Slashdot Mirror
CO2 Emissions Rose for the First Time in 4 Years (vice.com)
Human emissions of carbon dioxide have gone up for the first time since 2013, according to the UN's ninth annual Emissions Gap Report, meaning the world isn't on track to mitigate the worst of climate change's already disastrous effects. From the report: The report, published on Tuesday, says that while carbon emissions stayed relatively level between 2014 and 2016, carbon emissions in 2017 went up by 1.2 percent. Composed by climate scientists using the most up-to-date scientific data, the report aims to determine whether we're on track to meet the goals set by international climate agreements, such as the 2015 Paris Climate Accord. The "emissions gap" is the difference between how low our emissions need to be, and where they actually are. The UN report concludes that the world isn't hitting the emissions targets necessary to curb warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. While the goal is not impossible, it's unlikely to be met under current political conditions, which have rendered us unable to take significant action against climate change for more than half a century. "According to the current policy and [Nationally Determined Contributions] scenarios, global emissions are not estimated to peak by 2030, let alone by 2020," the report reads. "As the emissions gap assessment shows, this original level of ambition needs to be roughly tripled for the 2C scenario and increased around fivefold for the 1.5C scenario."
Letâ(TM)s see
1. Let CO2 increase a little longer and then scientists solve all our problems and humanity lives happily ever after
2. Stress out about it
Easy choice. This is why they give the difficult decisions to scientists with degrees (degrees! See what I did there? Hahahahahaha)
You cannot offer science, veritas, proof to denialists. They won't accept it, the reason will be invented on the spot, and they'll continue along their denialist low-information trajectory until they die toothless and broken, unconvinced.
In fact, unconvinceable - and we need to stop trying to convince the morons. We need to ignore them for the sake of life on Earth as we know it, and get back to science and scholastic veritas.
Denialists will always be there, chortling and being pests of no value. We need to cut them right out of the argument at the first lie they begin with.
Reversing the Obama fuel economy standards has greatly accelerated the submerging of Mar-a-lago!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Bananas growing in New Jersey! Mass Hysteria!
"Great climates, great weather! What's that? Coal? That has nothing to do with anything. Beside I'll be dead and enjoying a martini with Satan in hell before anything significant happens." - DJT
for nothing.
According to Hansen
https://www.theguardian.com/en...
Still waiting for those 50 million climate refugees predicted by the UN
http://www.spiegel.de/internat...
Or how are things on the West Side of Manhattan these days ?
https://www.salon.com/2001/10/...
Then again snow is supposed to be a thing of the past as well
http://www.climatedepot.com/20...
Thoe fuel standards if fully implemented (probably not likely) would have reduced end of the century temps by an imperceptible 0.03 degrees (or less) according the the MAGICC model widely used by the UNIPCC and US government.
So, no problem.
#ROPE
Carbon reduction is hard, there are often a lot of steps which are counter intuitive
For example it takes less carbon to ship Apple from China to California then it does from New York to California. Mainly because cargo ships use less fuel per ton of goods then shipping via semi-truck.
Then we have the Automobile guilt. While your home (in most climates) is polluting more then your car.
To fix this solution we need real leadership who is willing to realize the problem is more then just solar panels, wind turbines and electric cars. It is taking a look at all our energy usage finding wastes and inefficiencies. Making sure businesses are playing by the same sets of rules globally just so we don't offset our emissions to an other country, because they will undercut our price.
Such issues is too complex for average Joe Sixpack to deal with, or even an Latte drinking hipster. It will require a global change with everyone playing by the same rules, and firm penalties for anyone who wants to cheat the system.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Stop breathing, don't try to lose weight, don't stay in shape, or better yet just die. That's the whole goal of this in the long run, isn't it? We have too many people on the planet going after too few resources which means depletion of eco-systems. The planet is fine, the people are fucked at 7 Billion+, we can't sustain that.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Well the whole alarmist narrative is busted. If you search the Keeling curve, showing the CO2 level rising monotonically over time, you will see a constant slope with yearly wiggles (seasonal) on top of the line.
