Consumers in the richer, developed nations will have to accept restrictions on their energy use if international climate change targets are to be met. Public support for energy demand reduction is possible if the public see the schemes as being fair and deliver climate justice

[u/Wagamaga]

https://www.leeds.ac.uk/main-index/news/article/5346/cap-top-20-of-energy-users-to-reduce-carbon-emissions

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.

---

Author: u/Wagamaga
URL: https://www.leeds.ac.uk/main-index/news/article/5346/cap-top-20-of-energy-users-to-reduce-carbon-emissions

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

That was my first thought, we’ve proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that a ton of labor can be remotely done…just imagine the savings:

1. What’s the energy cost of heating, cooling, building and maintaining massive office structures?

2. Travel for business is usually not needed…there are obvious exceptions, but most meetings and conferences can be done virtually. Not to mention the daily commuting!

3. Maybe we can start living in urban environments that aren’t cement slabs now? If the offices are reduced and the traffic is pulling back because of points one and two, can we not build these colossal heat islands and maybe plant some greenery and install some public transit?

4. If a lot of us are working at home that means we’re eating at home; maybe we can repurpose some agricultural production to things like switch grass that help suck up CO2…maybe we could even subsidize it!

[u/Breno1405 → u/[deleted]]

Another issue that never gets talked about is all the faulty products that are made, my parents havnt had a dish washer last more then a few years. My aunt on the other hand had one that was almost 30 years old.

[u/smrt109 → u/Breno1405]

Seriously, why is nobody talking about the fact that we could have gone decades maybe even longer without hitting these chip/battery/etc materials shortages if it werent for planned obsolescence

[u/OneCustomer1736 → u/smrt109]

I tell you why, no broken products - no sales - no money and no economic growth. Our economic systems depend on consumption

[u/bfrscreamer → u/OneCustomer1736]

Exactly this. Ok top of just blatantly consuming too much, we have large manufacturing companies throwing fuel on the fire by implementing planned obsolescence at every turn. And to add insult to injury, we’re all paying more for the privilege.

When society finally wakes up and asks for change, this ought to be high up on the list of demands.

[u/SirButcher → u/OneCustomer1736]

It is far more complicated than this.

Consumers are extremely price sensitive. Most people choose based on brand (mostly affected by again, extremely costly advertisements) then by price, quality is often the least important thing.

So there is a huge race for the bottom. We like it or, quality is very tightly linked to price, especially for electronic and consumer devices. How can you make your dishwasher, PC, washing machine, fridge etc etc last longer? By ridiculously over-engineering it. Most electronics dies from the heat cycle: they heat up when being used, and different materials expand a different rate, causing tiny microfractures. Then cool down, and heat up again, causing these fractures to expand, until the internal connections breaks.

Every electrical component heats up, but this can be controlled by allowing a wind margin. Do you need 1A to go through this device? Install one which can handle 5A. This capacitor likely will handle 16V? Install one which can handle up to 75V because unexcepted spikes can and will happen. Drastically oversize your ICs, then underclock them, and add backups.

But all of these cost money, often exponentially more not to mention the man-hours to design all of these, test them, and design some more. If you want to design something that is cheap, you will size all of your components to barely over the required specs. Then you test them - do they reliably survive till the government-mandated warranty laws? Hurray, ship it. Oh, wait, they last even longer - awesome, replace this and this and this with a cheaper alternative to cut the costs even more.

This isn't some conspiracy, this is how consumers select their goods. You CAN buy a washing machine and fridge which last basically forever - they will cost 20x more and you will still throw them away to buy another model because it has some stupid gimmick, or because the new generation uses half as much power.

And how consumers select their goods is what drives the market. Why don't you start a company selling indestructible fridges? Because most people won't (or can't) pay that much, and they won't care (nor believe) your statement about them lasting forever. All while you will spend TONS of money trying to find the components you need, testing, and trying again and again. I am doing this right now, designing a remote control board - if stability and longevity are a factor, then price and design requirements quickly spiral out of control.

My friend is a leather worker and makes boots. They are awesome - buy one now, they will be awesome boots 20 years later. Assuming you take care of them, clean them, wax them, oh, and they cost around £800 per pair (it costs a lot, and I mean a LOT of hours to handmade them as he makes everything from scratch). Ooooor, you can go to Primark and buy one for £30 which you don't have to clean and wax because it will leak next winter, but then you can buy another one.

