Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Cyborg)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

CIRCLE WITH A DOT

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. Coal produces about 33% of global electricitySolar and wind produce 8–9% eachElectricity meets about 20% of total energy demandhttps://www.visualcapitalist.com/coal-still-powers-more-electricity/

Coal produces about 33% of global electricitySolar and wind produce 8–9% eachElectricity meets about 20% of total energy demandhttps://www.visualcapitalist.com/coal-still-powers-more-electricity/

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
108 Posts 11 Posters 29 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • dnkboston@apobangpo.spaceD dnkboston@apobangpo.space

    @jonesmurphy I rarely have anything good to say about JFK, but in this case, yep.

    jonesmurphy@mastodon.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
    jonesmurphy@mastodon.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
    jonesmurphy@mastodon.social
    wrote last edited by
    #57

    @dnkboston JFK was quite decent as US Presidents go. Just imagine that he was immediately followed by Richard Nixon, the most similar previous President to Trump. JFK aggressively advocated for the Civil Rights Act, something which very likely contributed to his murder.

    dnkboston@apobangpo.spaceD 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • jonesmurphy@mastodon.socialJ jonesmurphy@mastodon.social

      @dnkboston JFK was quite decent as US Presidents go. Just imagine that he was immediately followed by Richard Nixon, the most similar previous President to Trump. JFK aggressively advocated for the Civil Rights Act, something which very likely contributed to his murder.

      dnkboston@apobangpo.spaceD This user is from outside of this forum
      dnkboston@apobangpo.spaceD This user is from outside of this forum
      dnkboston@apobangpo.space
      wrote last edited by
      #58

      @jonesmurphy He was rapey and racist. Also, I'm from Boston, so I've been choking for a while on how great all things Kennedy are.

      jonesmurphy@mastodon.socialJ 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • dnkboston@apobangpo.spaceD dnkboston@apobangpo.space

        @jonesmurphy He was rapey and racist. Also, I'm from Boston, so I've been choking for a while on how great all things Kennedy are.

        jonesmurphy@mastodon.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
        jonesmurphy@mastodon.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
        jonesmurphy@mastodon.social
        wrote last edited by
        #59

        @dnkboston most white voters voted against JFK in 1960 due to his insufficient racism. When he gave his aggressive speech for the Civil Rights Act in June 1963, his approval among white voters crashed hard. Boston wasn't very fond of JFK back then. They like him a lot better dead than alive. Like MLK.

        dnkboston@apobangpo.spaceD 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • jonesmurphy@mastodon.socialJ jonesmurphy@mastodon.social

          @dnkboston most white voters voted against JFK in 1960 due to his insufficient racism. When he gave his aggressive speech for the Civil Rights Act in June 1963, his approval among white voters crashed hard. Boston wasn't very fond of JFK back then. They like him a lot better dead than alive. Like MLK.

          dnkboston@apobangpo.spaceD This user is from outside of this forum
          dnkboston@apobangpo.spaceD This user is from outside of this forum
          dnkboston@apobangpo.space
          wrote last edited by
          #60

          @jonesmurphy He said some really disgusting things to a diplomat from Europe--I want to say the Netherlands--in the context of decolonization.

          That would very much track with Boston.

          jonesmurphy@mastodon.socialJ 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • dnkboston@apobangpo.spaceD dnkboston@apobangpo.space

            @jonesmurphy He said some really disgusting things to a diplomat from Europe--I want to say the Netherlands--in the context of decolonization.

            That would very much track with Boston.

            jonesmurphy@mastodon.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
            jonesmurphy@mastodon.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
            jonesmurphy@mastodon.social
            wrote last edited by
            #61

            @dnkboston LBJ also was a lifetime segregationist. Yet the vast majority of white supremacist Americans hated those men for their support of MLK and the Civil Rights laws.

            dnkboston@apobangpo.spaceD 2 Replies Last reply
            0
            • jonesmurphy@mastodon.socialJ jonesmurphy@mastodon.social

              @dnkboston LBJ also was a lifetime segregationist. Yet the vast majority of white supremacist Americans hated those men for their support of MLK and the Civil Rights laws.

              dnkboston@apobangpo.spaceD This user is from outside of this forum
              dnkboston@apobangpo.spaceD This user is from outside of this forum
              dnkboston@apobangpo.space
              wrote last edited by
              #62

              @jonesmurphy Johnson knew what the support would cost the Dems. I'm glad he did it, but I wish we'd had an actual strategy to counter the GOP reaction.

              jonesmurphy@mastodon.socialJ 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • jonesmurphy@mastodon.socialJ jonesmurphy@mastodon.social

                @dnkboston LBJ also was a lifetime segregationist. Yet the vast majority of white supremacist Americans hated those men for their support of MLK and the Civil Rights laws.

                dnkboston@apobangpo.spaceD This user is from outside of this forum
                dnkboston@apobangpo.spaceD This user is from outside of this forum
                dnkboston@apobangpo.space
                wrote last edited by
                #63

                @jonesmurphy Reading The New American Poverty by Michael Harrington and how the Vietnam War absolutely screwed the alleged War on Poverty. Johnson did a couple of things to be proud of, but more that screwed us.

                jonesmurphy@mastodon.socialJ 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • dnkboston@apobangpo.spaceD dnkboston@apobangpo.space

                  @jonesmurphy Reading The New American Poverty by Michael Harrington and how the Vietnam War absolutely screwed the alleged War on Poverty. Johnson did a couple of things to be proud of, but more that screwed us.

                  jonesmurphy@mastodon.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
                  jonesmurphy@mastodon.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
                  jonesmurphy@mastodon.social
                  wrote last edited by
                  #64

                  @dnkboston white supremacist voters responded by electing criminal racist Nixon, FAR worse than LBJ. LBJ's flaws are microscopic and insignificant compared to those of the vast majority of white Americans.

                  jonesmurphy@mastodon.socialJ 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • dnkboston@apobangpo.spaceD dnkboston@apobangpo.space

                    @jonesmurphy Johnson knew what the support would cost the Dems. I'm glad he did it, but I wish we'd had an actual strategy to counter the GOP reaction.

                    jonesmurphy@mastodon.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
                    jonesmurphy@mastodon.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
                    jonesmurphy@mastodon.social
                    wrote last edited by
                    #65

                    @dnkboston we had plenty of strategies. We lacked white people and non-black people of color willing to vote for those strategies.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • dnkboston@apobangpo.spaceD dnkboston@apobangpo.space

                      @knud The actual solution is to use less energy, period. Transitions have always been a smokescreen to, in fact, use more. @gerrymcgovern

                      nyc@discuss.systemsN This user is from outside of this forum
                      nyc@discuss.systemsN This user is from outside of this forum
                      nyc@discuss.systems
                      wrote last edited by
                      #66

                      @dnkboston @knud @gerrymcgovern Jean-Baptiste Fressoz «Sans transition: une nouvelle histoire de l'énergie» thoroughly documents how historically, energy transitions have been primarily additive as opposed to replacing legacy energy resources, although to some extent new energy resources are used to enhance the extraction of legacy energy resources.

                      knud@mastodon.socialK dnkboston@apobangpo.spaceD 2 Replies Last reply
                      0
                      • jonesmurphy@mastodon.socialJ jonesmurphy@mastodon.social

                        @dnkboston white supremacist voters responded by electing criminal racist Nixon, FAR worse than LBJ. LBJ's flaws are microscopic and insignificant compared to those of the vast majority of white Americans.

                        jonesmurphy@mastodon.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
                        jonesmurphy@mastodon.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
                        jonesmurphy@mastodon.social
                        wrote last edited by
                        #67

                        @dnkboston the Vietnam War was extremely popular among white people for years. It wasn't until the US was clearly losing in 1968 under LBJ that the war became unpopular. Even then, Nixon was extremely popular in the early 70s among white voters for prolonging the war and bombing Cambodia. Nixon won the biggest electoral college victory ever in 1972 for this.

                        jonesmurphy@mastodon.socialJ dnkboston@apobangpo.spaceD 2 Replies Last reply
                        0
                        • jonesmurphy@mastodon.socialJ jonesmurphy@mastodon.social

                          @dnkboston the Vietnam War was extremely popular among white people for years. It wasn't until the US was clearly losing in 1968 under LBJ that the war became unpopular. Even then, Nixon was extremely popular in the early 70s among white voters for prolonging the war and bombing Cambodia. Nixon won the biggest electoral college victory ever in 1972 for this.

                          jonesmurphy@mastodon.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
                          jonesmurphy@mastodon.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
                          jonesmurphy@mastodon.social
                          wrote last edited by
                          #68

                          @dnkboston white Vietnam veterans are among the biggest warmongers in America today.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • tschenkel@mathstodon.xyzT tschenkel@mathstodon.xyz

                            @knud @gerrymcgovern @dnkboston

                            The formal and accepted way is not including all the emissions. At least not in my field of work, so I have no reason to believe it to be different in another.

                            knud@mastodon.socialK This user is from outside of this forum
                            knud@mastodon.socialK This user is from outside of this forum
                            knud@mastodon.social
                            wrote last edited by
                            #69

                            @tschenkel @gerrymcgovern @dnkboston

                            The Greenhouse Gas Protocol is the only international accepted accounting method. In its Scope 3 emissions outside an entity's immediate production (=Scope 1+2) are calculated. These are part of their emission and get reported under "Scope 3 emissions". So yes, there are standards and those include emissions from purchases.

                            Just a moment...

                            favicon

                            (ghgprotocol.org)

                            tschenkel@mathstodon.xyzT 1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • dnkboston@apobangpo.spaceD dnkboston@apobangpo.space

                              @knud I think you are well-intentioned, but we're looking at this differently. I do not think that the renewable/green technology production cycle is sustainable. The amount of damage done to ecosystems to get the materials, to say nothing of the costs to human health, needs to be taken into account with these assessments. At the very least, you can move people around only after you've damaged the places they live only so many times before you run out of places to move them. @gerrymcgovern

                              knud@mastodon.socialK This user is from outside of this forum
                              knud@mastodon.socialK This user is from outside of this forum
                              knud@mastodon.social
                              wrote last edited by
                              #70

                              @dnkboston @gerrymcgovern

                              I have literally no idea what you are talking about.

                              The only alternative to producing energy via solar and wind is fossil. Do you want that?

                              urlyman@mastodon.socialU dnkboston@apobangpo.spaceD 2 Replies Last reply
                              0
                              • nyc@discuss.systemsN nyc@discuss.systems

                                @dnkboston @knud @gerrymcgovern Jean-Baptiste Fressoz «Sans transition: une nouvelle histoire de l'énergie» thoroughly documents how historically, energy transitions have been primarily additive as opposed to replacing legacy energy resources, although to some extent new energy resources are used to enhance the extraction of legacy energy resources.

                                knud@mastodon.socialK This user is from outside of this forum
                                knud@mastodon.socialK This user is from outside of this forum
                                knud@mastodon.social
                                wrote last edited by
                                #71

                                @nyc @dnkboston @gerrymcgovern

                                Germany is phasing out coal while having phased out nuclear, and while reducing primary energy use. All this driven towards lower carbon intensity of energy by a strong push to renewables:

                                Link Preview Image

                                So the "historic" perspective doesn't extrapolate to the present, bc ending the 500,000 year epoch of burning stuff is fundamentally new.

                                dnkboston@apobangpo.spaceD 1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • knud@mastodon.socialK knud@mastodon.social

                                  @dnkboston @gerrymcgovern

                                  I have literally no idea what you are talking about.

                                  The only alternative to producing energy via solar and wind is fossil. Do you want that?

                                  urlyman@mastodon.socialU This user is from outside of this forum
                                  urlyman@mastodon.socialU This user is from outside of this forum
                                  urlyman@mastodon.social
                                  wrote last edited by
                                  #72

                                  @knud I’m in agreement with “we need a combination of both” (https://mastodon.social/@knud/116540906047307330) but…

                                  The greater metals dependency per GW generated will matter more than we think. The *dependency* of renewables on fossil infrastructure and inputs for manufacture will matter more than we think.

                                  The dishonesty of how they’re described and thus what they’re understood to be is part of the picture of why power consumption grows and why demand reduction is not part of policy

                                  @dnkboston @gerrymcgovern

                                  urlyman@mastodon.socialU 1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • gerrymcgovern@mastodon.greenG gerrymcgovern@mastodon.green

                                    @knud
                                    There's nothing remotely "clean" about solar. Just because something is less dirty in one area does not make it clean. Modern tech is inherently toxic. We must seek to radically reduce energy use.

                                    @dnkboston

                                    jonesmurphy@mastodon.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
                                    jonesmurphy@mastodon.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
                                    jonesmurphy@mastodon.social
                                    wrote last edited by
                                    #73

                                    @gerrymcgovern @knud @dnkboston this is bullshit. There are numerous other forms of renewable energy besides solar. The principal obstacle to them is not China. It's your Nazi relatives, friends, neighbors and tribesme. You're bashing China which is a far lower emitter per capita than Europe and its evil Diaspora. You are racist as hell. Western conservatives are the worst people in the world on this and many other topics.

                                    dnkboston@apobangpo.spaceD 1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • urlyman@mastodon.socialU urlyman@mastodon.social

                                      @knud I’m in agreement with “we need a combination of both” (https://mastodon.social/@knud/116540906047307330) but…

                                      The greater metals dependency per GW generated will matter more than we think. The *dependency* of renewables on fossil infrastructure and inputs for manufacture will matter more than we think.

                                      The dishonesty of how they’re described and thus what they’re understood to be is part of the picture of why power consumption grows and why demand reduction is not part of policy

                                      @dnkboston @gerrymcgovern

                                      urlyman@mastodon.socialU This user is from outside of this forum
                                      urlyman@mastodon.socialU This user is from outside of this forum
                                      urlyman@mastodon.social
                                      wrote last edited by
                                      #74

                                      @knud nevertheless, I don’t think we are strategically in control of what we’re doing and the incentives pretty much ensure that we are not capable of becoming so.

                                      Oil and gas will become radically less affordable in the coming years and the lived experience of being on the enforced downslope of power consumption will help us forge new ways of being

                                      @dnkboston @gerrymcgovern

                                      gerrymcgovern@mastodon.greenG dnkboston@apobangpo.spaceD 2 Replies Last reply
                                      0
                                      • tschenkel@mathstodon.xyzT tschenkel@mathstodon.xyz

                                        @knud @gerrymcgovern @dnkboston

                                        The formal and accepted way is not including all the emissions. At least not in my field of work, so I have no reason to believe it to be different in another.

                                        gerrymcgovern@mastodon.greenG This user is from outside of this forum
                                        gerrymcgovern@mastodon.greenG This user is from outside of this forum
                                        gerrymcgovern@mastodon.green
                                        wrote last edited by
                                        #75

                                        @tschenkel
                                        Yes, all sort of trickery at play. A key purpose of science has always been to justify economic expansion.

                                        And, of course, we only measure some of the harms. Up 80% of the total harms done by modern tech is in its mining, manufacturing and e-waste disposal. Metals mining causes massive toxic waste which destroys soil, air and water for generations.

                                        @knud @dnkboston

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • knud@mastodon.socialK knud@mastodon.social

                                          @tschenkel @gerrymcgovern @dnkboston

                                          The Greenhouse Gas Protocol is the only international accepted accounting method. In its Scope 3 emissions outside an entity's immediate production (=Scope 1+2) are calculated. These are part of their emission and get reported under "Scope 3 emissions". So yes, there are standards and those include emissions from purchases.

                                          Just a moment...

                                          favicon

                                          (ghgprotocol.org)

                                          tschenkel@mathstodon.xyzT This user is from outside of this forum
                                          tschenkel@mathstodon.xyzT This user is from outside of this forum
                                          tschenkel@mathstodon.xyz
                                          wrote last edited by
                                          #76

                                          @knud @gerrymcgovern @dnkboston

                                          My point is that scope 3 emissions don't include all the emissions that I think should be included. The way we calculate footprint is biased in favour of the global north.

                                          gerrymcgovern@mastodon.greenG 1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups