Mark wrote: > > > I was thinking of primary and secondary fossil-fuel industries such as oil > sands (primary) and plastics (secondary). I mentioned fertilizer, which is > secondary and uses fossil fuel inputs, and we cannot stop making > fertilizers like that by next year or even five. But we don't need to stop > using fossil fuels, even in the US, but reduce their use. We can do that, > in part, by finding ways to reduce energy demand, and then the US would > not need as much nuclear-power generation. To reduce demand, we could > start by retiring AI data centers, or at least tax them according to the > costs to society - and the same with power-hungry crypto coin "mining." >
24 to 35% of GHG emissions so stem from transportation (planes, trains, and automobiles/trucks to be exact). Approx. the same number applies to electricity generation. The lowest hanging fruit here is energy generation as they are highly concentrated in a few thousand power plants. In the U.S. According Google's AIOverview: > > > As of late 2023, there were approximately > *284.6 million* registered passenger cars, motorcycles, buses, and trucks > in the United States. > > That is a LOT [the "trucks" number includes pick-up trucks it seems thus the largest percentage of this number but I haven't really drilled down on them] Mark appears very cynical about EVs (electric vehicles). He really doesn't give an explanation. Demanding, say, disincentives to owning internal combustion engines (ICE) via fees and taxes, mandated fleet conversion to EVs, and incentives to actually own cheaper made EVs, wouldn't effect, say, the U.S.' carbon footprint? Eliminating all fossil fuel generation (coal/natural gas, some oil) with carbon free sources wouldn't effect the U.S. carbon footprint? Why not? Mark, you should look at France where there high carbon footprint estimate from the 1970s and compare it today's footprint. You'll find a HUGE drop in that footprint because they go off of oil (the majority of their generation in the early 70s) and coal. That is a GOOD THING in anyone's book. Charging an EV in France today provides minimal carbon footprint, as opposed to the U.S. where generation is still overwhelmingly fossil fuel based. What I describe above needs to be generalized globally. That would at least slow down the climb toward the 1.5C temp. increase we want to avoid. On demand. This is the problem with Mark (and most/many other "ecosocialists") POV. I think he provides at least two good proposals that I do agree with. Attacking the AI/Cryptocoin expansion. The latter of which I'm for banning completely to see the total destruction of this speculative gambling high energy consuming "industry" and the former of which I'm for providing carbon free sources of energy. Many data centers are proposing just that, the use of nuclear energy and contracts are being signed to due just that...along with plugging into the carbon-heavy grid as well. It seems appropriate to argue "no new AI development not based on 100% carbon free generation". But that only addresses part of the demand. I like Mark's answer to my query on housing. I'm 100% in agreement. Public housing is a demand that can be achieved even under veracious capitalism and commodity production. But it would take generations to accomplish that...and the political will to organize around it. I will leave you all with something else. I've stated here and elsewhere that I'm in favor of a 100% nuclear grid. The issue of nuclear aside...only a complete cultural revolution can change the way we consume...or to use the term Mark employ "demand". He does address some of this but not the overall arching ability of the working class to fight for a program that can achieve a socialist society. Demand will never go away as folks living standards are attacked by capitalism. it is not, as Mark stated in this thread early on, the straw man argument of bring the world up the standard of living of the average U.S. resident. No one argues that really. I will address this as promise in another comment about development generally and...specifically the political minefield that is the god-awful term of "de-development". rambling ended. David -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#40401): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/40401 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/117483986/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