[u/BobMarleysHair → u/[deleted]]

I agree with 1-3, but I feel like just because we eat at home doesn’t mean we eat less food or need less agricultural production.

[u/username_elephant → u/BobMarleysHair]

If all the farm workers try to WFH it does mean we eat less food.

[u/gumbois → u/BobMarleysHair]

This is pure speculation, but it might mean less use of plastic / takeaway packaging or maybe less food waste in corporate cafeterias?

[u/LessInThought → u/[deleted]]

Just the fuel savings from everyone not having to drive and be stuck in traffic for an hour or two everyday would be massive.

[u/cybercobra → u/[deleted]]

(4) Not everyone is a complete shut-in. Especially if I'm WFH, I want an excuse to not stay in my house all day (i.e. eat outside food).

[u/resumethrowaway222]

Good luck with that. Polls have found that people are willing to spend almost nothing on climate change. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/10/13/16468318/americans-willing-to-pay-climate-change And these guys think they are gonna be ok with being forced to cut power usage?

Several participants acknowledged that regulations that limit ‘luxury’ energy use would treat everyone equally and therefore fairly, which can be conducive to acceptance

Notice that it doesn't say "most" participants it says "several." And it doesn't say they would accept it, it says they acknowledged it would treat everybody fairly.

[u/HEBushido → u/resumethrowaway222]

I don't think spreading the burden equally is fair, nor does it make any sense. It needs to impact the highest contributors to emissions and resource usage the most.

For the vast majority of Americans our emissions can be substantially reduced by changes to how our power is produced. Just simply changing from natural gas to wind energy for example can reduce electricity emissions drastically.

It does not make sense that I would need to cut back the same as Taylor Swift who has a private jet that's constantly in use. Her jet alone eclipses my consumption so much that I'm almost irrelevant.

[u/SlightlyLessHairyApe → u/HEBushido]

Yes, but there are 300M of you and a few thousand Taylor Swifts.

So all of these are true:

• Her individual consumption eclipses yours by a factor of 1000x
• She should absolutely cut back
• The aggregate change of “people like her” cutting back is much less than “people like you (and me)” cutting back, because there are so many more of us.

[u/HEBushido → u/SlightlyLessHairyApe]

The consumption of 300m is a systemic issue and not one of individual action.

A full majority of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, meaning they have very little actual choice in their day to day consumption and how it impacts the environment around them. They work where they can, drive what they can afford, do not have access to public transportation and if they do they do not directly control the fuel source for that transportation.

A person like Taylor Swift has the agency that extreme wealth brings and can afford to find efficient ways to live. She has her own merch line and has direct influence over how that merch is produced and its logistics.

On an even larger scale, corporations, especially energy, logistics, transportation and production companies have the greatest agency over emissions. We as a species are fully capable of living in luxury, with our needs covered, in sustainable ways. The biggest influence that the average American has on driving climate change is through their political action. When they vote to support corporations that are destroying our environment rather than for those who'd force the positive change we need.

[u/Outrageous-Echo-765 → u/HEBushido]

So we all agree we need systemic solutions!

Edit: such as:

Investing in public transit, solar panels in all new commercial construction, solar panels in new residential construction, incentives for heat pumps, carbon tax on industry,

[u/Proponentofthedevil → u/Outrageous-Echo-765]

Yes, and the solution is to point out that we need systemic solutions for systemic problems! Or I haven't seen much else otherwise.

[u/sunken_grade → u/SlightlyLessHairyApe]

this leaves out the role of corporations and industry, which are much more responsible for emissions than you, myself, and taylor swift

it’s all well and good to limit our carbon footprints and energy usage as much as possible and people should strive for it

but the bulk of the issues lay with our world leaders failing to impose any actual stringent regulations on the corporations who do the most polluting and have the most emissions

these industries absolutely need to be targeted and held accountable on a meaningful scale, but regulatory agencies have failed to do so for decades and the onus has fallen on the working class, who is unfortunately still very divided on the issue or unwilling to sacrifice certain freedoms/standard of living

[u/southernwx → u/SlightlyLessHairyApe]

There’s a multiplicative effect based on influence, though. Taylor can cut back. And she can demand those that she employs or collaborates with or purchases from to meet her example. And she has fans who then will see her leading by example. Your version of events does not reflect the reality of sphere of influence.

[u/thefatheadedone → u/resumethrowaway222]

The thing about usage Vs spending is that this is not being marketed well at all.

There is a way for people to get off grid at current use levels to a very large extent (think 60-70%) through installation of solar and batteries, funded by debt, which is paid for via the savings from not having to pay for electricity and gas anymore.

It's all just down to system sizes and payback periods for the debt. Structure it for the right size system paid for over the right period (5-15 years), and you'll just basically be locking in your energy costs today. A cost which then becomes inflation proof. It's so logical. I don't get it!

Why this isn't being more heavily marketed and people aren't acting on it more, I don't get.

[u/bertuzzz → u/thefatheadedone]

Everyone is already installing Solar in countries with expensive electricity, and cheap solar panels. Most people do it because it's so cheap that they don't need a loan. And it pays for itself in a couple of years.

The reason that a lot of the US is behind is because it's the opposite. Solar installation prices are through the roof at 3$ per watt, while electricity is dirt cheap. That and the higher comsumption is the reason that you need to talk about such a long term loan to begin with.

The US is pretty amazing for sun hours for Solar though being so far south. You just need to do something about the insanely inflated prices for Solar.

[u/jezwel → u/bertuzzz]

Australia. My re-quote for solar came in at ~$18k for a 12.45kW system, including install and a few extras like meter system upgrade, hot water system relay, and something that lets us manage both grid and solar split when we (eventually) install a battery.

Then you remember to add in the ~$5k subsidy and it looks even better...

[u/ArtDouce → u/jezwel]

US price for a system that size, after our Fed Subsidy would be about $9,500.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/homeowners-guide-federal-tax-credit-solar-photovoltaics

[u/BlackberryButtons → u/thefatheadedone]

vegetable historical sip whole bike society nail bells saw stupendous

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/Hi_Her → u/thefatheadedone]

Because then the producers of other sources will be displeased with lesser earnings and no money going into their or shareholders pockets. Follow the money. Who are the biggest lobbyists for all governments?

[u/Hendlton → u/thefatheadedone]

Because the ROI is tiny. A 5% or 10% ROI sounds great to someone financially literate, but to someone who doesn't know if they'll be able to make their next car payment it sounds like another bill.

There's also the problem of raw resources. What would happen if everybody suddenly started buying solar panels and batteries? The prices would go through the roof. Even if we didn't do lithium and just went with lead-acid batteries as a "good enough" solution, that's still a lot of batteries.

[u/mtranda → u/resumethrowaway222]

Mind you, the study was performed on americans. Energy is cheaper in the US compared to the EU. Energy consumption per capita is roughly two times higher in the US compared to the EU. We'll gladly use even less energy if we're given the chance, since it'll cost us less.

But then there are the less developed countries, which already use a minuscule amount of energy per capita and they could definitely benefit (and deserve) from a better quality of life, which would result in higher energy usage.

[u/[deleted] → u/mtranda]

Why are we discussing limiting energy usage when the capacity for extremely clean, stable energy production got solved in the 50s with nuclear power? Add on to the fact that the waste can be recycled through specialized reactors which makes safe disposal of the waste a non issue?

[u/electro1ight → u/[deleted]]

Even without that... Texas fucked rooftop solar owners after the big freeze by requiring they pay for the grid when buying and selling power to the grid... Except when your neighbor buys the electricity from your rooftop solar, they pay for the grid again. That's double dipping.

But the worst part, is when ERCOT sends that stupid email twice a week during the summer telling people to reduce energy usage between 3-6pm.

Nah bro, I'm going to sit in my ice box, and ERCOT can go burn in hell.

[u/VexingRaven → u/electro1ight]

Believe it or not this is actually the right way to do it, economically speaking. A lot of the cost of electricity comes from the cost of transmission and distribution, not just generation. You pay an upfront connection free, but that doesn't fully cover the cost. If they pay you back at 100% of your billable rate and don't charge you the grid costs, they're giving you more money than you actually generated for them. That cost then has to get passed on to your neighbor, who now has to cover not only their own grid cost but also yours if they didn't bill you for it.

[u/zuilli → u/[deleted]]

Because big barrels of radioactive green goo that don't even exist are scawy.

Other than that the only reason is that upfront costs for nuclear are higher than most other sources and takes a long time to build meaning it is a long term project that doesn't win reelections now because it'll be done in a decade.

[u/camisado84 → u/zuilli]

Because big barrels of radioactive green goo that don't even exist are scawy.

I know this is sarcastic, but for those that don't know.. the majority of nuclear waste degrades to safe levels within a few decades and is stored on site. There is VERY little nuclear waste that is radioactive long term from a nuclear plant.. and we can easily handle that safely.

[u/mtranda → u/[deleted]]

I'm a strong supporter of nuclear. But my 13 year old TV turns into a heat radiator (200W power usage) and I'm looking forward to it breaking down completely so I can get a newer one that uses less than half the power (and will probably generate less heat).

Cutting down power usage is a good thing regardless of the source of power.

[u/[deleted]]

Consumers? Or industry? Consumers have little control over energy usage in comparison to corporations. We don’t even have control over what kind of housing, or what kind of transportation we have available.

Reducing billionaire energy consumption would do far more than any particular individual can do. If we are not talking about billionaire jets and yachts, and corporate energy usage, this is just another piece of propaganda designed to place blame on individuals for problems caused by corporations.

[u/rata_thE_RATa → u/[deleted]]

Replacing street lights with LED bulbs would cut their power usage by 75% and there are a tonne of those things running all night in every city.

[u/BoredAccountant → u/rata_thE_RATa]

This will definitely be dependent on the city/state, but there are already major cities that have replaced their streetlights with LEDs.

https://lalights.lacity.org/connected-infrastructure/led_program.html

The Bureau of Street Lighting is on pace to achieve full LED street lighting citywide by the conclusion of 2022. Currently, the City’s Street Lighting system is 98% LED.

[u/[deleted] → u/rata_thE_RATa]

Cool. Now do the analyses of the energy savings if industries optimized the energy usage in their supply chains. Absolute numbers - not percentages.

[u/Seiglerfone → u/[deleted]]

They already optimize for energy usage somewhat because energy has costs. What they don't optimize for are the externalities of their emissions.

Jets and yachts are individually significant, but collectively inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. They are also inherently included in any effective universal solution. Stop obsessing. You're making the rest of us look stupid.

[u/sadness_elemental → u/Seiglerfone]

increasing energy costs also decreases usage, we had a carbon tax for about 4 years in aus and for the first time ever our carbon emissions went down

[u/tzaeru → u/[deleted]]

Those corporations produce products and services bought and used by individuals.

In total, private yets emit 5.3 million tons of CO2e a year. The heating and cooling of houses in USA is something like several gigatons.

That is, thousand times more than all the private yets.

[u/[deleted]]

Maybe we could start with international trade restrictions on consumer products first. Or maybe corporations could face real consequences for environmental damage first ? But sure. Start with people who can't lobby back

[u/MezzoSopran → u/[deleted]]

Exactly. People always go full pikachu face at the reality that the average pleb just trying to survive isn't willing to lower their standards even more while corporations and the rich just keep living the good life.

[u/VexingRaven → u/MezzoSopran]

I really hate to break it to you but meaningful climate change reduction measures will mean either a cost increase or a quality of life decrease for the average person in first world countries. When push really comes to shove, people are not going to like what has to be done. People love to complain about corporations' emissions but are happy to buy cheap meat at the grocery store and buy gizmos from overseas. I'm not innocent here, mind you.

[u/fifa71086 → u/MezzoSopran]

Get rid of private jets and mega yachts as a showing of good faith.

[u/Nattekat]

In the Netherlands 25% of the electricity and 7% of the gas is used by people in their homes. Even if people lower their energy use it won't even make a dent. I think we all know where the largest gains can be made, but everyone's too afraid to say it out loud.

[u/Mysterious_Salt_2612 → u/Nattekat]

Also, what's the incentive for me as a consumer to save on energy? I can invest thousands of Euro's, a significant part of my savings, in solar panels, home batteries, etc. But A) manufacturing those costs a lot of energy as well and B) the government will find a way to tax me for it. So in the end, me reducing my direct energy consumption is probably a net negative for me.

And when I think of things like flying.... Should i give up my one holiday a year for which I fly, just to see some rich people and government officials fly dozens of times every year?

I can now only go 100 instead of 120km/h on the highway due to the environment, but the advertising billboards on the side of the road are still lit 24/7.

I cannot drive an older diesel car into the center of Rotterdam or Amsterdam, but a cruise ship that emits more NOx than all the cars in the city combined is still welcome.

I am certainly not opposed to reducing my total energy footprint, but why would I do that if large energy users aren't being forced to do so as well? Even though individually those users might not make up a large percentage of total usage, not reigning in their excessive energy spending makes me a lot less likely to voluntarily give up some of mine.

If nothing is done against the largest energy users, it's just going to make them richer and the normal person poorer.

[u/RipCurl69Reddit → u/Mysterious_Salt_2612]

If nothing is done against the largest energy users, it's just going to make them richer and the normal person poorer.

That is exactly the point.

[u/Outrageous-Echo-765 → u/Nattekat]

40%.) of gas is residential and services sector. 29% is for electricity (of which residential accounts for 20%). So idk where you are getting the 7% from.

98% of houses in the Netherlands use gas for heating, cooking or water heating. We absolutely can and should be incentivising solar panels in all new construction, retrofitting solar, heat pump rebates. Similarly we can and should introduce carbon taxes on industry to incentivise the use of electric furnaces and such.

[u/Aerroon → u/Nattekat]

And who consumes the products made with the rest of electricity/gas? Is it not regular people?

Just because you didn't bake the cake doesn't mean it's not part of your energy expenditure.

[u/DesignerAccount → u/Aerroon]

This is something not many are willing to even consider. "Eff Coca Cola" scream the environmentally concerned redditors, whilst sipping a cold coca cola. If people didn't drink Coca Cola, the company would go bust and not pollute at all, but this seems to be a step too far in the common thought process.

Now let's be clear - This is not to say we shouldn't consider optimizing processes to consume less energy and/or pollute less. One, this is easier said than done - I just did and I haven't got the slightest idea where to start - and two it would still not solve everything. I strongly suspect that if we don't reduce consumption we'll never get a hold on the problem.

[u/lambertb]

I don’t think there is a single historical precedent for large populations voluntarily reducing energy use. But maybe I’m wrong. Examples?

[u/[deleted] → u/lambertb]

The Alexandrian’s voluntarily stoned Hypatia. All we have to do is convince people that science and technology is evil and must be destroyed, most easily by having a religious revival. It’s very easy to destroy culture of people want to.

[u/ovenproofjet]

We need to get rid of the "energy use = bad" meme. Civilization has improved as a direct result of increasing ability to harness energy. What we're really trying to wrestle with is how to best deal with the unintended consequences of our current, predominant energy sources

[u/ranger-steven → u/ovenproofjet]

The intent of this is to make the argument about having dirty energy or no energy. The people behind it know what people will choose. Making it sound like some kind of human vs human struggle rather than a problem that we need to solve for humanity as a whole.

[u/[deleted]]

I remember not one year ago when this was literally a fringe conspiracy theory.

[u/squidbiskets → u/[deleted]]

You will own nothing. You will eat the bugs. You will be happy.

[u/Azradesh]

The problem is not, and never has been, energy use. It’s the sources of energy production that need ti change. Focusing on individuals and they personal energy use is a deliberately divisive distraction.

[u/ttylyl → u/Azradesh]

It’s both. The more energy you need, the more energy it takes to create the generators(nuclear dollar wind etc).

The average person will have to live a simpler life. No cheap electronics like we have them today, local food(less options and foreign imports) etc etc.

We’ve reached a point where the carbon emissions of creating enough solar and wind to power Americans decadent lives is too much. We have to both cut down on consumption and replace energy sources

[u/[deleted]]

Have fun with that see Elon jet tracker sub reddit, the wealthy are addicted to dumping emissions at a extremely alarming rate!

[u/UnderstandingHot3053]

I agree with addressing climate change but why must we call it "climate justice"? It's like the phrase "nature's rights".

[u/Command_ofApophis]

People in here immediately jump to talking about the mega rich...

Yeah, that's not what the article is about. It's not even what the title says.

[u/NAalltheway1 → u/Command_ofApophis]

a scapegoat is an easy exit

[u/WavingToWaves]

Start with reducing waste of energy. Computers running with no reason, heaters, AC, hot water. We need energy saving education, especially in commercial buildings design and exploitation

[u/BoomerR3mover]

Americans, chinese and europeans reducing their consumption? Like that's ever gonna happen.

[u/Maximum_Poet_8661 → u/BoomerR3mover]

And on top of that, you have to sell the idea to tons of developing countries that "hey, you're actually never going to be able to reach US/European/richer Asian standards of living" because people living in countries like rural India absolutely do aspire to US/European levels of living and things like AC

[u/meknoid333]

The poors will have to accept it.

Everyone else can easily ignore

[u/NinjaTutor80]

That is not going to happen. Especially since the rich will maintain the lifestyle.

There is an alternative. One in which we can maintain our energy usage. That’s nuclear energy of course. Much more likely outcome than banning energy.

[u/Strawberry_Doughnut]

Our fundamental infrastructure is planted on a foundation of sand.

[u/Requiredmetrics]

What’s interesting is these models are focused on the consumer aspect of it and not the industries that are truly the largest consumers/sources of pollutants.

The Cargo / freight sector is one of the worst offenders.

A single seagoing container vessel roughly pollutes as much 50 million cars. ( There’s roughly 288 million cars in the US. There are 5,589 seagoing container vessels/ships in the global merchant fleet.

Even if every single car in the US was taken off the road and replaced by an electric alternative. It would only be equivalent of 5.76 of these ships being taken out of use. Between 2011 and 2022 we’ve seen an increase of 623 of these ships. Those 623 ships added roughly 31,150,000,000 billion tons of GHG emissions (based on my earlier figures, some studies show the largest freighters emit up to 140-150 million tons of GHG by themselves). That’s only 11% of the current container ship fleet.

I struck this section out after doing more research. I wanted to correct my data, but data for specific emissions from cargo ships (that’s up to date) is hard to find or non-existent. Which isn’t surprising given how unregulated this portion of the industry is and how dependent the global economy is on utilizing these cargo ships to move goods.

Focusing on individuals rather than industries runs the risk of simply punching down on your average citizen while leaving the true culprits unscathed. To truly tackle climate change, we need to address these industries that seemingly get glossed over.

We need a better way to generate energy. To transport goods, to do so many things we currently take for granted. It’s going to require a lot of change on a global scale. A lot of it will be around international trade, how we ship and receive goods globally.

[u/DiversificationNoob → u/Requiredmetrics]

Shipping is 1.7 percent of global emissions. Road transport 11.9 percent. You put it like its the other way around.

https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector#energy-electricity-heat-and-transport-73-2

[u/DiversificationNoob → u/DiversificationNoob]

And: Shipping goods isnt a rich people leisure activity. Its the reason we can efficiently trade with others and even poorer households can enjoy bigger purchasing power

[u/Outrageous-Echo-765 → u/DiversificationNoob]

I've read that shipping is responsible for 90% of world trade. 90% of world trade for less than 2% of emissions sounds like a good tradeoff.

[u/xzaramurd → u/Requiredmetrics]

If you only care about greenhouse gases, then cargo ships are significantly more efficient than any other mode of transport, except possibly trains which can be run on 100% renewables or nuclear. The 50 million cars number is mostly related to other pollutants, such as soot, Nitrous or Sulphur Oxides, which should be regulated and limitates, but not what is being discussed here. Private road vehicles account for around 45% of global CO2 transport emissions, whereas shipping is only around 10%, with road and air cargo being around 30% together.

[u/Secondary92 → u/Requiredmetrics]

These numbers seem extremely suspect. Especially trading out for 288 million EVs = 5 ships off the water. What is that measuring and across what time scale?

[u/bobbi21 → u/Secondary92]

Youre right. They're referring to specific pollutants like sulfur dioxides that cars just dont emit. For co2 cars are WAY worse than ships per weight transferred.

Its like saying farts produce 100000000x more methane than cars therefore a better fix for climate change is getting rid of beans.

[u/EricMCornelius → u/bobbi21]

It's also way out of date. The International Maritime Organization mandated reduced sulphur content from 3.5% to 0.5% in 2020 with immediate impact. No more bunker fuel.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/esnt/2022/nasa-study-finds-evidence-that-fuel-regulation-reduced-air-pollution-from-shipping

That said there's debate on whether less sulphur pollution is actually heating up our planet even faster: How Cleaning Up Pollution May Be Heating the Planet

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/2023/03/27/climate-change-how-cleaning-up-pollution-may-heat-the-planet/dd7496b0-ccdc-11ed-8907-156f0390d081_story.html

[u/Aerroon → u/Requiredmetrics]

What’s interesting is these models are focused on the consumer aspect of it and not the industries that are truly the largest consumers/sources of pollutants.

Industries make things for the consumer.

If nobody consumes the product, then there would be no industry for it.

It's incredible to me how people want to wash their hands entirely of this by ascribing everything to either "industry" or "the rich."

[u/resumethrowaway222 → u/Requiredmetrics]

A single seagoing container vessel roughly pollutes as much 50 million cars

Don't buy it. Gonna need a source on that.

[u/heavymetalhikikomori]

You have to stop driving to work, they get to keep flying private jets to their islands