One example is here:
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_full_record.png
Now if emissions were were stable (not increasing) from 2014-2016 despite the atmospheric concentration increasing, then this proves that the human CO2 emissions are NOT causing the CO2 levels to rise. It is probably the oceans out-gassing CO2 in response to slightly higher temperatures (natural cycles).
If you look at the charts, the major outlier is China. Other countries emissions are slowly going down. China shot up like a rocket, leveled off a little, and looks like it's going up again.
We should still be trying to curb emissions and doing more. But there's an elephant in the room as far as CO2 emisions are concerned, and it's name is China.
For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion(operation of wandering)(planet) so that they will believe the lie.
Working of Error
Personally, I have trouble taking seriously some idiot on the internet trying to plausibly question 99% of all climate scientists as if they do their "experiments" the same way to achieve the same conclusions.
Because that's dumb A F
Look at that link, do you see any change in slope 2013-2016?
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_full_record.png
And emissions of CO2 stalled? Hmmm?
Cowardly closings of nuclear power plants post-Fukushima are finally hitting home? Less nuclear = more fossil fool energy. Never mind that, despite a few high-profile accidents, commercial nuclear power is a lot safer than any other mode of electricity production.
Perhaps with more CO2 we can help offset the comming global cool down. We are in entering a Super Grand Solar Minimum, which recur approximately every 2000 years. In fact we may be headed into a new Ice Age. This mini ice age will be much longer and more severe than earlier predicted, lasting 400 years. At the bottom of this ice age period in 200 years’ time, the average temperature on Earth will be 2C. The real problem facing the world is global cooling and the crop failure and famine associated with it.
Look, nobody wants to tell you guys, but most of the US emissions are from two sources:
1. Drilling and extraction of fossil fuels from US National Parks (25 percent of US emissions)
2. Inefficient Southern States. Most of which still use expensive fossil fuels. Wind and solar are both cheaper. yes, cheaper than natural gas.
Look at the actual report, you'll see Texas and the West are already meeting and exceeding the Paris Accord goals. It's not us. It's you.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
According to the chart on page 9 the US is doing pretty well.
Yet somehow China which has 27% of global emissions and went up 17% is marked as "on track to meet the targets under current policies".
Those targets must not be very serious
99% of scientists don't agree on man made climate change!
It is not even the pathetic fake statistic of 97%.
That Cook paper has been thoroughly discredited.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/03/science-or-science-fiction-97-climate-consensus-crumbles-in-new-survey/
And many more discrediting studies are showing the same.
Science is never done by consensus. It is not a popularity contest.
One small finding can over turn an entire field, Wegner and continental drift for example.
But it IS a political issue, as soon as we start talking about legislation mandating behaviors!
The true "denialists" aren't that relevant, if the science is solid enough to prove them wrong. You'll never get everyone to accept almost anything. We still have a Flat Earth Society and a number of people refuse to accept the theory of evolution.
What DOES matter is what you propose to do about the issue. If you want to research machines that could efficiently extract excess CO2 from the air? That's VERY different than trying to implement "carbon taxes" or imposing Federal regulations demanding a halt to the use of a particular fossil fuel (like coal).
Just because researchers come to a consensus that the planet's climate is slowly increasing in temperature doesn't mean they need to become political - advocating taxation and regulation. If our technological advances are what got us into this mess, they can get us back out too. People will always go with the options that cost them the least money, and give them the most benefit. Improve cleaner energy alternatives so they're cheaper and better, and people will gladly stop burning oil, natural gas and coal!
I just felt a chill... does it seem a bit rapey in here?
" While the goal is not impossible, it's unlikely to be met under current political conditions, which have rendered us unable to take significant action against climate change for more than half a century."
That sounds very sad....but let's be clear on this.
"Current political conditions" sounds an awful like "Those fucking stupid Republicans and Trump won't go along with the plan!" ...when in reality the facts or the "current political conditions" and "political conditions for the last half century" are/have been:
- Kyoto ENTIRELY failed to address/regulate China or India (for...reasons).
- the world's largest emitter is CHINA - double that of the US* - and it is growing the fastest as well. China's increase over the last decade alone was 60% of the world's increase.
- the US has - despite disregarding International Kum-Bay-Yah handholding promise-sessions - decreased it's CO2 emissions. In fact the US leads other countries (it's just behind the EU collectively) in reductions. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/#4a376eb73535)
- the countries that HAVE signed such agreements are largely failing to reach the goals they promise, even though the Paris agreement had the most modest targets ever.
Essentially, the "political conditions" are that the Climate Agreements are do-nothing SJW virtue-signaling, while the country pointed at as an international pariah is ACTUALLY improving significantly. The worst emitter in the world is now hailed as "leading the fight against climate change!"
cf The Emperor's New Clothes, I guess?
*don't give me "but...but...per capita emissions are lower in China!" First, it's an absolute problem, not a per capita problem. We don't talk about per capita CO2 levels. Per capita is West-hating ecomarxist apologists' desperate to find a way to blame the US for everything. If you want to talk about per capita CO2 output, then let's compare per capita PRODUCTIVITY (PPP) vs per capita CO2 production. Hint: China's an even-worse culprit in that context.
-Styopa
You're using a limited survey from a relatively unknown organization to try to blow away a much, much larger survey from a very trusted institution = you are a moron, not a science-anything.
99% agrees it's happening. 97% agrees its man-made at least in part. That leaves 1-3% to be oil-funded morons like yourself. Drink up faggot, Putin's dick is full, you traitors have a job to do again!
Keep your oil economy afloat, comrade traitor! Science is done by peer review and the data has been reviewed. C02 is going up in the last 100 years, and temps are rising as a result. Don't like it? Too bad.
It doesn't care if you're a denialist moron or not.
No problem. Trump is going to make the environment great again. He said so.
India's emissions are rapidly rising.
Trump ditched the Paris agreement, but China and India have made no real promises to reduce CO2 emissions.
CO2 Emissions are nothing but a measure of carbon based fuel and etc emissions. Since the amount of the economy of any nation is directly proportional to its energy use at that moment this simply means that the world economy grew 4%. Since there have been down years and human population is up 2% each year, that is really nothing but the required survival growth. As far as Global Warming... Grand Solar Minimum is going to not only take the pause things are about to get really cold. Have fun everyone the Sun calls the shots here. Man doesn't affect the score at all.
But it IS a political issue, as soon as we start talking about legislation mandating behaviors!
Whether the science is correct is not a political issue. The facts are the way they are regardless of your political viewpoint.
What we chose to do about it (or even, whether we should chose to do anything about it) is a political issue. But that is completely different from the science question.
When I hear people denying the validity of the science, and when you question them they say the science is wrong because they don't agree politically with some of the proposed solutions: this is denialism. (You can tell these people because within about one minute of opening their mouth they start talking about Al Gore. Deniers are obsessed with Al Gore.) The validity of the science doesn't depend on whether your political ideology is able to solve problems or not.
You're confusing rate of change emission with rate of emission, but not understanding derivatives is par for the course for anonymous cowards.
Bravo, you've taken your first steps into the limited world we actually live in from your Libertarian fantasy head-in-ass Republican "I can do whatever I want" world. Good for you. Keep going, see if you can make it all the way out.
Show me the CRU data used in the IPCC reports, unaltered, along with the methods they used to alter the data and reasons why.
Oh, you can't? You don't like peer review? You want to hide the data and delete a few weeks before a judge forces you to release it via a FOIA request?
The science IS political when you literally break the law to prevent peer review, and then claim since you weren't charged you did nothing wrong (which just shows the prosecutors are politically corrupt as well).
