energy

Putting an oil guy in charge of energy is going to push oil production up, prices down, and renewables out. 

From foreign policy to climate change, Americans chose America over the world. Can’t hugely blame them, but other countries are not taking the same route. 

That said, if, like me, you believe the learning curve of renewables is going to make solar much better on price than a barrel of oil in the near future, this isn’t terrible news. But Trump is pushing that timeline out by a few years, and a few years is meaningful  when you acknowledge how much damage extreme weather events are causing around the world. 

If you push oil prices down by a few dollars, but you get one extra hurricane which causes $50bn in damage, is it even worth it?

Carbon emissions declined during the first Trump presidency.

Be specific.     

leonasskau.co.uk //
Hosting /strategy, /leo, /geopolitics // built Culture3.com // online: leosn.xyz
d33m:mun

Carbon emissions declined during the first Trump presidency.

https://www.climatechangenews.com/2020/10/06/us-emissions-four-years-president-trump/

It’s not just the net direction of travel that matters — it’s the speed of travel too in this case.

We’ve already blown past the 1.5°C lesser goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement and we’re headed for a 2°C exceedance well before the end of the century.

Every ton of CO2 emissions that could have been avoided, but wasn’t, will have an increasingly expensive opportunity cost (the social cost of late carbon is greater than that of early carbon).

And the current valuation of Trump’s expected energy policies puts America (the world’s second largest scope 1 emitter, let alone scope 3) well off-course from where we need it to be (Biden’s policies would have also missed the mark, but by a lesser margin).

I’m not American and not a US resident, but I obviously share the same atmosphere so this concerns me just as much.

Methodology at

It’s not just the net direction of travel that matters — it’s the speed of travel too in this case.

We’ve already blown past the 1.5°C lesser goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement and we’re headed for a 2°C exceedance well before the end of the century.

Every ton of CO2 emissions that could have been avoided, but wasn’t, will have an increasingly expensive opportunity cost (the social cost of late carbon is greater than that of early carbon).

And the current valuation of Trump’s expected energy policies puts America (the world’s second largest scope 1 emitter, let alone scope 3) well off-course from where we need it to be (Biden’s policies would have also missed the mark, but by a lesser margin).

I’m not American and not a US resident, but I obviously share the same atmosphere so this concerns me just as much.

Methodology at https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-trump-election-win-could-add-4bn-tonnes-to-us-emissions-by-2030/

> And this is largely due to the general trend away from fossil fuels, which nonetheless slowed down

That's what I referring to. "Largely due"... to replacement with nat gas, not renewables (although they did increase and continue to do so!).

China and other developing countries are what matters. See chart below. And they have a reasonable claim that they didn't get a 100+ years to industrialize with carbon. They are also adding renewables, too.

I don't think making the claim the the US president's fossil fuel policy is going to reduce marginal number of intense hurricanes is the correct frame.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/does-it-matter-how-much-united-states-reduces-its-carbon-dioxide-emissions

Seems like the lobbying for current emissions is better directed at China.

PhD in aviation ∩ climate science | Aviator, diver, ETH maxi, nexialist | Host of /diving /ethfinance /eth-staker /geopolitics /science /singapore /thomas

That's a false dichotomy.

Firstly because this chart is misleading. While China's emissions are a massive problem on their own, they are largely driven by all the manufacturing being done there on behalf of US consumers (i.e, the chart displays Chinese scope 1 emissions but not US scope 3 emissions, which have effectively been outsourced). Furthermore, the per-capita emissions of the US are still nearly twice those of China (i.e., the chart does not normalize for population and living standards). Lastly, the chart stops in 2021, but in 2022 China installed as much solar capacity as the rest of the world combined, then doubled it in 2023; they are effectively leading the green transition worldwide.

Second because we're discussing here the policy choices of the new US president-elect, not Xi Jinping's, whose stated platform has been to unlock additional drilling of "liquid gold" on public land, offering tax breaks to O&G companies, approving new pipelines, discontinue wind subsidies, and roll back EV policies

Seems like the lobbying for current emissions is better directed at China. 

https://warpcast.com/dwr.eth/0x50ca52aa