Slashdot Mirror
Renewable Energy Policies Actually Work (arstechnica.com)
Renewable energy use and reduced energy use overall have helped carbon emissions remain flat or below average as the global economy continued to grow over the years. But, as new research has found, government policy also appears to play a large role. Slashdot reader AmiMoJo shares a report from Ars Technica: The researchers started by identifying countries that show a "peak and decline" pattern of carbon emissions since the 1990s. They came up with 18, all but one of them in Europe -- the exception is the United States. For comparison, they created two different control groups of 30 countries, neither of which has seen emissions decline. One group saw high GDP growth, while the second saw moderate economic growth; in the past, these would have been associated with corresponding changes in emissions. Within each country, the researchers looked into whether there were government energy policies that could influence the trajectory of emissions. They also examined four items that could drive changes in emissions: total energy use, share of energy provided by fossil fuels, the carbon intensity of the overall energy mix, and efficiency (as measured by energy losses during use). On average, emissions in the decline group dropped by 2.4 percent over the decade between 2005 and 2015.
Half of this drop came from lowering the percentage of fossil fuels used, with renewables making a large contribution; another 35 percent came from a drop in energy use. But the most significant factor varied from country to country. Austria, Finland, and Sweden saw a drop in the share of fossil fuels within their energy mix. In contrast, a drop in total energy use was the biggest factor for France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom. The U.S. was an odd one out, with all four possible factors playing significant roles in causing emissions to drop. For the two control groups, however, there was a single dominant factor: total energy use counted for 75 and 80 percent of the change in the low- and high-economic growth groups, respectively. But there was considerably more variability in the low-economic growth group. All of the high-growth group saw increased energy use contribute 60 percent of the growth in emissions or more. In contrast, some of the low-growth group actually saw their energy use drop. So why are some countries so successful at dropping their emissions? Part of it is likely to be economic growth, but the biggest reason may have to do with government policies. "By 2015, the countries in the group that saw declining emissions had an average of 35 policies that promoted renewable energy and another 23 that promoted energy efficiency," reports Ars Technica. "Both of those numbers are significantly higher than the averages for the control groups. And there's evidence that these policies are effective. The number of pro-efficiency policies correlated with the drop in energy use, while the number of renewable policies correlated with the drop in the share of fossil fuels."
Half of this drop came from lowering the percentage of fossil fuels used, with renewables making a large contribution; another 35 percent came from a drop in energy use. But the most significant factor varied from country to country. Austria, Finland, and Sweden saw a drop in the share of fossil fuels within their energy mix. In contrast, a drop in total energy use was the biggest factor for France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom. The U.S. was an odd one out, with all four possible factors playing significant roles in causing emissions to drop. For the two control groups, however, there was a single dominant factor: total energy use counted for 75 and 80 percent of the change in the low- and high-economic growth groups, respectively. But there was considerably more variability in the low-economic growth group. All of the high-growth group saw increased energy use contribute 60 percent of the growth in emissions or more. In contrast, some of the low-growth group actually saw their energy use drop. So why are some countries so successful at dropping their emissions? Part of it is likely to be economic growth, but the biggest reason may have to do with government policies. "By 2015, the countries in the group that saw declining emissions had an average of 35 policies that promoted renewable energy and another 23 that promoted energy efficiency," reports Ars Technica. "Both of those numbers are significantly higher than the averages for the control groups. And there's evidence that these policies are effective. The number of pro-efficiency policies correlated with the drop in energy use, while the number of renewable policies correlated with the drop in the share of fossil fuels."
In the U.S. one of our two major political parties represents a minority of voters
Assuming you are referring to the Republican party and the last presidential election:
No, the Republican party represents a majority of Electoral College voters. These are the people who vote the president in. This is the vote that counts.
The Republican party received less votes when counting the totally unofficial and not used for anything popular vote. The competition wasn't run on the popular vote.
If the game were to get the most votes (with no EC in between) then you can be sure that both parties would have played the game very differently. For this reason you cannot project the popular vote count of the last election onto this hypothetical election and say Democrats would have won.
The rules were laid out and the Democrats didn't play the game as well. It's time to move on from that. If you want to change the way votes are counted then a preferential voting system is far superior to a simple "majority rules" system.
My country uses this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
We have almost 100% voter turn out (compulsory voting). We don't have Gerrymandering. We have an independent electoral commission.
These are mainly good things (I don't agree with compulsory voting, I do see it's benefits).
That's fine if you don't like the messenger. Here's what I'd like to know, was anything they said a lie?
You don't like the message so you kill the messenger, that does not change the truth. If they lied then what's the truth? Do you have counterexamples?
I have an issue with the idea that picking one single example of one town in Texas from a report made by an institute funded by people with vested interests in discrediting the renewable energy industry should be taken as the irrefutable truth. If you want to discredit renewables I won't even get up out of my armchair to answer the phone until you have got multiple sources of data that do not have a massive conflict of interest, like a conservative think tank funded by oil companies and your dataset consists of quite a lot more than a single town in Texas that signed some rather ill conceived long term fixed price contracts.
Because stating that renewables are not currently competitive...
...is total bullshit in 2019. It will be even more bullshit in 2020, 2021, 2022...you get it.
Ezekiel 23:20
Just Millennial SJW types. They have never seen a real recession so they think these things are the worst things that can happen.
The Great Recession hit at the same time that most millennials were attempting to enter the job market. It hurt that generation worse than any other. Despite this, I think that it's wise to view catastrophes caused by climate change as, if not "the worst things that can happen," to be worse than temporary economic woes caused by a recession. I have children, and I will probably one day have grandchildren. It would be pretty shitty of me to prioritize short term amenities over the sustainability of life on the planet that my progeny will depend on. Unlike the baby boomers, I don't wish take a mortgage out on my children's future for my own benefit.
Of course, asserting that one has to choose between economic stability and sound climate policy is a false dichotomy anyway.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."