Electricity vs. energy. Electricity is only part of energy.
Even still, this is a great progress in the last decade.
We’re headed in the right direction, even if we better accelerate and spread practices elsewhere.
Can you clarify what the distinction is?
There are places where natural gas is used for heating and cooking by combustion. These tasks can also be done with electricity for the power source and then we’ll be overall cleaner. However the transition is a massive task and requires a lot of convincing (e.g. that cooking with induction is as good or better even than gas, heat pump costs less in the long run).
And to celebrate that fact, Europe is joining the US in imposing massive tariffs on China’s electric vehicles and solar cells. Yay.
I largely welcome restricting massproduced mobile surveillance machines made by a chinese hq’d company. Don’t misunderstand me I hate teslas too for this, but we don’t need more of this shit.
We are not restricting the surveillance, just making it more expensive.
What we need is forced inspections of the source code and other ways to actually mitigate the security risks.
Just making things more expensive does nothing to mitigate actual the risk.
Yeah I’m not buying any EV until I can get a bare bones model that can install some stripped down open source OS.
That’s a good thing imo. We do this so we can build up an industry for these things at home. That’s an important long term goal, too. If the last years have shown us anything it’s that being solely dependent on another state for certain critical stuff is a bad idea. And I’d say this is especially true for China.
Edit: btw German talking here, not American.
Do you want to know how many cars in China are from European car manufacturers?
Rebalancing trade is not some big bogeyman.
I don’t understand what argument you are trying to make. Can you elaborate? You mean we shouldn’t do it because there might be a counterreaction?
That’s a good thing imo. We do this so we can build up an industry for these things at home.
Unfortunately, most countries haven’t really done much to invest into the production of solar cells in their home country in the last twenty years (Germany is a noteworthy exception), so why would they start now?
Realistically, imposing tariffs on chinese PV cells will only slow the energy transition, instead of building up domestic production.
Gandalf, hast du gerade auf nen 2 Monate alten Beitrag von mir geantwortet? :)
Ja, ist ja immer noch relevant. :-)
I suppose greenwashing works? in the sense creates favorable stats, not that it helps the environment.
You really don’t like to admit even the smallest bit of positive news, do you?
Obviously I don’t see this as good news because I can’t see how ecology and capitalism can work together, unless it is greenwashing. Environmentalism/ecology/etc want sustainability, capitalism is all about eternal growth of the business, and I don’t see corporations and other financial entities changing their business model? Do you?
Capitalism is helping destroy fossil fuels. Solar and hydro electricity is cheaper than fossil fuels.
Government subsidies - interference with he capitalist market - are propping up the oil industry (and the meat industry, while we’re at it).
Properly regulated capitalism is perfectly capable of fixing the climate crisis. Ecology and capitalism work together when going green is cheaper than using fossil fuels.
Liek the other commenter said, this could be read as 70% of electricity still relyingnon non renewables, which is a bad metric.
Reasonable people understand that transition is not an overnight process. Also adoption isn’t linear which is why they say the first third is the biggest half.
Overnight? We’ve been implementing and talking about renewables since I was in high school, which was like more than 10 years ago already. Only 30% in 10 years is VERY slow. Being happy with 30% is not being reasonable, it’s being in denial.
Infrastructure takes time, now factories and infrastructure is in place we’ll see faster installation rates.
Reasonable people are clearly being a little to reasonable. We have been looking at this for 50 years now. Exxon announced the issue in the 1970s.
But corperation. Including exxon under new leadership. Have spent a freaking fortune using false science and media lies. To try and slow down any effort to limit non renewable use.
So yes. Reasonable people are being way to fuckung reasonable.
Edit. And allowing corperations to be only concerned with profit. While killing human beings and destroying the planet.
Honestly if you add the amount of false science research funded purely to allow corperations to create anti climate change. This (plus the plastic industry.)
Have done way more intentional harm the the tobacco industry did whe they discovered the harm fro there products.
But at least many nations punished the tobacco lobby and fined them to help cover the costs.
deleted by creator
Pretty ironic that it took Putin invading Ukraine to make Europe invest into renewables.
And not to save the planet but to be less dependent on energy from fossil fuels…
I don’t like being cynical like this, but:
Putin’s war really did something for the climate.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Energy think tank Ember found that major growth in wind and solar helped push global electricity production past this milestone in 2023.
Its authors say that this rapid growth has brought the world to a crucial turning point where fossil fuel generation starts to decline.
“You also have the invasion of Ukraine which increased the sense of urgency around transitioning to clean power and getting off relying on fossil fuels - not just coal but also gas, and particularly from Russia.
Plans were put in place to help individual member states reach renewable energy targets and deploy technologies at a national scale.
“Certainly you can’t ignore that there was some demand [based] impact on the decrease in use of fossil fuels, but also there was a significant role of wind and solar replacing it.”
Normally this would have meant that the clean energy capacity added around the world last year would have caused fossil fuel generation to drop by 1.1 per cent.
The original article contains 796 words, the summary contains 162 words. Saved 80%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
