@michael_hoerger Just a heads up that Sarsaigua appears to have corrected their numbers in their latesst update, to something much more consistent with other data in Catalunya and Europe more broadly. A follow-up is probably worthwhile, as it now appears that there was an error of some sort.
@CleanPowerDave Yup. Is it even clear that US gas power is lower carbon intensity than modern China coal power, accounting for the leakage? When I poked around in that, I came away feeling like it isn't so clear(and the irony of the US essentially doctoring its climate numbers wasn't lost on me)
@xmp125a@sodnik@Frank_Stones And if everyone does that, and connects their grids, it'll work. Just like everyone being like "let's grow food!", but then sometimes drought strikes, and so it's great to be able to trade food to balance that out.
@sodnik@Frank_Stones Sure, Germany really needs to push to build out more renewables to get their energy costs down like Norway. Same with most of the rest of Europe. Norway should be loving their connection to sunnier more southern grids with what should be abundant solar power, with their hydro.
@sodnik@Frank_Stones Well, if that means that they likewise get support when their energy is more expensive and Germany's is not, then, yeah. It's kinda the whole point of trade.
@Classic_Lib_M@rakeen_mabud You should check in on what classical liberalism has to say about uncompetitive and concentrated markets, if you're going to claim a connection to it
@petergklein Economics can both be a real science and not have near the level of precision of either epidemiology or presumed by the hubris of some economists. Many other real sciences are similar, including in the medical sciences. The problem is where some project precision they don't have.
@nickvanosdol Good point on mine methane, and agreed on non-warming pollution. I guess I'm being reactive to "US-good, China-bad" discourse (elsewhere) that relies on artificially low warming numbers for methane gas (and ignoring how little effort the US is putting in v. China/EU).
@nickvanosdol Are we confident that US LNG is better for climate change as compared to coal? With the levels of leakage there seem to be, it seems to be pretty close to equivalent, especially w newer, more efficient coal plants. (easily reducable leakage, perhaps, but no one seem to be fixing)
@loganemitchell@EnvDefenseFund Am I correct in figuring that these are the emissions that would also be super inexpensive (perhaps even negative cost) to stop, but "we" just can't be bothered to do even the slightest bit of effort to stop from destroying the world?
@Duncan_BBR @GlobalEcoGuy So, shouldn't we be pushing against that incorrect framing that is generally used to create cover for rich people now to keep being selfish and keep profiting off the harms of others?
@Duncan_BBR @GlobalEcoGuy But, when the reasoning for not spending money now is because "the debt will saddle future generations", but actually the money spent now would significantly reduce costs to future generations, and NOT spending will "saddle future generations", that's bad reasoning, right?
@Duncan_BBR @GlobalEcoGuy Well, but doesn't the article explain that doing this actually saves money? So up-front costs, sure, but overall savings suggests to me "not costly", especially if the nation is willing to leverage its collective access to capital.
@drvolts Take a look at how much clean energy NY has actually built in the past decade lol. A lot of folks out there (especially in the US) pretending to care but not being willing to actually do anything, other than constantly fly around the country/world if they can afford to.
@SamuelHurtadoBE Está empezando a parecer que apagaron las luces. ¿Tiene alguna idea de los costos de ejecutar el programa y si podríamos recaudar fondos para mantenerlo funcionando, incluso si es en una capacidad más limitada?
@worstall@James_BG Given that you're clearly arguing in bad faith, no, I'm not going to explain to you what you can easily find by the most rudimentary research.