I've always wondered if it would be possible to humiliate companies/elites into changing their behavior by maintaining well-publicied and well-informed directories of the most harmful entities to society
We can start with: is the top N% of pollution generators, independently tracking particulates, greenhouse gasses, plastic waste, pfas, fly ash, water pollutants, etc.
The "elites" in this situation are hundreds of millions of Americans driving trucks through the drive-thru at Hardees. It's not three guys you can browbeat into submission. It's an entire broken culture.
nice rant but no -- the data on the site shows that individual transportation is NOT at the top of emitters; rather it is industrial infrastructure that creates fuels and industrial infrastructure using fuels for heavy materials.
Guess what "industrial infrastructure that creates fuels and industrial infrastructure using fuels for heavy materials" is overwhelmingly used for? Hint, it's not for mega yachts and Musk/Bezos rockets.
Even if this was the only/biggest source, you can browbeat the automotive industry to stop making so many heavy, gas guzzling vehicles. You can browbeat politicians into prioritizing public transportation & vehicle regulations over lobbying efforts from the automotive industry.
Our "broken culture" isn't innate in us, it was designed.
Or states can adopt the minor and simple policies of California, where incrementally higher registration fees by weight, commercial registration for all pickups, and fuel taxes only slightly higher than other states and nowhere near as high as other developed nations have led to a private vehicle fleet with no trucks among the top-selling vehicles.
It most certainly is the fault of a bunch of blue collar working stiffs grabbing a sausage biscuit and a coffee on the way to a job that a bunch of sanctimonious SWEs rely on every day in a thousand different ways, but pretend like are unimportant dinosaurs in a digital world.
I mean, all that electricity and raw materials mined for those 15 billion computing devices running all the shite social media code that SV SWEs have foisted upon the world doesn’t have any impact at all…it’s just that poor bastard in his F150 and his damned sandwich.
Elites: I think you're overestimating how much of a contribution "elites" add to co2 consumption. They might emit disproportionately higher co2 than the median citizen, but that's canceled out by the fact that they're so few of them.
Companies: Works great in theory[1], not so well in practice[2]. Turns out most people only pay lip service to climate change/environment, and scatter at the prospect of paying out of pocket for it.
Interestingly, Washington State passed a carbon fee proposal that's basically the same as that, shortly after. It's a widely used tool, because it's efficient and therefore cheap.
It's only really the US that lags on putting a price on emissions. Mostly because their legislation mechanisms are in the pocket of big oil.
>Interestingly, Washington State passed a carbon fee proposal that's basically the same as that, shortly after
Source? It took me a few minutes to find what the piece of legislation was called (Climate Commitment Act), but it's surprisingly hard to find what the bill actually does. The first result I found was a website from the state of washington[1], which only contains vague statements like "A market-based solution" and "Cleaner air for overburdened communities", without actual concrete measures. The second result from washington state university[2] isn't much better. It seems like the bill institutes some sort of cap and trade system with details to be hammered out later, which isn't the same as a straight carbon tax (as proposed in the ballot measure) and the financial impact is much less clear. I suspect the latter is why it was passed at all.
Cap and trade and carbon fees are broadly interchangeable as pricing mechanisms.
Each specific location has carve outs and exemptions and phase-ins etc. but basically, farmers will be able to earn roughly $40 dollars per ton of emissions avoided, and other large industries will be paying $40 per ton of emissions and that figure will change as they measure progress to meet their commitments to reduce emmisions by 95%.
It might also drop to $30 if they link up their market with California and Quebec.
For comparison, the ballot measure intended to:
> enact a carbon emissions fee of $15 per metric ton of carbon beginning on January 1, 2020;
> increase the fee by $2 annually until the state's greenhouse gas reduction goals are met;
and
> use the revenue from the fee to fund various programs and projects related to the environment.
Looking at Europe it is absolutely bewildering how DRAX stands out like a sore thumb. Absolutely criminal that that thing hasn't been shut down yet. Even more criminal that they get away with receiving 'green' funding.
Also we in the EU should make a particularly large effort in funding the replacement of Coal plants in Poland. Insane how much they disproportionately contribute to emissions.
We should be doing everything in our power to close Drax, Polish coal plants and Norwegian oil fields in the North Sea. Instead we're subsidizing fossil fuels and filling up Putin's warchest along with our filthy cars. [0]
I'm guessing you're referring to "Drax Power Station" in the UK that ranks #52?
Having no prior knowledge of "Drax Group" it seems to be this group:
> Drax Group PLC is a power generation business. The principal downstream enterprises are based in the UK and include Drax Power Limited, which runs a biomass and coal fueled power station, Drax power station, near Selby in North Yorkshire. The Group also runs an international biomass supply chain business.
22.10 MT from that power station doesn't seem to even come close to some of the oil and gas fields in the US. Maybe it's actually pretty green compared to what it could have been? I have no idea, so happy to be corrected.
Somewhat apples and pears comparison, Drax is burning wood pelets shipped from Canada to the UK (CO2 emissions). Oil/Gas Fields in the US emit Methane (CH4 emissions) which has 28x times more 'warming potential' than CO2 emissions.
But I agree that Oil/Gas methane leaks are a much bigger problem than what the media reports.
> Even more criminal that they get away with receiving 'green' funding.
It may sound counterintuitive, but corporations like DRAX are exactly who need this funding, because without it, they would continue to not give a shit and just pay greenwashing lip service to these issues. If you give them the money specifically for that, then you are at least increasing the odds there is positive change from the places that need to change the most. (i.e the largest polluters).
Everything is about incentives. If you create this big prize of 100s of millions of dollars to receive, with the caveat that you have to show effort in going green, then you've created an incentive that wasn't there previously for the positive change you hope to see.
You're not incorrect but it doesn't feel very good to incentivize "bad actors" (tempted to say "assholes") with a carrot. Especially a carrot paid by the victims of the actor. Most people would probably rather see the stick being used
We already got rid of Russian gas and nukes. Can't get rid of coal in nearest future, simply because energy prices would go bananas and then energy grid would fold.
What I don't see is any medium long term plan to roll out Renewable storage or Nuclear supplementation.
So there is no serious EU Energy policy at the moment that allows us to get rid of hydrocarbons for energy production... in any timeline in the foreseable future.
And there won't be any reasonable energy policy ever, because EU boxed itself into a corner. There is almost religious refusal of nuclear power plants from some members and unfortunately renewables are not cutting it during winter. So we will be running coal power plants until 2050-2075
The EU has a plan, and they stepped it up a little with RePowerEU in response to Putin's invasion giving them a bit more political leeway.
It won't please people who had their opinions on renewables mysteriously frozen 15 years ago, but for most people it's not bad. World leading in fact, but in a world that's generally not doing very well.
not if the source is carbon neutral/negative. Trees grown on a tree farm and converted to wood pellets where the tree farm is replanted to regrow trees for harvesting is not really a net contributor to increase CO2. The CO2 is pulled from the air by the trees and reemitted during burning and then reabsorbed by another generation of trees.
Now, there are certainly other energy costs of harvesting, processing and transport that come into play and shipping from CA to UK might tilt the balance away from green more than locally grown trees would. It is still likely much less of a greenhouse peril than burning coal.
I mean the fact that Drax is not solvent without UK government funds and the fact they have to import wood pellets from Canada/US should give you a pretty good idea that none of this is sustainable or carbon neutral.
I would much rather see those funds allocated to actual renewable sources instead of wasting time/money with wood furnaces and arguing if they are sustainable/renewable.
Because combustion and processing efficiencies for wood are less than coal, the immediate impact of substituting wood for coal is an increase in atmospheric CO2 relative to coal. The payback time for this carbon debt ranges from 44–104 years after clearcut, depending on forest type—assuming the land remains forest. Surprisingly, replanting hardwood forests with fast-growing pine plantations raises the CO2 impact of wood because the equilibrium carbon density of plantations is lower than natural forests. Further, projected growth in wood harvest for bioenergy would increase atmospheric CO2 for at least a century because new carbon debt continuously exceeds NPP. Assuming biofuels are carbon neutral may worsen irreversible impacts of climate change before benefits accrue. [0]
> I mean the fact that Drax is not solvent without UK government funds and the fact they have to import wood pellets from Canada/US should give you a pretty good idea that none of this is sustainable or carbon neutral.
I doesn't indicate that at all. "Sustainable" from a business point of view and "Sustainable" from a carbon production point of view are two entirely different things.
Additionally, my mostly-ignorant intuitive sense is that the wood ecosystem in US + Canada is an important maintainer of local wealth and literally sucking all the fuel out of it to burn on another continent is harmful to Canadians' well-being.
It's about 1/7,000,000 of global emissions. Less than any country I believe (except maybe Vatican City, but that's not listed on this map). Larger than many small towns and airports.
Has to depend on how you allocate. If you count Catholic Church funding of overseas missionary trips and allocate those all to Vatican City, it probably ends up pretty high or maybe not "high" but at least not the lowest of all countries. If you allocate them to the country of origin of the donations, then probably not.
Sadly most of the datasets I'm seeing lump the Holy See in with Italy.
An interesting breakdown would be "carbon emissions controlled" - the US "controls" way more emissions than the US directly makes, as so many emissions from other countries are direct results of US spend.
This is one of the things you have to be careful with data like this - pollution can be counted multiple times, especially if you are comparing different datasets.
Okay, but how does it relate to the original question? According to the website for the OP, I could easily find feedlots/industrial sites with co2 emissions that are orders of magnitude higher, so I'm going to conclude that no celebrity's emissions gets anywhere near "fractional percent of industry".
I don't support a "name and shame" approach, but if I did then I think this would be effective. That's essentially what it is now, just targeting corps. Celebrities have a massively higher amount of power than non celeb people, and higher power than most corps. Putting the spotlight on them would be effective.
Would be cool to see how much of China's pollution is exported to other countries. In other words, how much of their pollution is for domestic activity and how much is for making stuff that we in the west consume.
Seems bewildering. Including transport? So, buying tons of consumerism stuff from China with awful pollution policies plus transport, only impacts for 7.7% of our emissions if we repatriated it here with China’s level of pollution? That’s can’t be right.
That's because you're only one side of the equation (ie. imports). 7.7% is the net effect, so you have to consider the other side (exports) as well. If each american is importing 5 co2e of cheap plastic shit from china, but you're also exporting 5 co2e of high tech shit to china, then the net result is 0.
When you break it down most of the emission you are directly responsible for are
1) Energy production from Coal/Gas (household/office Heating, AC, electricity)
2) Road transport.
[0]
IMO all this discussion about meat consumption and trinkets from China distracts from the big picture. Which is:
- We need to find a way to get rid of Coal/Gas energy production (i.e. solve the whole issue of Renewables intermitency).
- We need to solve the problem of road transport without ICEs.
The main barrier for those two is policy and funding. It has bugger all to do with consumer behaviour. Which is not to say that we shouldn't all curb individual GHG emissions.
Futhermore, the pollution regs here are 100x what they are elsewhere (e.g., China). The myth is jobs get offshored for labour costs. That helps, but it's the loose environmental regs that make manufacturing so attractive.
No, digging into the data it looks like "International transport" is listed as a separate "country", so it doesn't count toward any single country's emissions.
Too bad, as I know some things have been brought back stateside simply because shipping costs are too high (think: plastic trashcans at Walmart) so I'd suspect the shipping of Chinese goods is a major portion of the total carbon cost.
How does the distribution actually break down? Are a smallish number of bigtime distinct sources the large portion of the problem? I don't really know, but my intuition is that it's more of a long tail thing, with many many players contributing similarly.
From what I can tell on the map, it indeed seems quite a heavy long tail, with what was surprising to me, particularly heavy emissions from midsized industrial sites.
The top 50 emitters make up about 4% of the total, which is a lot, but perhaps not as much as you might think. They largely seem to consist of oil and gas fields.
I would've expected the large cities, including the smaller companies without individual mentions within to form the bulk of emissions. However, you see things like megacities like London with only 4.4Mt of co2 emissions, while there's tons of random cement factories around with 1Mt of co2 emissions. Power plants also make up less of the emissions than I expected, except for those in China, which seem less efficient than those in the west (except you DRAX and Belchatow)
It looks like if we found ways to significantly reduce emissions of: oil/gas fields, cement plants, steel plant, coal mines, airports and Chinese power plants, that'd make a huge impact.
I was prepared with all the skepticism I can muster, but I am pleasantly surprised. It correctly identifies the streets of Los Angeles as a top-20 emitter. Really getting to the heart of things, the opposite of "100 corporations cause climate change" B.S.
This is mostly just political posturing on the part of the Democratic Party, which as far as I can tell is not any more interested in halting US fossil fuel production than the Republican party is. In fact, not a single country with large oil and gas reserves and an active export industry wants to see their revenue collapse due to something like an international ban on the trade in fossil fuels - and this is true regardless of their political ideology, i.e. capitalism vs socialism or authoritarian theocracy or whatever. Venezuela, the United States, Norway, Iran, Russia, Saudi & UAE, etc. all want to keep running their export programs for the next three decades at least. I mean, in the USA the Obama Administration oversaw the fracking boom for eight years and now that's the basis of the LNG exports to Europe.
As far as tracking the big polluters, that's more misdirection. Yes, it'd be nice if oil refineries were run tightly enough that they had no local emissions, but those refined products are all going into the fuel tanks of jet planes, ships, trucks, power plants and personal vehicles, from whene they will be combusted to CO2 and injected into the atmosphere, so does it really matter where the emissions take place? This is not rocket science, just basic accounting. The end result is the same, here's a model of the yearly cycle:
If countries had really wanted to slow fossil-fueled global warming, they'd have started a 1% per year replacement program (renewables for fossil fuels) in the 1980s, and we'd be at a ~40% renewable ~60% fossil energy mix by now (at least). As it stands today, every single fossil fuel company and nation-state producer is looking to maintain current production levels for the next 30 years, if they can manage it. Enough with the hypocrisy and two-faced posturing at these 'global climate meetups', already.
Finally, this 'hope' business is ridiculous. The tipping point has come and gone, there are numerous global carbon models and observational data showing that even with 100% renewables tomorrow, warming will steadily continue due to permafrost melt and carbon outgassing from marine sediments. The last time CO2 levels were this high was in the Pliocene, ~2-5 million years ago, and that's where the climate is heading. Hence, human civilization will just have to adapt to these new conditions, which will be difficult and expensive and disruptive. However, since noticeable changes in climate (i.e. clearly distinguishable from the noise in the data) only appear on a ~10 year running average, this could be accomplished, with massive infrastructure projects.
However, making efforts to adapt to new conditions would require admitting that fossil fuels drive global warming, which would create more pressure to switch to renewables, and that would be resisted by entrenched economic interests... sort of a Catch-22 situation.
thoughtful but too simplistic -- each industrial economy is filled with PRO and ANTI forces for the last decades.. the superficial unity is actually enforced by game rules underneath.. conflicts internally are daily. Its obvious now that the game rules give "decision makers" a very large lever to enforce status quo, while entrepreneurial and protest forces socially and economically bubble away.
I should probably have mentioned that it's the countries that have to import gas and oil, and which only have reserves of low-grade fossil fuels (i.e. coal) that are most active in developing non-fossil energy production (i.e. China, Japan, Germany). Africa is an interesting possibility, as there just isn't enough fossil fuel around to fuel industrial development there to the levels seen in the USA/Europe/Asia, meaning large-scale renewable is their only real option.
For example, California alone consumes about 2 million barrels of oil per day, with a population of 40 million people. Global oil production is about 90 million barrels per day. There are 1.1 billion people across the sub-Saharan Africa belt (Nigeria to Somalia). Assuming I've done the basic math right, and accounting for African oil use at present, if Africa were to consume as much oil per capita as California does, this would require an additional ~50 million barrels per day in global oil production, a greater than 50% increase.
>Yes, it'd be nice if oil refineries were run tightly enough that they had no local emissions, but those refined products are all going into the fuel tanks of jet planes, ships, trucks, power plants and personal vehicles, from whene they will be combusted to CO2 and injected into the atmosphere, so does it really matter where the emissions take place
If you can avoid waste at the refineries and the fields, less fossil fuels will have to be dig up to fulfill the same demand. Of course waste is an important issue to tackle. Sure, lowering demand or restricting supply may do more, but waste is often a relatively easy thing to tackle.
Pollution has costs and benefits. This focuses on the costs, which is fine and useful. But what would a map look like that attempted to show both sides of the equation? Which polluters emit least per arbitrary-unit-of-human-flourishing?
I don't know how to gather that data, so I don't know how to make that map. But it would display very differently a power plant that is mining for bitcoin with one that is keeping a lot of people from freezing in a region disrupted by war.
I only clicked on 15 or so from the areas that I have lived but they were all airports and land fills. That tells me that our personal consumption is a big problem and we as individuals can make a difference.
Quick disclaimer though I have always thought that pollution is more an individual consumption problem so I am biased to that conclusion.
This is always going to be the case. Corporations produce more to meet demands of consumers. If there was no demand, there would be no production and hence no subsequent pollution (if that consumption results in pollution).
Why do your power plants need to generate more power? Because we need more power now since more of us have more gadgets and bullshit to power.
Why does your local bottling company use so much plastic bottles? Because we think it's a genius idea to drink so much water out of single use plastic bottles.
I could think of hundreds of examples, but yes, we drive so much more than we think. Everything is connected in a web of relationships. We blame the big corporations so much, but at the end of the day the [overwhelming majority of ] corporations are there because there are individuals giving them dollars.
The problem, however, is this is effectively a truism, and doesn't really help to solve much in the immediate term. It takes generations to shape consumer habits.
> Corporations produce more to meet demands of consumers.
Let me rephrase:
Corporations produce more to meet demands of consumers....However corporations maximize GHG emissions in order to deliver at a lower cost and maximize their revenue.
Corporations are continually allowed to externalize production costs with environmental impact because no one is stopping them from doing so either by regulation or supply-side shortage.
The ability to deliver goods is dissociable from GHG emissions. This whole spin of making companies somehow victims of consumers is corporate bullshit.
Nobody said victims, that's your own lens coming into play there.
Everyone wants cheap, fast, convenient, and quick. Everyone. I suppose if you don't think this plays into corporate behavior then we don't have much of a chance of discussion here.
Perhaps I misspoke by saying consumers, what I should say is, more broadly, people. Corporations get away with it because politicians, local or otherwise, don't hold them accountable, because the consumers (people) don't vote people in that will, or vote the people out that are not. For what reasons? Laziness? Too busy being poor (yes definitely some of this)? Indifference? Imperfect information? A little bit of this and that? God only knows. We can only presume.
Either way, you cannot escape the web of relationships we all live in on this earth is my broader point.
> I only clicked on 15 or so from the areas that I have lived but they were all airports and land fills. That tells me that our personal consumption is a big problem.
I only clicked on 15 or so from the areas that I have lived but they were all Coal/Biomass plants, Steel Industry. This tells me that government policy both on energy and environmental standards is a big problem. However excessive corporate influence on government policy limits our ability to implement the necessary regulations to end this.
Just to prove the point that cherry picking anecdata allows you to draw from the data whatever you want.
The largest polluter in the world is the U.S. Government. Tracking ships and whatever is all fine but there is a reason why the U.S. Gov ops itself out of every piece of climate legislation. The insane pollution I saw in the military would send a whole lot of people to jail if a company did them.
I imagine a dystopian future where military might from a world superpower is deployed against oil extracting infrastructure -- this happening, of course, after such a superpower has mostly transitioned away from fossil fuel use. This, of course, is just imagination in my head, but it strikes me as somewhat possible. The future is bleak -- and it's easy to imagine drastic choices being made in a bleak future. In this context, this website almost looks like a target list for such a military endeavour. This behavior, of course, would result in severe famine for those still dependent on fossil fuels.
One can imagine all sorts of dystopian futures. Here's a much more realistic one: the climate goes to hell and there is war, famine, and mass extinction. Democratic governments are replaced with authoritarian governments in elections because populaces want protection from their neighbors and are willing to sacrifice their autonomy to someone who promises to shoot their enemies. International cooperation breaks down.
Imagining the world not doing anything about climate change is a lot easier than imagining them doing too much. We can already see the former.
I wish the mobility company headquarters would also be named, even though it would amount to double counting. For example the entire fleet of VW group emitted 364MtCO2[0] in 2019 which is equivalent to the entire country of Mexico[1] with some change.
Interestingly airports are listed, but military airfields are not.
I know they are much harder to track, but I wonder how MCAS Miramar + NAS North Island + the LCAC's at Camp Pendleton contribute in comparison to SAN. Looking at about 150gph for H-60's, 1500gph for F-35's, and 1000gph for LCACs. I know the H-60 squadrons alone will push something north of 15k flight hours locally per year (maybe a lot more; I don't keep up on the numbers), and the LCACs push a couple thousand (again, not 100% sure). I have no idea on the F-35's.
I can say that one running joke in the Navy that is actually true is that the fighters dump more fuel making trap weight than the helo's burn. That can't be good for the ocean either.
97 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 194 ms ] threadMake N% approximately 10%.
You've then got a pretty good start on "harmful".
https://climatetrace.org/explore
Our "broken culture" isn't innate in us, it was designed.
The market would adapt quite quickly.
https://mde.maryland.gov/programs/air/mobilesources/pages/st...
No surprises, it's the "states you'd actually want to live in" overrepresented as per usual.
I mean, all that electricity and raw materials mined for those 15 billion computing devices running all the shite social media code that SV SWEs have foisted upon the world doesn’t have any impact at all…it’s just that poor bastard in his F150 and his damned sandwich.
Companies: Works great in theory[1], not so well in practice[2]. Turns out most people only pay lip service to climate change/environment, and scatter at the prospect of paying out of pocket for it.
[1] https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/yc...
[2] https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Initiative_1631,_Carbon_E...
It's only really the US that lags on putting a price on emissions. Mostly because their legislation mechanisms are in the pocket of big oil.
Source? It took me a few minutes to find what the piece of legislation was called (Climate Commitment Act), but it's surprisingly hard to find what the bill actually does. The first result I found was a website from the state of washington[1], which only contains vague statements like "A market-based solution" and "Cleaner air for overburdened communities", without actual concrete measures. The second result from washington state university[2] isn't much better. It seems like the bill institutes some sort of cap and trade system with details to be hammered out later, which isn't the same as a straight carbon tax (as proposed in the ballot measure) and the financial impact is much less clear. I suspect the latter is why it was passed at all.
[1] https://ecology.wa.gov/Air-Climate/Climate-Commitment-Act
[2] https://csanr.wsu.edu/the-climate-commitment-act-is-coming/
Each specific location has carve outs and exemptions and phase-ins etc. but basically, farmers will be able to earn roughly $40 dollars per ton of emissions avoided, and other large industries will be paying $40 per ton of emissions and that figure will change as they measure progress to meet their commitments to reduce emmisions by 95%.
It might also drop to $30 if they link up their market with California and Quebec.
For comparison, the ballot measure intended to:
> enact a carbon emissions fee of $15 per metric ton of carbon beginning on January 1, 2020;
> increase the fee by $2 annually until the state's greenhouse gas reduction goals are met;
and
> use the revenue from the fee to fund various programs and projects related to the environment.
Elites fly a lot. Own multiple homes. Multiple cars. Etc. I'm not so sure the delta is that wide.
No it's not. They set a bad example. We can clearly see they put their own pride before environmental conservation.
How can you expect common people to make sacrifices that the elites are not making?
AI and satelites to generate independant GHG monitoring systems, so you can check on countries you distrust or who don't release any data.
The big reveal seems to be oil and gas production underestimating their contribution, which should have interesting repurcussions.
I submitted the Press Release direct from the website with the data which has more on their methodology here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33587747
It made sense to me, I think you read the headline like the abbreviation "AI" and not like name "AL" maybe?
Saved you a click.
Looking at Europe it is absolutely bewildering how DRAX stands out like a sore thumb. Absolutely criminal that that thing hasn't been shut down yet. Even more criminal that they get away with receiving 'green' funding.
Also we in the EU should make a particularly large effort in funding the replacement of Coal plants in Poland. Insane how much they disproportionately contribute to emissions.
..despite opening this on my desktop. I guess my browser window is taller than it is wide, but that doesn't make it a mobile browser.
[0]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-022-01122-6
https://rmx.news/poland/german-minister-threatens-to-use-leg...
I'm guessing you're referring to "Drax Power Station" in the UK that ranks #52?
Having no prior knowledge of "Drax Group" it seems to be this group:
> Drax Group PLC is a power generation business. The principal downstream enterprises are based in the UK and include Drax Power Limited, which runs a biomass and coal fueled power station, Drax power station, near Selby in North Yorkshire. The Group also runs an international biomass supply chain business.
22.10 MT from that power station doesn't seem to even come close to some of the oil and gas fields in the US. Maybe it's actually pretty green compared to what it could have been? I have no idea, so happy to be corrected.
Somewhat apples and pears comparison, Drax is burning wood pelets shipped from Canada to the UK (CO2 emissions). Oil/Gas Fields in the US emit Methane (CH4 emissions) which has 28x times more 'warming potential' than CO2 emissions.
But I agree that Oil/Gas methane leaks are a much bigger problem than what the media reports.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Drax
It may sound counterintuitive, but corporations like DRAX are exactly who need this funding, because without it, they would continue to not give a shit and just pay greenwashing lip service to these issues. If you give them the money specifically for that, then you are at least increasing the odds there is positive change from the places that need to change the most. (i.e the largest polluters).
Everything is about incentives. If you create this big prize of 100s of millions of dollars to receive, with the caveat that you have to show effort in going green, then you've created an incentive that wasn't there previously for the positive change you hope to see.
The reality companies like Drax should be insolvent and the staff retrained for another industry.
What I don't see is any medium long term plan to roll out Renewable storage or Nuclear supplementation.
So there is no serious EU Energy policy at the moment that allows us to get rid of hydrocarbons for energy production... in any timeline in the foreseable future.
The EU has a plan, and they stepped it up a little with RePowerEU in response to Putin's invasion giving them a bit more political leeway.
It won't please people who had their opinions on renewables mysteriously frozen 15 years ago, but for most people it's not bad. World leading in fact, but in a world that's generally not doing very well.
What's your issue with it?
Now, there are certainly other energy costs of harvesting, processing and transport that come into play and shipping from CA to UK might tilt the balance away from green more than locally grown trees would. It is still likely much less of a greenhouse peril than burning coal.
I would much rather see those funds allocated to actual renewable sources instead of wasting time/money with wood furnaces and arguing if they are sustainable/renewable.
i.e. it was always about the money...
[0] DOI 10.1088/1748-9326/aaa512
I doesn't indicate that at all. "Sustainable" from a business point of view and "Sustainable" from a carbon production point of view are two entirely different things.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63089348
Additionally, my mostly-ignorant intuitive sense is that the wood ecosystem in US + Canada is an important maintainer of local wealth and literally sucking all the fuel out of it to burn on another continent is harmful to Canadians' well-being.
Taylor Swift | 8.293,54 tonnes of CO2
An interesting breakdown would be "carbon emissions controlled" - the US "controls" way more emissions than the US directly makes, as so many emissions from other countries are direct results of US spend.
It's about 7.7%. In other words, if we factor in our imports, our co2 emissions would be 7.7% higher than our territorial emissions.
https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2
1) Energy production from Coal/Gas (household/office Heating, AC, electricity)
2) Road transport.
[0]
IMO all this discussion about meat consumption and trinkets from China distracts from the big picture. Which is:
- We need to find a way to get rid of Coal/Gas energy production (i.e. solve the whole issue of Renewables intermitency).
- We need to solve the problem of road transport without ICEs.
The main barrier for those two is policy and funding. It has bugger all to do with consumer behaviour. Which is not to say that we shouldn't all curb individual GHG emissions.
[0] https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2020/09/Emissions-by-sect...
The top 50 emitters make up about 4% of the total, which is a lot, but perhaps not as much as you might think. They largely seem to consist of oil and gas fields.
I would've expected the large cities, including the smaller companies without individual mentions within to form the bulk of emissions. However, you see things like megacities like London with only 4.4Mt of co2 emissions, while there's tons of random cement factories around with 1Mt of co2 emissions. Power plants also make up less of the emissions than I expected, except for those in China, which seem less efficient than those in the west (except you DRAX and Belchatow)
It looks like if we found ways to significantly reduce emissions of: oil/gas fields, cement plants, steel plant, coal mines, airports and Chinese power plants, that'd make a huge impact.
As far as tracking the big polluters, that's more misdirection. Yes, it'd be nice if oil refineries were run tightly enough that they had no local emissions, but those refined products are all going into the fuel tanks of jet planes, ships, trucks, power plants and personal vehicles, from whene they will be combusted to CO2 and injected into the atmosphere, so does it really matter where the emissions take place? This is not rocket science, just basic accounting. The end result is the same, here's a model of the yearly cycle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1SgmFa0r04
If countries had really wanted to slow fossil-fueled global warming, they'd have started a 1% per year replacement program (renewables for fossil fuels) in the 1980s, and we'd be at a ~40% renewable ~60% fossil energy mix by now (at least). As it stands today, every single fossil fuel company and nation-state producer is looking to maintain current production levels for the next 30 years, if they can manage it. Enough with the hypocrisy and two-faced posturing at these 'global climate meetups', already.
Finally, this 'hope' business is ridiculous. The tipping point has come and gone, there are numerous global carbon models and observational data showing that even with 100% renewables tomorrow, warming will steadily continue due to permafrost melt and carbon outgassing from marine sediments. The last time CO2 levels were this high was in the Pliocene, ~2-5 million years ago, and that's where the climate is heading. Hence, human civilization will just have to adapt to these new conditions, which will be difficult and expensive and disruptive. However, since noticeable changes in climate (i.e. clearly distinguishable from the noise in the data) only appear on a ~10 year running average, this could be accomplished, with massive infrastructure projects.
However, making efforts to adapt to new conditions would require admitting that fossil fuels drive global warming, which would create more pressure to switch to renewables, and that would be resisted by entrenched economic interests... sort of a Catch-22 situation.
For example, California alone consumes about 2 million barrels of oil per day, with a population of 40 million people. Global oil production is about 90 million barrels per day. There are 1.1 billion people across the sub-Saharan Africa belt (Nigeria to Somalia). Assuming I've done the basic math right, and accounting for African oil use at present, if Africa were to consume as much oil per capita as California does, this would require an additional ~50 million barrels per day in global oil production, a greater than 50% increase.
If you can avoid waste at the refineries and the fields, less fossil fuels will have to be dig up to fulfill the same demand. Of course waste is an important issue to tackle. Sure, lowering demand or restricting supply may do more, but waste is often a relatively easy thing to tackle.
I don't know how to gather that data, so I don't know how to make that map. But it would display very differently a power plant that is mining for bitcoin with one that is keeping a lot of people from freezing in a region disrupted by war.
Quick disclaimer though I have always thought that pollution is more an individual consumption problem so I am biased to that conclusion.
Why do your power plants need to generate more power? Because we need more power now since more of us have more gadgets and bullshit to power.
Why does your local bottling company use so much plastic bottles? Because we think it's a genius idea to drink so much water out of single use plastic bottles.
I could think of hundreds of examples, but yes, we drive so much more than we think. Everything is connected in a web of relationships. We blame the big corporations so much, but at the end of the day the [overwhelming majority of ] corporations are there because there are individuals giving them dollars.
The problem, however, is this is effectively a truism, and doesn't really help to solve much in the immediate term. It takes generations to shape consumer habits.
Let me rephrase:
Corporations produce more to meet demands of consumers....However corporations maximize GHG emissions in order to deliver at a lower cost and maximize their revenue.
Corporations are continually allowed to externalize production costs with environmental impact because no one is stopping them from doing so either by regulation or supply-side shortage.
The ability to deliver goods is dissociable from GHG emissions. This whole spin of making companies somehow victims of consumers is corporate bullshit.
Everyone wants cheap, fast, convenient, and quick. Everyone. I suppose if you don't think this plays into corporate behavior then we don't have much of a chance of discussion here.
Perhaps I misspoke by saying consumers, what I should say is, more broadly, people. Corporations get away with it because politicians, local or otherwise, don't hold them accountable, because the consumers (people) don't vote people in that will, or vote the people out that are not. For what reasons? Laziness? Too busy being poor (yes definitely some of this)? Indifference? Imperfect information? A little bit of this and that? God only knows. We can only presume.
Either way, you cannot escape the web of relationships we all live in on this earth is my broader point.
I only clicked on 15 or so from the areas that I have lived but they were all Coal/Biomass plants, Steel Industry. This tells me that government policy both on energy and environmental standards is a big problem. However excessive corporate influence on government policy limits our ability to implement the necessary regulations to end this.
Just to prove the point that cherry picking anecdata allows you to draw from the data whatever you want.
Imagining the world not doing anything about climate change is a lot easier than imagining them doing too much. We can already see the former.
[0] - https://www.volkswagen-planet-better.com/en/mission.html
[1] - https://www.statista.com/statistics/270499/co2-emissions-in-...
Just let me view it regardless?
I know they are much harder to track, but I wonder how MCAS Miramar + NAS North Island + the LCAC's at Camp Pendleton contribute in comparison to SAN. Looking at about 150gph for H-60's, 1500gph for F-35's, and 1000gph for LCACs. I know the H-60 squadrons alone will push something north of 15k flight hours locally per year (maybe a lot more; I don't keep up on the numbers), and the LCACs push a couple thousand (again, not 100% sure). I have no idea on the F-35's.
I can say that one running joke in the Navy that is actually true is that the fighters dump more fuel making trap weight than the helo's burn. That can't be good for the ocean either.
It needs to track individuals with multiple large, energy-sucking houses. Also, talking heads that travel by private jet.