Per the article, less than 5% of the global population take a flight in a given year. You're already incredibly wealthy in that light. We could at least eliminate short haul flights and private airplanes, but the reality is going to be a lot more ascetic if we expect to hit net zero by 2050.
I don’t think 5% take a flight because that’s all who can afford it. I stock groceries for $13/hr part time. According to a quick google, a salary in excess of 100k/yr puts one in the top 10% of global earners, so why are half of those people making in excess of five times my salary not flying? It’s surely not their wealth, although the “earners” qualifier probably isn’t equivalent to population.
That's average surface-level temperature increase. 70% of the Earth's surface is ocean, which can absorb more thermal energy. It's worse than 3-6 degrees in the areas where people live. It's not scaremongering. People talk about Miami and Dubai as if those cities will be populated in a century. Look up "wet-bulb temperature", and then look at a global population density map.
You linked a database of Tau proteins naturally expressed by different species of animals. The mice in this study are a breed of mutants that express the human version of the Tau protein.
I don't see what this comment adds to the discussion. If you disagree with the numbers, what source would you use instead? China is building more renewable energy than the rest of the world combined, and it's verifiable by satellite imagery.
China is using more energy and resources that rest of the world combined, so not really a difference. The question is, do we have any breakthru in energy storage technology there?
Not GP but... I have some doubt on Wikipedia data: I'm from Italy, living in France, and well... Italy is the ONLY (AFAIK) country in the world with a mean domestic electricity contract limited at 3kW, here it's common 36kW (12 per phase) just as a small comparison, so I highly doubt a mean Italian can consume 5MWh/year... Of course data per-se are the same Terna (the grid operator) cite, but I think they have computed something weird mixing industry and residential, because:
- in Italy only very few have electricity to heat
- A/C is still not that common
- BEVs are still not common at all
While in France electrical heating is definitively common, albeit not the sole source of heat for most.
Essentially: I think such data need much more proof on how they are collected before being trusted.
36kW is far from common in france. Heck, event 3-phase is not that common. I've never known anyone with 36kW except farmers. According to ADEME, 6kW is the most common with 70% of (I think) non-commercial subscriptions.
I'm in Alpes de Haute Provence, essentially al homes here are three-phase 36kVA to be precise witch is a little less than 36kW indeed. New homes tend to be 12kW monophase if there is no pool or EVs. Only apartments are 6-9kW.
6kW is the minimum you can get, the cheapest offer, but it's mostly a city thing. Not so small apartments are 9, old homes with new contracts vary from 9-12 mono or 36 threephase but while I have no general statistics that's still pretty common in the "countryside".
That’s because decades of neoliberal economics have moved a huge amount of manufacturing to China. The U.S. used to be very dirty in manufacturing towns, but we moved factories to China which has the double benefit of cleaning up our environment and allowing us to blame them!
If you live without modern technology in a sufficiently remote place, you don't know what you're "missing". Maybe they'd be receptive to contact and technological/cultural exchanges if "modern society" respected their land and beliefs.
Carbon capture hasn't been shown to scale. "Carbon credits" and such schemes are blatant greenwashing. We already use an inordinate amount of energy on bullshit, with a hard enough time convincing people that there will be consequences for it. I don't want to move fast and break things when the thing in question is the biosphere that keeps me alive.