Not a single person can answer why the CRU did this in a way that doesn't make them sound like a partisan idiot shill.
It may be real, it may not, but the AGWers have lied so frequently and hidden data from peer review I pretty much assume they always lie at this point.
Just because researchers come to a consensus that the planet's climate is slowly increasing in temperature doesn't mean they need to become political - advocating taxation and regulation.
Political largely means who's going to do what. This problem is going to take money, and resources to solve. That's inherently political. Whether you use legislation or regulation to figure that out is just window dressing. You can't escape the politics.
Improve cleaner energy alternatives so they're cheaper and better, and people will gladly stop burning oil, natural gas and coal!
That's all great, except for the people selling oil, gas, and coal. Those people don't want to change, cuz it'll cost money. I think you'll find people heavily biased towards the status quo. Change is scary!
The point is, the world isn't quite as simple as you make it. There's vested interests in the world, and a large natural inclination AGAINST change. What if the investments take 10 years to pay off? We live in a world where a lot people consider a 1 year investment "a long time". There's also irrational behaviors (well documented) where people heavily discount the future. They'll chose $10 now over $12 in a week.
People will always go with the options that cost them the least money, and give them the most benefit. Improve cleaner energy alternatives so they're cheaper and better, and people will gladly stop burning oil, natural gas and coal!
It's not always obvious and many if not most people will go with what is cheapest now rather than what's cheapest in the long term.
My lights are out, I can (or could before gov't intervention) get a whole box of incandescent bulbs that use 4-8x more electricity than modern options and only last about a year for like $8.
Or I could buy a single LED bulb for $10 that uses 1/8th the electric and will last 5+ years.
My house is cold, electric resistive heating equipment is cheap to buy.
Costs roughly 4x more to run than NG or heat pump but it's cheaper to get and doesn't have any additional monthly fees.
How can that be addressed?
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
Summarizing your post: you say that scientists should avoid proposing political solutions to climate change, and instead busy themselves with trying to find technological solutions. This sounds like the "stay in your lane" argument that the NRA volleyed back at medical doctors who spoke out recently about the health consequences of gun violence.
Good scientists endeavor to do their research well, because not only does it lay the foundation for future studies, but often it is used to inform public policy. As such, they often have the best vantage point for proposing solutions. And at the very least, they are also citizens, with a stake in what their governments do. It seems you would just pat them on the head, and tell them to run along back to their labs to find a way to save us.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
From your "article" lol ! " a majority of the 1,077 scientists who responded to the survey believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming "
1,077, oooooooh. That scales up to the whole world, it just takes a while... Well, you sure proved SOMETHING lol. MORON.
Told you so.
Told you so, so many times.
Also, those railroads would have much better regulated emissions and worker safety rules. One of the dirty secrets of the shipping industry from China is that they lose a few ships a month (and their crew). It's cheaper to let the ships go down than the build ships that won't sink. And yes, we can build ships that don't sink nowadays.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Why the hell SHOULDNT we give you a per capita figure? hmm?.
Because Americans have a natural right to personally pollute more than others? Head buried in the sand much?
Perhaps we should therefore hold america up the the emission levels of say New Zealand, because the problem is absolute, right?
Lets see: 2014 figures (easily on hand)
USA: 6673Mt, New Zealand: 75Mt
I hope you are ready to drop your use by 90 times...
Hell, why not Fiji? 2.7Mt,
I doubt you can have cooking fires by now, but hey, its an ABSOLUTE problem, so I'm sure you wont mind.
Better not look at Nauru, or you will all have to stop breathing I suspect.
You just keep thinking that, as china sails past you economically, socially, and at the rate they are researching modern nuclear, environmentally..
Denial is such a wondering thing, isnt it.
Science will never be enough to prove them wrong. It can't shake their minds about religion being BS, it's the same "faith over facts" when it comes to global warming.
You cannot offer science, veritas, proof to denialists. They won't accept it, the reason will be invented on the spot, and they'll continue along their denialist low-information trajectory until they die toothless and broken, unconvinced.
In fact, unconvinceable - and we need to stop trying to convince the morons. We need to ignore them for the sake of life on Earth as we know it, and get back to science and scholastic veritas.
Denialists will always be there, chortling and being pests of no value. We need to cut them right out of the argument at the first lie they begin with.
This is how literally everyone thinks. People are inherently self interested. Anyone who says otherwise is a goddamn moron.
But it IS a political issue, as soon as we start talking about legislation mandating behaviors!
The true "denialists" aren't that relevant, if the science is solid enough to prove them wrong. You'll never get everyone to accept almost anything. We still have a Flat Earth Society and a number of people refuse to accept the theory of evolution.
Well, we already have a lot a legislation that mandates behavior. A lot of it. And from both sides of politics. So that doesn't seem to fully capture the issue, since both sides of politics have taken it upon themselves to see to it that we behave in the way that they like. And neither does it explain:
1. Politicians that say that 150 years of research into the matter is not enough research to be definitive - and then attempt to defund further research (huh?)
2. Politicians who say there is a problem but they intend to do nothing about it, and work furiously to ensure that no other politicians do anything either - here's looking at you, Tony Abbott
It can only be a political problem if there is a political counter-argument - but is there? You criticize Carbon Taxes, which are a (revenue neutral) mechanism by which Governments establish a price for Carbon. Is there a better, free market based solution to price Carbon? Why not propose that, and implement it? No better way to quash further government intervention than to demonstrate that the same end can be met by other, more efficient means.
"Do nothing" is not a solution.
It's a cherry-picked survey where those who were stated as 'explicitly endorse human-caused climate warming' directly refute the classification. When your data - which is surveyed papers from authors - literally comes out and says you're wrong, well - you should question the accuracy of the survey in the first place.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I agree with you. Most people are primarily concerned with what's cheapest when they need it. They're not so worried about a long-term environmental cost that's more of an abstract and may not even noticeably affect them during the rest of their lifetime.
BUT, people are also generally smart enough to know that "you get what you pay for", and will pay a bit more for a superior option,if it's still in their price range.
Government intervention is, IMO, your worst possible way to try to change behavior. Your lighting example is a great one. Yes, government started MANDATING people buy CFL's instead of traditional incandescent bulbs. So what happened? Everyone started using those ugly "squiggly" looking bulbs in their fixtures at motels, offices and homes -- and quickly discovered they were burning up and failing in anything enclosed. They also found out they're an environmental hazard if you drop and shatter one, and most took an annoyingly long time to come up to their full brightness once turned on. The overall disgust at how inferior those products were, despite their ONE good quality (using less energy) drove people to start voluntarily switching to new LED lighting technology. That interest and demand, in turn, brought costs WAY down and competition ensured the quality generally went up. Last year, I replaced every single bulb in my house with an LED version, because it was a trivial expense and gave me pleasant lighting that saves me money on my electric bills, and saves hassle changing bulbs that burn out.)
So government 0, free market demand 1.
When you start talking about home heating systems, you're getting into a problem where more efficient options are VASTLY more expensive. I'm struggling with this now myself. My house has a pair of electric heat pumps for the upstairs and downstairs floors. My winter electric bills are AWFUL. But still, replacing these with geothermal heat pumps that would stop them from using the electric heating elements (aux heat) whenever it gets too cold would cost me well over $50,000. That money pays a whole lot of utility bills ....
How can it be addressed? I think it just takes time and R&D. Have we reached the plateau where no more cost savings or improvements can be invented to HVAC systems? Nah! I have faith they'll come along. But the current solutions only save a person money if they buy them for a "forever home" they're never going to move out of, and the break-even point comes close to the point where the systems are wearing out and in need of another replacement.
"One small finding can over turn an entire field, Wegner and continental drift for example." - And then the consensus eventually reflected that. But you have ZERO FINDINGS that current elevated c02 is not anthropomorphic, because it is. #derp
Someone didn't read the article, with actual quotes from authors which Cook lied about. But you have a narrative and a belief to push, I get it...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
No, scientists should avoid proposing solutions at all. They can study the problem, but once they start talking about what to do about it, they cease to be scientists and have become politicians.
"Climbing on a roof" is dangerous. "Solar power" did not kill anyone you lying faggot lol. What a dishonest Trumptard, lol. When you hang yourself use a sturdy knot you dumb cunt. Just like Donnie will in prison.
LIAR, lol. "Climbing on a roof" is dangerous. "Solar power" did not kill anyone you lying faggot lol. What a dishonest Trumptard, lol. When you hang yourself use a sturdy knot you dumb cunt. Just like Donnie will - in prison.
Those are dated figures you dishonest moronic faggot. 2010. A lot happened since then you lying faggot of no value or consequence.
China has 4.2 x as many people but only twice the CO2
Since 1990 EU has been going down, but America going up.
Eu has more people and a bigger economy but America has the most CO2.
Lyinwood = lying faggot, again
Well per person America is twice as bad as China.
America is worse than the EU on every measure, per person, per size of economy. An American produces more CO2 than a European a Chinaman and an Indian added together. So yes you need to do far more than pointing fingers at other people.
China may be on the increase, but only because they started from famines and living in caves.
Per person they are still only half as polluting as Americans. The target they are rising to is still less than what America produces anyway. You shouldn't get special credits because you were so polluting in the past you get to keep it at those high levels. You drop down to EU per capital and China can meet you there.
Only reason China is bigger is that they have more than 4 times as many people.
Oh look, a moron.
That's the dumbest thing I'll ever read. Ever
1 star cuck shit
People treating the associated costs of converting away from cheap coal and other dirty sources of energy as an inconvenience and people who don't like the inconvenience or additional expense as simply selfish.
No, no, no.
This is a matter of life and death. If you raise the price of energy, you plunge more people into poverty. Poverty kills. Smoking can take up to 7 years off your life, but living in poverty can take 10. People in poverty get poor nutrition, little or no preventive medical care, exposure to both the elements and criminal attacks because they're sleeping on a steam grate in an alley and freezing or getting beaten up by another person in poverty that wants to steal their shoes, and so forth. It isn't just that you might have to choose to carpool in order to afford to get to work 50 miles away each day, its that some poor schmuck died today because electricity went from 12.5 cents per KwH to 25 cents per KwH and they couldn't afford that and the rent too, and so were out living on the street and got mugged by a guy with a big knife, and bled to death in minutes. Yes, that's a death from poverty, because otherwise he would have been inside his house with a locked door between himself and the guy with the knife.
I actually wonder if ANY of the proponents of the pain and suffering of "doing something" about global warming stop to calculate how many people they'll kill doing it, and whether those people they kill will exceed in number the people that would be killed by the global warming if we instead did nothing.
OBTW I saw a headline a day or 2 ago that USA carbon emissions went down again for 2017, while the rest of the world's went up. Just sayin'...
You can't do anything to make other people do something, so the only thing you can do is try to reduce your own resource-footprint. It's not that hard:
1 - reduce meat consumption
2 - reduce relying on fossil fuel
3 - spend less on products and more on people
There are lots of things to work out in detail, but that is (AFAIK) the most general advice anyone can apply to themselves.
Countries, corporations can do so much more, but they cannot do it as long as their environment encourages wasteful practices to increase short term value. For governments, you can try voting (not guaranteed to work), for corporations you can vote with your feet.
This is not rocket-science ;-) /Simon
And yet, American co2 emissions continue to drop, while China's increase.
The last 150 years has also seen the removal of pirates from our international waters worldwide. Maybe our improvements are due to the lack of pirates, NOT the industrial revolution.
You need to supply a mechanism for this change. Not assert the correlation, to show causation.
And AGW DOES HAVE A MECHANISATION. Moreover a mechanisation that has been proved for the past 120 years.
a very trusted institution
Sorry nope, you're relying on a single author reviewing papers and articles and deciding for himself that the authors of those articles agree with his point of view. Cooke's report, as linked by others in this thread, has been debunked.
What you CAN'T get is the data that the CRU got from OTHER INSTITUTIONS that own the copyrights to the data.
Now if you want that data for your petulance, you need first of all to scrap copyrights.
Go do that.
Or you can ask the other institutions to give you their data too.
But you can get 100% of CRU's data either way right now. You just don't WANT to because there's nothing you can either do with it or WANT to do with it.
Not solar. Yes, yes, you're in complete mental breakdown and plainly CANNOT, not merely will not, stop pedding the lies about the dangers of solar.
When someone is fried by a solar reflector and dies, THEN we can talk about solar killing someone.
Wait Wait Wait Wait .
I've been hearing how the world has been slowly crumbling and emissions have consistently been getting worse.
How could they have not been rising and also rising?
This is why it's so difficult to take climate science serious
CO2 is good for trees and plants so the more CO2 the more trees and plants we will have.
If poverty is to you such a horror, beef up your welfare state, and pay for it out of taxes. Job done.
However you do not want that, your proclamation is a fake concern for the poor in the same way as "won't SOMEBODY think of the CHILDREN!!!".
The gov't never mandated the use of CFLs, they made the manufacture and sale of lower efficiency bulbs illegal and left it up to the market to fill in the gaps, even halogen bulbs are still allowed but they are expensive, and don't last as well as the incandecents did while only having a little better effeciency. 60w incandecent = 43w halogen = 13w CFL = 8.5W LED
Would we be using primarily LEDs today if the govt had not mandated they stop the sale and manufacture of low efficiency bulbs?
There is a big difference in usability between the CFLs and LEDs, CFLs are dim at startup and then warm up and aside from CCFLs (not a typo) can't stand rapidly switched installs like signs and motion switches and afaik they still don't handle dimming well.
LEDs suffer from none of those issues, neither did incandecents, LED bulbs are a very visible upgrade from CFLs.
Put a modern led and an incandecent side by side and most people can't tell the difference by the light output, with some of the newer ones you can hardly tell even by looking directly at them.
IMHO we only ended up going with CFL because LED wasn't ready at the time, in some cases CFL is still not ready as you can't readily buy higher wattage (like 300w equivilent) LEDs while you can CFLs.
Still I think we would have ended up here eventually on a cost basis but without the low efficiency bulbs ban I think it would have taken much longer.
Same sort of issue with my home heating here,
~2005ish heat pump with LP aux heat, heat pump doesn't work below about 30F which ends up being most of the winter nights here.
Just the hardware costs to replace both units would be something like $24K.
Luckily LP is about as cheap to run as a decent heat pump when bought in bulk or at least it is right now.
At work we have a unit on NG and a unit on resistive electric, the resistive electric costs about 4x more to run than the NG but again many thousands to replace.
My rough estimate was that switching both units over to a modern heat pump that works in below freezing temps would save a bit over $1K/yr so looking like a minimum of 24 years for break even assuming the install was free, switching the electric unit over to NG would save about $650/yr so like 7 year break even.
NG is cheap per therm but has year round charges that make it total out at 3/4 the cost of electric;
1 year of electric heat costs $850
1 year of NG heat and service charges costs $610
but the cost for the NG alone is just $202
Yeah i'm sure the prices will come down eventually but right now the tech is often cost prohibitive even though it's cost effective long term.
It's something you would consider for a new install or a replacement for a failed unit but isn't usually considered worth replacing a working existing unit that's already paid for.
Solar's in much the same spot but IIUC solar has gotten so cheap that the installation makes up the majority of the cost now.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!