Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Leo pfp
Leo
@lsn
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?
3 replies
0 recast
7 reactions
Dan Romero pfp
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Carbon emissions declined during the first Trump presidency. https://www.climatechangenews.com/2020/10/06/us-emissions-four-years-president-trump/
4 replies
0 recast
3 reactions
Leo pfp
Leo
@lsn
Thanks for the link, two points from it The IEA is quoted as “can the US do more? Definitely. Can the US be a leader of the global energy transition? Definitely. So therefore the US politics will matter more.” And this is largely due to the general trend away from fossil fuels, which nonetheless slowed down Generally the article is critical of Trump on climate; maybe because it’s biased, but still: overall this article makes me more confident in my view of ‘Trump is bad for climate, so thank god solar is getting so cheap’ Is there anything Trump did with the purpose of improving the climate? This is what would change my mind
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Dan Romero pfp
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
The primary cause in emissions dropping during that period was moving from coal to natural gas.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Leo pfp
Leo
@lsn
Yes this is what the article says too (did you read it?). If the argument for ‘Trump is good for climate’ is ‘Trump is good for fracking and natural gas’, then I’m not convinced. There are far better ways to support the climate.
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Romero pfp
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
> 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
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
BrixBountyFarm 🎩 pfp
BrixBountyFarm 🎩
@brixbounty
Though tough to argue that higher oil or nat gas prices are good for the economy at large. In which case the push to reduce these via drill baby drill mentality helps Americans not directly impacted by the environmental and social harms of the industry. I figure we are in “the bridge to nuclear period” if we want to be serious about carbon globally while raising the quality of life for everyone.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction