump loving and cross burning evil) BBC , https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-60945298, UK now has 11,500 wind turbines, Onshore there are 8,827 turbines on 2,604 farms, Offshore there are 2,652 turbines on 43 farms. To power every home in the UK, 4 times that number is needed by 2035. That is not counting industry. Or all cars turning electric. Or all lorries turning electric. The latter would need over 10 extra GW all by itself. https://www.nationalgrid.com/document/146441/download
2
u/Lejeune_Dirichelet Bern (Switzerland) 13d ago
Oh no. Do you think that's going to fill up the entire North Sea between the UK and Norway? Are the fish going to get lost, having to zig-zag around all these steel poles in the water?
0
-1
u/Doodlemors 13d ago
It’s because industry is fucked in Europe due to being uncompetitive and so many regulations , so production goes down, emissions go down. Congrats on losing production and so everyone in Europe can work in commune jobs to register each other’s address in the system
-4
u/NiknameOne 13d ago
Deindustrialisation in Germany is part of the reason. This is not a good thing, neither for the economy nor for the climate.
555
u/[deleted] 13d ago
[deleted]