Tech companies are also building power-hungry data centers at a frenetic pace, driven by interest in artificial intelligence. While data centers account for just 1 percent of global electricity demand, they are often concentrated in clusters and can strain local grids.
All that extra demand makes it tougher to tackle climate change.
Fucking spicy autocorrect will kill us.
This was always going to be the case, and the unfounded optimism has always pissed me off.
Similarly, an extensive historical analysis of technological efficiency improvements has conclusively shown that energy efficiency improvements were almost always outpaced by economic growth, resulting in a net increase in resource use and associated pollution.
GHG emissions are still at their greatest in history and ALL renewables to date have been completely absorbed by growth in consumption.
Jevons paradox and the rebound effect pretty much guarantee that we’ll continue consuming fossil fuels until their use is forcefully banned. Renewables haven’t even begun to reduce their consumption, and they won’t before it’s too late to even the prevent the <= 3C that’s currently locked in.
This report (https://slrpnk.net/post/14308357) came out, on the same day, about the IEA saying basically the opposite of this. It seems like they don’t have a coherent story to tell.
Those two ideas don’t clash
Energy use is outpacing renewables so we’re still emitting more carbon than ever. When we manage to transition away from fossil fuels, the prices will drop and make that harder
The coherent message is: we can’t save ourselves by letting the economics slowly play out
I suppose.
-
One story has the IEA saying global fossil fuel consumption will peak this decade.
-
The other says declining fossil fuel prices will inhibit the transition away from fossil fuel use.
You’re right, the two things are consistent in that together they forecast a near-term peak followed be a very slow, drawn-out permanent decline.
I still think it would be much better journalism if the two things would both be discussed in the same news article.
I mean, it would be great if you could write a comprehensive view of a topic and have people read it. Unfortunately, both sides of that are nearly unachievable in this day and age
Science communication is hard. You can’t put understanding into words - you have to dance around understanding, over and over from many angles, before you can capture even the most basic understanding of a complex or complicated system
I’m a software dev. My brother started teaching me concepts when I was 14 and he started learning it, I was 22 before he stopped being my mentor and we truly became peers. My friend, who I’ve been mentoring for the last 3 years, calls me to share achievements and to do after action discussions on his decisions - more and more I have nothing but validation to give him
Everything has endless depth - but understanding can only be learned, not taught. You gain understanding one fragment at a time through thousands of interactions or experiences, not a manifesto
-
