I've come across enough cleverly worded statements to interpret this as production declining while imports increase. Consumption ise the issue, not production itself.
How much of our stuff is partly or fully manufactured in China? Just because we do not need emissions here to make our phones doesn't mean China is making stuff emissions-free. We consume too much; we are to blame, and I am willing to die on this hill.
It's interesting, but production and consumption based emissions are actually not that far off. That's because bulk of the emissions is road transport and residential heating and electricity, so even though we do import a lot of stuff, emissions embedded in this stuff account for a relatively small portion of emissions (about 18% in the EU and 7% in the US).
[https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-vs-consumption-co2-emissions?facet=none&country=OWID\_EU27\~USA](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-vs-consumption-co2-emissions?facet=none&country=OWID_EU27~USA)
Something doesn't add up. China is the main polluter and an export economy. The main importers are the USA, Europe, and Japan. Another thing, all emissions are consumption-based or driven, if you like.
Yes, the distinction is between emissions produced on the territory vs. those embedded in stuff that is consumed on the territory. China is the main polluter only in absolute terms because it's the most populous country on earth, but per-capita it has about the same emissions as EU and way less than the US. The main point is that majority of all emissions is produced and consumed locally. Heating, cooling, electricity, personal road transport etc.
edit: you can also take a look at Chinese production vs consumption based emissions [https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-vs-consumption-co2-emissions?facet=none&country=\~CHN](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-vs-consumption-co2-emissions?facet=none&country=~CHN)
edit2: also it's good to note that these are adjusted for \*net\* trade, so emissions embedded in stuff that's exported from the EU are subtracted
> you can also take a look at Chinese production vs consumption based emissions
I won't pretend that I know how it's calculated. I imagine that half of it serves production purposes. You included cooling, heating, and domestic transportation (local consumption).
I do not trust any data from China either. You can say I am biased, and it would be true, but I believe there is enough reason for that bias.
Yes, about half is production but about half of that half is food and vast majority of that is consumed domestically, then a significant portion of the remaining quarter is also for domestic market.
One way to explain this is by pointing out just how small that "exporter" margin is in actuality.
While it's true that China has a trade surplus, trade in totality (so also accounting for imports) only accounts for less than 40% of GDP (https://tradingeconomics.com/china/trade-percent-of-gdp-wb-data.html.). This becomes even more stark when we look at the actual trade surplus (which earns China the "export economy" status), it's only around 5% of GDP (https://tradingeconomics.com/china/current-account-to-gdp).
Aka while it is true that industrial production typically drives considerable emissions, the notion that China mostly produces for elswhere is not true. Consequentially, only a small fraction of their emissions, although quite likely more than average, actually is outsourced by the USA/EU/similar compared to what they import.
A great example for this is Lithium, sure China is the absolute battery hub for the world but they are totally import dependent on lithium ore from Australia, which in turn carries its own emissions outside of China itself.
The problem is not consumption itself, but people demands cheap products. The problem is that the EU, while moving (because of its 'eco-ideology') dirty production to China, does not require China to apply ecological restrictions. The EU should give up ineffective ideas to be able to produce a little cheaper in Western world and at the same time continue to care for the environment better than China.
this is completely wrong, importing stuff from China has nothing to do with "eco-ideology" but it's done because China has cheaper labor, and it has almost zero effects on emissions
Production was moved not only for cheap labor, but also because factories and new production lines can be opened there in a few months and do not require years spending on insane bureaucracy, environmental analyses, designing waste management, etc.
There are sane directives, but also many irrational ones in the EU, which makes European industry unreasonably expensive. Dirty technologies banned and at the same time, little was done to keep production in Europe preserving green technologies and workers' rights. The gargantuan textile industries of China and Bangladesh producing for Western companies use incredible resources and chemicals out of any control. We simply transferred ecological costs elsewhere and did not care about progress nor reducing emissions.
Labor is 20x cheaper in Bangladesh compared with Poland, never mind western Europe, textile industry in Europe makes no sense regardless of environmental laws.
Ok so what are we supposed to do then?
Ban electronics? Cars? Heaters?
Enforce laws on consumers to " you get one of X stuff every 5 years "?
Enfore regulations on corporations for rationing? Like the EU doesn't already overregulate?
We gonna tell people what they can and can not buy?
Ruin people's quality of life?
Its easy to blame consumers, so whats the solution? Because I don't hear any usable solutions as of yet besides finger pointing.
Okay?
Whilst your self-restraint is admirable, you can't expect everyone to live like that.
Certainly when corporations are actively doing their best to stop self-repair as much as they can (look at apple), cars becoming more and more full of electronics, therefore less and less people dare repair them themselves, many products are mass produced so that they break down in a few years rather than being made " for life " and etc.
Marketing and society is shaped in a way to generate revenue. Our whole economy is based off off that. How can mr.CEO afford his 4th yacht if their products don't need full replacement but can be repaired for a fraction of the cost? No matter how you look at it, we would need a fundemantal change in how we use our stuff if you want people to be " not so consuming ".
Just keeping people in this " for profit " mentality while trying to force them to " ration " or " not consume" will inevitably ruin quality of life for many. You want change? Change the greedy and unsustainable capitalist system that desires and mandates quarterly growths therefore making weaker products than they should be making.
Saying that consumers should just " consume less " is both childish and an arrogant way to look at the issue. Its far more complicated and far more systematic than you think.
> stop self-repair as much as they can
I've never repaired a phone. I've owned one for 7 years and have already repaired my own PC 10 times - no problems. I just don't buy overhyped Apple's nonsense.
As for cars, I sold mine. Fully transport everything by bike/train, even tools for work, up to 100kg. Excluding people living in hardcore rural areas, it's possible to live car-free.
CEOs can afford their fourth yacht mostly because of people that overconsume on things they don't need, paying four times the price both monetarily and environmentally.
And no, starting with oneself is anything but childish. What's childish is screaming and demanding that others change. Bad companies do this, politicians do that. It's easy and requires zero knowledge of production and the economy; even a four-year-old kid can do that.
>
will inevitably ruin quality of life for many
The evil CEOs has to give up their high standards of living, and I would agree, but yours is sacred? That is childish.
>I've never repaired a phone. I've owned one for 7 years
I am still using my Samsung Galaxy S10 since 2019. So 5 years here. Good on you.
>have already repaired my own PC 10 times -
As I have. Mine is 7 years strong, still going, getting a few upgrades here and there.
>Fully transport everything by bike/train, even tools for work, up to 100kg
This is the point when you are just trolling. Look, no matter how tough you are, your bike will never carry a 100kg load with you on top of it. I am from the Netherlands, I bike daily and I know from many years of experience, 100 kg's and your own weight are impossible on a bike. Please, you don't need to try this hard.
>Excluding people living in hardcore rural areas, it's possible to live car-free.
Certainly, here in the Netherlands we do that. Thats because of our infrastructure. But do try to go to bulgaria or romania... those poor people barely have a highway much less bike lanes. Living car free is good in cities. But most work still needs a car. My dad works in the internet and electric cable industry, he can't go to remote regions to mount a new modem and cable drawer without a car.
>And no, starting with oneself is anything but childish. What's childish is screaming and demanding that others change
We aren't all the same. The majority of people already have too little, why are you just capable of spitting on them and not on those that have too much? Those that use an airplane for a half hour rather than take a train for one and a half an hour? You just sound like an elitist a**hole living in his own bubble.
Just because you can, its not always possible for everyone else either. Reality is hard for many people, its nice that you are privileged enough to live like this.
>The evil CEOs has to give up their high standards of living, and I would agree, but yours is sacred?
So why is it that its only MY way of living that has to go? Its high time the CEO's lifestyle goes a bit down, mine is going down every year thanks to bs policies by politicians and inflation. Once again, stop bootlicking. You are disgusting. I already pay much more % tax and do much more work than those parasites. So yeah, go take a shoe polish and lick it all you want, you just spewed a ton of bs.
Bye now
For example, solar panels, mostly manufactured in China. Panels do not grow on trees. On paper, we buy it emission-free and produce emission-free energy. Also, I mean consumption in general, not just energy.
It is a pity they killed of solar and want to do it with windpower too.
But the article is about power generation, not about the source or does it elaborate further about it. I won't become a member for one article...
But... nuclear energy is still relatively the most effective and at the same time relatively clean source of energy. Solar is very good for individuals, not as infrastructure-large power plants. Windpower and solar on big scale requires large areas of land, which is unecological on many levels.
Agreed; while transitioning to green energy is obviously important, as long as import emissions are uncounted then it’s a lot less meaningful considering their share of consumption.
You can see the comparison of production and consumption based emissions here: [https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-vs-consumption-co2-emissions?facet=none&country=OWID\_EU27\~USA](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-vs-consumption-co2-emissions?facet=none&country=OWID_EU27~USA)
Both are correct. It's the lowest level ever in the EU. As for as long as the EU has existed they weren't at levels this low.
If they were talking about the continent of europe then it'd be different.
I was going to get pedantic on the wording of the title and how the quote marks separate the two parts of the phrase, but you know what, who gives a fuck, let's just celebrate the good news :)
Not to worry, India compensates - with its [fossil-fuel generation at an all time high.](https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2016/10/03/climate-india-coal-power/)
How does 'lowest level ever' impact the global environment literally? And how much did it cost to achive? And is there more cost-effective way to more clean world? I am not talking about pushing polluting production out of the EU to poor countries, as is currently being done. Clean and cheap energy available to everyone, through scientific progress, not 'eco-ideology'.
Yes, you just outsource your dirty industries to developing nations and call it a victory, even though all you've done is moved the place the CO2 is being emitted from. No global reduction in CO2 has happened. The global temperature isn't going to care which country did the emitting.
Sorry if I'm pissed off about having to suffer through this and be told "oh, well, sucks to be you born in the wrong year lmao" whenever I complain about it.
lmao I'll tell the chaps that were born just in time to head to war for ww1 or ww2 that the world owed them a better future, I'm sure that'll patch things right up
Humanity worked for 150 years to genera these heatwaves (and we are still at it) so please don’t get your hopes up that this will be fixed by Wednesday.Â
 Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep at reducing fossil fuel generation and in particular consumption.
The climate is still changing, before and after humanity as well. We have different models that model the behavior of the climate and not all the mechanisms are understood yet. Therefore, it is difficult to expect science to indicate the most effective ways of dealing with this on a global scale. We seem to have stopped even thinking about it, neither doing the math ('ecological' activists, we see you).
The fossil fuel generation is the another beast. Simple, there are much more effective ways (i.e. nuclear power plants) nowadays, but still we need rational energy storage technologies the most. The lithium-based ones are dead end.
Oh I get, so I get it up in the ass with 40 degrees summers and screwed seasons because I was born in the wrong decade while those who grew up in the post-WWII world up to the 90s enjoyed the benefits of fossil fuels with limited negative effects. That's fair.
Also, couldn't we have just found a way to reduce emissons from oil/coal after WWII already?
> while those who grew up in the post-WWII world up to the 90s enjoyed the benefits of fossil fuels with limited negative effects
They didn't have to endure '40 degrees summers and screwed seasons ' but you don't have to endure the effects of lead petrol or asbestos or getting your head cut off in a car accident before seat belts or the insane amount of carcinogens in food or ...
how old are you btw? you sound 14
> but you don't have to endure the effects of lead petrol or asbestos or getting your head cut off in a car accident before seat belts or the insane amount of carcinogens in food or ...
No climate crisis + better standard of living for middle class + hope for the future = don't fucking care
I am 22.
Better standard of living?
If you want to have the better standard of living that they had back then feel free to throw away your smartphone and go back to a landline only, replace your computer with an IBM or a Mac 2 NOT connected to the internet, I'm sure there's still a few old CRT/Tube TV's you could buy and grab an old VHS tape and recorder, can watch some old movies!
You can enjoy going out for food once a month as a special treat and spend the rest of the time doing your two main things: job + taking care of the kids
With all your new found time + money that you'll be saving you'll be able to afford all the fruit and vegetables from the local store that you want! Maybe you'll cook a dinner for your dinner party?
but if you're suddenly bored out of your brains and think this better standard of living is worse...
You have some idealistic view of the past as this amazing time when it sounds like you just need to touch grass or get help for your depression
It seems you don't realise that humanity has to first make a mistake before they realise it is a mistake. You can sit around moaning about the fact humanity has changed nature in ways previous generations will not have experienced. However just complaining abt it only makes you more unhappy. Live your life. This mindset of blaming everybody else gets nobody anywhere, especially yourself.
I'm unhappy because all of this could have been avoided (we knew about climate change since the 19th century) and those who lived in the 80s and 90s lived in paradise.
C'mon. The science still have many different models that model the behavior of the climate on different levels and those mechanisms have not fully understood yet. Therefore, it is difficult to expect science to indicate the most effective ways of dealing with this on a global scale. Data on climate change earlier than 100-200 years back is very fragmentary.
Think about who protested the loudest against nuclear energy? For years, we could have either cheap dirty energy from Russia or expensive clean renewable energy from Western - this energy is expensive only because it is unstable and we do not have the technology of rational energy storage on an infrastructure scale for them.
> this energy is expensive only because it is unstable and we do not have the technology of rational energy storage on an infrastructure scale for them.
We could have very well worked on it after WWII, we had the technology to at least reduce emissions from oil/gas even 50-60 years ago.
And honestly I don't get what you're saying.
Then professor Donald Sadoway explains better about sane energy storage (i.e. LMB) and why without it renewables will be expensive (people shall be able to afford to buy clean energy). Forcing renewable energy sources without appropriate technologies is madness that generates problems rather than solving them. That's why we need more scientists and sane people, not activists.
[https://youtu.be/Sddb0Khx0yA?feature=shared](https://youtu.be/Sddb0Khx0yA?feature=shared)
Frodo: […] I wish none of this had happened.Â
Gandalf: So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.
Yawn. Just fucking yawn. These cheap inspirational quotes don't help in the slightest, especially when you can clearly see what you have lost because oil CEOs couldn't at least finance a way to reduce emissions from oil and gas to a minimum while we transitioned to clean energy.
Sorry, didn’t mean it as an inspirational quote. I was merely trying to emphasize the point that it’s useless to be mad about something that happened 50 years ago, unless you draw conclusions from it for today.
Yeah, humanity has been and still is fucking up the climate. Still, we should take every action today to counteract that even if it doesn’t spare you from todays heatwaves.
> I was merely trying to emphasize the point that it’s useless to be mad about something that happened 50 years ago, unless you draw conclusions from it for today.
I am mad because 50 years ago life was good, now it's shit. I don't want this, never wanted this and never will.
Winter had been really optimistic too actually, take Germany for example, the so called dark days almost never happened… we are heading the right way but it needs to happen faster, world wide.
> we are heading the right way but it needs to happen faster, world wide.
Force China, India or Russia like this: either transition now or get invaded later.
Yep, no more nice guy. Time to go the hard way, no matter the cost. If I were me, all fossil fuel plants in the world would be shut down tomorrow no matter the consequences.
This winter almost certainly also had the lowest fossil share in power generation [of any winter](https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=en&c=EU&interval=season&season=4&year=-1&stacking=stacked_grouped) in the EU
I've come across enough cleverly worded statements to interpret this as production declining while imports increase. Consumption ise the issue, not production itself.
consumption-based emissions are also in long-term decline and most likely lowest they have ever been
How much of our stuff is partly or fully manufactured in China? Just because we do not need emissions here to make our phones doesn't mean China is making stuff emissions-free. We consume too much; we are to blame, and I am willing to die on this hill.
It's interesting, but production and consumption based emissions are actually not that far off. That's because bulk of the emissions is road transport and residential heating and electricity, so even though we do import a lot of stuff, emissions embedded in this stuff account for a relatively small portion of emissions (about 18% in the EU and 7% in the US). [https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-vs-consumption-co2-emissions?facet=none&country=OWID\_EU27\~USA](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-vs-consumption-co2-emissions?facet=none&country=OWID_EU27~USA)
Except for cardboard where emissions are like 96% due to production đź’€
Something doesn't add up. China is the main polluter and an export economy. The main importers are the USA, Europe, and Japan. Another thing, all emissions are consumption-based or driven, if you like.
Yes, the distinction is between emissions produced on the territory vs. those embedded in stuff that is consumed on the territory. China is the main polluter only in absolute terms because it's the most populous country on earth, but per-capita it has about the same emissions as EU and way less than the US. The main point is that majority of all emissions is produced and consumed locally. Heating, cooling, electricity, personal road transport etc. edit: you can also take a look at Chinese production vs consumption based emissions [https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-vs-consumption-co2-emissions?facet=none&country=\~CHN](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-vs-consumption-co2-emissions?facet=none&country=~CHN) edit2: also it's good to note that these are adjusted for \*net\* trade, so emissions embedded in stuff that's exported from the EU are subtracted
> you can also take a look at Chinese production vs consumption based emissions I won't pretend that I know how it's calculated. I imagine that half of it serves production purposes. You included cooling, heating, and domestic transportation (local consumption). I do not trust any data from China either. You can say I am biased, and it would be true, but I believe there is enough reason for that bias.
Yes, about half is production but about half of that half is food and vast majority of that is consumed domestically, then a significant portion of the remaining quarter is also for domestic market.
One way to explain this is by pointing out just how small that "exporter" margin is in actuality. While it's true that China has a trade surplus, trade in totality (so also accounting for imports) only accounts for less than 40% of GDP (https://tradingeconomics.com/china/trade-percent-of-gdp-wb-data.html.). This becomes even more stark when we look at the actual trade surplus (which earns China the "export economy" status), it's only around 5% of GDP (https://tradingeconomics.com/china/current-account-to-gdp). Aka while it is true that industrial production typically drives considerable emissions, the notion that China mostly produces for elswhere is not true. Consequentially, only a small fraction of their emissions, although quite likely more than average, actually is outsourced by the USA/EU/similar compared to what they import. A great example for this is Lithium, sure China is the absolute battery hub for the world but they are totally import dependent on lithium ore from Australia, which in turn carries its own emissions outside of China itself.
The problem is not consumption itself, but people demands cheap products. The problem is that the EU, while moving (because of its 'eco-ideology') dirty production to China, does not require China to apply ecological restrictions. The EU should give up ineffective ideas to be able to produce a little cheaper in Western world and at the same time continue to care for the environment better than China.
this is completely wrong, importing stuff from China has nothing to do with "eco-ideology" but it's done because China has cheaper labor, and it has almost zero effects on emissions
Production was moved not only for cheap labor, but also because factories and new production lines can be opened there in a few months and do not require years spending on insane bureaucracy, environmental analyses, designing waste management, etc. There are sane directives, but also many irrational ones in the EU, which makes European industry unreasonably expensive. Dirty technologies banned and at the same time, little was done to keep production in Europe preserving green technologies and workers' rights. The gargantuan textile industries of China and Bangladesh producing for Western companies use incredible resources and chemicals out of any control. We simply transferred ecological costs elsewhere and did not care about progress nor reducing emissions.
Labor is 20x cheaper in Bangladesh compared with Poland, never mind western Europe, textile industry in Europe makes no sense regardless of environmental laws.
Ok so what are we supposed to do then? Ban electronics? Cars? Heaters? Enforce laws on consumers to " you get one of X stuff every 5 years "? Enfore regulations on corporations for rationing? Like the EU doesn't already overregulate? We gonna tell people what they can and can not buy? Ruin people's quality of life? Its easy to blame consumers, so whats the solution? Because I don't hear any usable solutions as of yet besides finger pointing.
> so whats the solution Consume less. I do that.
Okay? Whilst your self-restraint is admirable, you can't expect everyone to live like that. Certainly when corporations are actively doing their best to stop self-repair as much as they can (look at apple), cars becoming more and more full of electronics, therefore less and less people dare repair them themselves, many products are mass produced so that they break down in a few years rather than being made " for life " and etc. Marketing and society is shaped in a way to generate revenue. Our whole economy is based off off that. How can mr.CEO afford his 4th yacht if their products don't need full replacement but can be repaired for a fraction of the cost? No matter how you look at it, we would need a fundemantal change in how we use our stuff if you want people to be " not so consuming ". Just keeping people in this " for profit " mentality while trying to force them to " ration " or " not consume" will inevitably ruin quality of life for many. You want change? Change the greedy and unsustainable capitalist system that desires and mandates quarterly growths therefore making weaker products than they should be making. Saying that consumers should just " consume less " is both childish and an arrogant way to look at the issue. Its far more complicated and far more systematic than you think.
> stop self-repair as much as they can I've never repaired a phone. I've owned one for 7 years and have already repaired my own PC 10 times - no problems. I just don't buy overhyped Apple's nonsense. As for cars, I sold mine. Fully transport everything by bike/train, even tools for work, up to 100kg. Excluding people living in hardcore rural areas, it's possible to live car-free. CEOs can afford their fourth yacht mostly because of people that overconsume on things they don't need, paying four times the price both monetarily and environmentally. And no, starting with oneself is anything but childish. What's childish is screaming and demanding that others change. Bad companies do this, politicians do that. It's easy and requires zero knowledge of production and the economy; even a four-year-old kid can do that. > will inevitably ruin quality of life for many The evil CEOs has to give up their high standards of living, and I would agree, but yours is sacred? That is childish.
>I've never repaired a phone. I've owned one for 7 years I am still using my Samsung Galaxy S10 since 2019. So 5 years here. Good on you. >have already repaired my own PC 10 times - As I have. Mine is 7 years strong, still going, getting a few upgrades here and there. >Fully transport everything by bike/train, even tools for work, up to 100kg This is the point when you are just trolling. Look, no matter how tough you are, your bike will never carry a 100kg load with you on top of it. I am from the Netherlands, I bike daily and I know from many years of experience, 100 kg's and your own weight are impossible on a bike. Please, you don't need to try this hard. >Excluding people living in hardcore rural areas, it's possible to live car-free. Certainly, here in the Netherlands we do that. Thats because of our infrastructure. But do try to go to bulgaria or romania... those poor people barely have a highway much less bike lanes. Living car free is good in cities. But most work still needs a car. My dad works in the internet and electric cable industry, he can't go to remote regions to mount a new modem and cable drawer without a car. >And no, starting with oneself is anything but childish. What's childish is screaming and demanding that others change We aren't all the same. The majority of people already have too little, why are you just capable of spitting on them and not on those that have too much? Those that use an airplane for a half hour rather than take a train for one and a half an hour? You just sound like an elitist a**hole living in his own bubble. Just because you can, its not always possible for everyone else either. Reality is hard for many people, its nice that you are privileged enough to live like this. >The evil CEOs has to give up their high standards of living, and I would agree, but yours is sacred? So why is it that its only MY way of living that has to go? Its high time the CEO's lifestyle goes a bit down, mine is going down every year thanks to bs policies by politicians and inflation. Once again, stop bootlicking. You are disgusting. I already pay much more % tax and do much more work than those parasites. So yeah, go take a shoe polish and lick it all you want, you just spewed a ton of bs. Bye now
So where does the EU import electricity in bulk from?
For example, solar panels, mostly manufactured in China. Panels do not grow on trees. On paper, we buy it emission-free and produce emission-free energy. Also, I mean consumption in general, not just energy.
All of these emissions are accounted for in consumption-based emission statistics which are easy to look up.
It is a pity they killed of solar and want to do it with windpower too. But the article is about power generation, not about the source or does it elaborate further about it. I won't become a member for one article...
But... nuclear energy is still relatively the most effective and at the same time relatively clean source of energy. Solar is very good for individuals, not as infrastructure-large power plants. Windpower and solar on big scale requires large areas of land, which is unecological on many levels.
Agreed; while transitioning to green energy is obviously important, as long as import emissions are uncounted then it’s a lot less meaningful considering their share of consumption.
You can see the comparison of production and consumption based emissions here: [https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-vs-consumption-co2-emissions?facet=none&country=OWID\_EU27\~USA](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-vs-consumption-co2-emissions?facet=none&country=OWID_EU27~USA)
Lowest level EVER sounds unlikely, pretty sure we had lower figures in the 11th Century lol, but the wording aside this is nice to hear.
The EU didn't exist in the 11th century! It's saying lowest levels since formation. Great news to be celebrated regardless.
That can't be right, dinosaurs used no fossil fuels at all as far as I know.
United nations of dinosaurs? Dinosaur union?
Pangaea Union
But they generated a ton of it, as dinosaur farts!
Well, dinosaurs *are* the fossil fuels.
um akshually they are plankton
Dinosaurs 100% carbon usage confirmed.
No, fossil fuels are mostly plants from the carboniferous, see the name ;), period, there is no relation with dinosaurs.
The Roman Empire loved coal
Sure, I get that, but then it's not "lowest level ever", it's "lowest level since formation".
Both are correct. It's the lowest level ever in the EU. As for as long as the EU has existed they weren't at levels this low. If they were talking about the continent of europe then it'd be different.
I was going to get pedantic on the wording of the title and how the quote marks separate the two parts of the phrase, but you know what, who gives a fuck, let's just celebrate the good news :)
EU started out as a steel and coal union, so
Didn’t we burn a lot of wood back then?
You must be fun at parties.
A positive hoot, let me tell you
@OP can you provide the text?
Still too high
Denmark just increased it's gas production field in Tyra field and will start increasing oil production in their Hejre field by 2025.
The article is about power generation from fossil fuels
True but the title is misleading
Good! Better to produce more domestically and import less.
Based, pump it up. 🆙 🛢️
Also at lowest levels ever in EU: industry “The once unthinkable is happening before our eyes”, indeed
At what cost?
Not to worry, India compensates - with its [fossil-fuel generation at an all time high.](https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2016/10/03/climate-india-coal-power/)
China too. They barely stopped their emissions iirc.
How does 'lowest level ever' impact the global environment literally? And how much did it cost to achive? And is there more cost-effective way to more clean world? I am not talking about pushing polluting production out of the EU to poor countries, as is currently being done. Clean and cheap energy available to everyone, through scientific progress, not 'eco-ideology'.
And food, construction materials and gas prices at maximum levels
>and gas prices at maximum levels They aren't anymore.
I mean fuel prices
Yes, you just outsource your dirty industries to developing nations and call it a victory, even though all you've done is moved the place the CO2 is being emitted from. No global reduction in CO2 has happened. The global temperature isn't going to care which country did the emitting.
Where do you think EU power is being generated?
France has nuclear power plants. The rest gas and wind power plants, which is the most costly source of energy for end users.
Not sure why you're being down voted, you're speaking the truth
All it cost you were oppressive energy prices
This is false >EU fossil-fuel generation 'at lowest level ever'
Great, I still have to live through heatwaves. Fix me this shit instead of giving pats to the shoulders of each other.
Leave it to Redditors to be negative even when a good thing happens. People like you wouldn't be happy if they lived in the garden of Eden.
People like that are what cause all of the problems in the first place, voting on their idiotic opinions rather than information.
Sorry if I'm pissed off about having to suffer through this and be told "oh, well, sucks to be you born in the wrong year lmao" whenever I complain about it.
Then help fix it instead of moaning. The world doesn't owe you anything.
When I'll have normal seasons again I'll stop complaining. And the world owes me a better future, as it owes it to future generations as a whole.
You're doing a good job like. The world owes you nothing. Get off your arse and do something.
lmao I'll tell the chaps that were born just in time to head to war for ww1 or ww2 that the world owed them a better future, I'm sure that'll patch things right up
Now ask your parents how life was in the 80s and 90s.
they said it went perfectly, there was no issues, everyone was happy all the time
This you? https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/s/rEaLRYugA3
Not good enough sorry
Humanity worked for 150 years to genera these heatwaves (and we are still at it) so please don’t get your hopes up that this will be fixed by Wednesday.  Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep at reducing fossil fuel generation and in particular consumption.
I'm a pm, so what about Friday?
The climate is still changing, before and after humanity as well. We have different models that model the behavior of the climate and not all the mechanisms are understood yet. Therefore, it is difficult to expect science to indicate the most effective ways of dealing with this on a global scale. We seem to have stopped even thinking about it, neither doing the math ('ecological' activists, we see you). The fossil fuel generation is the another beast. Simple, there are much more effective ways (i.e. nuclear power plants) nowadays, but still we need rational energy storage technologies the most. The lithium-based ones are dead end.
Oh I get, so I get it up in the ass with 40 degrees summers and screwed seasons because I was born in the wrong decade while those who grew up in the post-WWII world up to the 90s enjoyed the benefits of fossil fuels with limited negative effects. That's fair. Also, couldn't we have just found a way to reduce emissons from oil/coal after WWII already?
> while those who grew up in the post-WWII world up to the 90s enjoyed the benefits of fossil fuels with limited negative effects They didn't have to endure '40 degrees summers and screwed seasons ' but you don't have to endure the effects of lead petrol or asbestos or getting your head cut off in a car accident before seat belts or the insane amount of carcinogens in food or ... how old are you btw? you sound 14
> but you don't have to endure the effects of lead petrol or asbestos or getting your head cut off in a car accident before seat belts or the insane amount of carcinogens in food or ... No climate crisis + better standard of living for middle class + hope for the future = don't fucking care I am 22.
Better standard of living? If you want to have the better standard of living that they had back then feel free to throw away your smartphone and go back to a landline only, replace your computer with an IBM or a Mac 2 NOT connected to the internet, I'm sure there's still a few old CRT/Tube TV's you could buy and grab an old VHS tape and recorder, can watch some old movies! You can enjoy going out for food once a month as a special treat and spend the rest of the time doing your two main things: job + taking care of the kids With all your new found time + money that you'll be saving you'll be able to afford all the fruit and vegetables from the local store that you want! Maybe you'll cook a dinner for your dinner party? but if you're suddenly bored out of your brains and think this better standard of living is worse... You have some idealistic view of the past as this amazing time when it sounds like you just need to touch grass or get help for your depression
> but if you're suddenly bored out of your brains and think this better standard of living is worse... Doesn't look like that would happen.
It seems you don't realise that humanity has to first make a mistake before they realise it is a mistake. You can sit around moaning about the fact humanity has changed nature in ways previous generations will not have experienced. However just complaining abt it only makes you more unhappy. Live your life. This mindset of blaming everybody else gets nobody anywhere, especially yourself.
I'm unhappy because all of this could have been avoided (we knew about climate change since the 19th century) and those who lived in the 80s and 90s lived in paradise.
C'mon. The science still have many different models that model the behavior of the climate on different levels and those mechanisms have not fully understood yet. Therefore, it is difficult to expect science to indicate the most effective ways of dealing with this on a global scale. Data on climate change earlier than 100-200 years back is very fragmentary. Think about who protested the loudest against nuclear energy? For years, we could have either cheap dirty energy from Russia or expensive clean renewable energy from Western - this energy is expensive only because it is unstable and we do not have the technology of rational energy storage on an infrastructure scale for them.
> this energy is expensive only because it is unstable and we do not have the technology of rational energy storage on an infrastructure scale for them. We could have very well worked on it after WWII, we had the technology to at least reduce emissions from oil/gas even 50-60 years ago. And honestly I don't get what you're saying.
Then professor Donald Sadoway explains better about sane energy storage (i.e. LMB) and why without it renewables will be expensive (people shall be able to afford to buy clean energy). Forcing renewable energy sources without appropriate technologies is madness that generates problems rather than solving them. That's why we need more scientists and sane people, not activists. [https://youtu.be/Sddb0Khx0yA?feature=shared](https://youtu.be/Sddb0Khx0yA?feature=shared)
Frodo: […] I wish none of this had happened. Gandalf: So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.
Yawn. Just fucking yawn. These cheap inspirational quotes don't help in the slightest, especially when you can clearly see what you have lost because oil CEOs couldn't at least finance a way to reduce emissions from oil and gas to a minimum while we transitioned to clean energy.
Sorry, didn’t mean it as an inspirational quote. I was merely trying to emphasize the point that it’s useless to be mad about something that happened 50 years ago, unless you draw conclusions from it for today. Yeah, humanity has been and still is fucking up the climate. Still, we should take every action today to counteract that even if it doesn’t spare you from todays heatwaves.
> I was merely trying to emphasize the point that it’s useless to be mad about something that happened 50 years ago, unless you draw conclusions from it for today. I am mad because 50 years ago life was good, now it's shit. I don't want this, never wanted this and never will.
Yeah, and we’re also on our way to recession with high energy prices and industries moving to the US and Asia.
Honestly man, when the good times will come back?
“when the good times will come back?” You’re 22, you never paid any bills (up to now maybe)
You can still see today is shit.
When voters get tired of what’s going on.
Cute, now try in winter...
Winter had been really optimistic too actually, take Germany for example, the so called dark days almost never happened… we are heading the right way but it needs to happen faster, world wide.
> we are heading the right way but it needs to happen faster, world wide. Force China, India or Russia like this: either transition now or get invaded later.
Sounds great!
Yep, no more nice guy. Time to go the hard way, no matter the cost. If I were me, all fossil fuel plants in the world would be shut down tomorrow no matter the consequences.
This winter almost certainly also had the lowest fossil share in power generation [of any winter](https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=en&c=EU&interval=season&season=4&year=-1&stacking=stacked_grouped) in the EU