We might be closer to changing course on climate change than we realized : worldnews

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 52 points 2 months ago (1 children)

[–] WhyDoYouPersist@lemmy.world 41 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Last year, more solar panels were installed in China — the world’s largest carbon emitter — than the US has installed in its entire history.

This is fucking awesome news.

[+] nyar@lemmy.world -10 points 2 months ago (5 children)

There aren't enough rare earth minerals on the earth to create the necessary equipment for solar, wind, etc to meet our current energy needs. The answer isn't just green energy, we need to actively contract the size of the economy and make less shit that we then throw away.

[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 25 points 2 months ago (2 children)

There aren’t enough rare earth minerals on the earth to create the necessary equipment for solar, wind, etc to meet our current energy needs.

Do you have a source on that?

[–] Clent@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Source: His ass.

[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

That's my hunch but let's see if OP replies.

I will say that of any topic, renewable energy has by far the most straight up bullshit thrown around.

[–] nyar@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/06/carmakers-switch-to-electric-vehicles-strain-supply-of-battery-minerals/

https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions/mineral-requirements-for-clean-energy-transitions

https://thebulletin.org/2024/04/one-problem-for-renewables-not-enough-rare-earths-one-solution-recycling-but-theres-a-hitch/

We aren't doing the recycling necessary to reclaim used materials from ewaste that is needed. While we may "have enough" materials to build enough renewable energy to meet our current needs initially, those materials will eventually need to be replaced, and unless we degrowth the energy output we currently need to be met will only grow. Those materials are only going to get harder and harder to extract, requiring higher and higher fuel consumption as those minerals aren't located in urban centers with easy access to the electrical grid, they will require higher and higher fuel consumption for ICEs, internal combustion engines.

This also isn't considering the continued growth in consumer electronics and the integration of electronics in public and private infrastructure that use those same minerals taking those minerals away from the use in renewables. Then there is the damage to the environment and people that mining those minerals requires, nor the damage that recycling ewaste does to the environment and people.

Without a socialist revolution in the core capitalist countries (global north), the continued growth is going to mean that they will consume the majority of rare earth minerals for both products and renewables, while pushing the impacts on environment and people onto global south countries, until they either refuse to do the damage to themselves or collapse under the strain of climate change, or both. In turn, that will mean a global shift to fascism as capital seeks to protect itself at all cost. Which then will lead to climate wars, over resources, and denying those to people outside the global north.

Renewables are part of the solution, but without socialism and degrowth to consumption levels of that of Cuba, the focus of renewables as the only solution is a pipe dream.

Read How To Blow Up A Pipeline, or Socialist States and the Environment.

[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

"Sodium ion devices do not need critical materials, relying on abundant sodium instead of lithium, and no cobalt or nickel. As lithium ion prices rose in 2022, amid predictions of material shortages, sodium ion was tipped as a rival and interest remains strong, even as lithium ion prices have started to fall again."

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/03/22/sodium-ion-batteries-a-viable-alternative-to-lithium/

[–] dink@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago

Buy used. Compost organics. Upgrade when and only when needed.

[–] Brokkr@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, and stop having sex and listening to rock and role.

That's a solution that just isn't going to work. We as a society need to plan for using more and more energy. Therefore, we need to create cleaner and cleaner ways to generate that energy. If solar can be implemented until we scale up fission, that's great. We can then rely on fission for a few hundred years until we get to fusion.

People will complain about the dangers of fission only while they ignore the dangers of fossil fuels and aren't required to use them. As soon as fossil fuels start running out, then fission isn't going to sound so bad. Frankly, it shouldn't sound bad now.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

Frankly, fission never should've sounded too bad.

[–] Unmapped@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

We do need to cut down on overproduction, but nuclear energy is the real solution. We need to be building a bunch of state of the ark nuclear fission plants. They are super safe now, and barely put off waste anymore. They just take so long to build and are so expensive. Plus because of miss information hard to find a place people will let you build one.

[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They just take so long to build and are so expensive.

Exactly. So why advocate for them when renewables + storage are so much quicker and cheaper to build. You're not making sense.

[–] Unmapped@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Well if you read the comment I was replying too.

There aren't enough rare earth minerals on the earth to create the necessary equipment for solar, wind, etc to meet our current energy needs.

Even if he is wrong. Mining so many is very harmful. Much better off building nuclear plants. Along with some solar/wind/hydro of course.

The problem with taking long to build and expensive is easily solve if the governments build them. Currently in the US it doesn't happen cause it's left to private companies, and they take a long time to become profitable.

[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Mining so many is very harmful. Much better off building nuclear plants.

Where do you think uranium comes from?

[–] Unmapped@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I don't know for sure, but I bet it takes a lot more mining to make enough solar panels + battery's than powering enough fission plants. Plus solar panels wear out and have to be redone every 20-30 years from what I understand. Not counting maintenance and ones that get broke from natural disasters.

As I said though. I want both. solar/wind/etc definitely have a place. Just don't think its good enough. Maybe if we have a massive break through on battery tech they will be.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Intermittent power sources could be good enough if people were willing to accept intermittency i.e. get used to not having air conditioning at night, get used to only cooking when the Sun is up, get used to nightshifts no longer being possible, etc. It's not fun, but it's doable.

[–] nyar@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

It needs to be this exactly. We need degrowth.

[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I'm sorry, not to be too much of a dick but you're just typing out your opinions without bothering to check if they have any basis in reality. I'm not going to spend my time tracking down sources if you're not.

[–] Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml 29 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Nope not falling for it. Anything less than an anticapitalist revolution isn't going to do jack shit.

Still overexploiting, overproducing and then sending it straight to the landfill. There's no reforming that cosmic level of waste.

[+] doom_and_gloom@lemmy.ml 18 points 2 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] Microplasticbrain@lemm.ee 4 points 2 months ago

Relevant username

[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 months ago

As a middle class kind of person. My boss still wants me to drive my gasoline powered vehicle an hour each way to get to an office so I can work on systems remotely.

.... Or at least, that's what my old boss wanted me to do. I left that job, but there's a lot of people in a situation where they can and should work from home and never even need a vehicle, yet, because of reasons, they have to get dressed and emit greenhouses gasses to satisfy some capitalists need to control and oversee everything you do to earn a living.

Ridiculous and harmful. Not just to the environment, but to workers, financially and mentally. It's completely unnecessary.

If we want to get serious about this stuff, how about we reduce how much we need to rely on vehicles as a first fucking step. We're pushing electric vehicles on everyone, and a large portion of the population doesn't even really need a car, except to satisfy their bosses need to be in control.

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago

better late than never

[–] collapse_already@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

In other news, 2023 broke 2022 record for most carbon emissions ever. 2024 will break that record again. Renewable energy is just added to the energy we consume. No displacement on a global level (if some country uses less, the oil companies just sell it to the next eager market). We won't see meaningful declines in emissions until the population begins to fall instead of grow, crops fail from climate chaos (starving us), and most importantly we begin to run out of carbon to burn. I fully expect to see solar-powered oil wells extracting oil that would otherwise have a negative EROI.

The other bad news is that completely displacing oil would require more of various non-renewable resources than exist on Earth. To get where we need to go, we will need a decline in lifestyle, and covid already demonstrated how unwilling many are to that concept (staying home and wearing masks to save lives was too much of a burden for many).

[–] doubtingtammy@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You don't know that emissions will only start to fall when the "population begins to fall". That's just a wild guess on your part.

To get where we need to go, we will need a decline in lifestyle

This only makes sense if you're a millionaire. You're completely missing sight of whose "lifestyles" are fucking us over. The Pentagon is one of the biggest polluters in the world. Oil companies have coated the earth in micro plastics. But you think a "decline in lifestyle" is needed to improve the environment?

[–] walter_wiggles@lemmy.nz 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This should give corporations hope that they can still turn things around.

[–] Shizu@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

To the negative - that is. They only care about money now. Not what comes later. :(

[–] KillingAndKindess@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 months ago

🥹

World News

Rules: