I don't think you're entirely correct about the lack of any climate transition. In America, perhaps. But electricity generation in several European countries has indeed made great strides away from fossil fuels. 99% of Sweden's electricity comes from renewables or nuclear power. In the UK, the proportion of renewable electricity generation went from less than 10% in 2010 to over 50% in 2024. It's fine to note that more could be done, and that many other parts of the world have made less progress than this. But when you say it's all talk, you make it sound like meaningful changes of any kind are politically impossible everywhere. That's just not true.
Fair enough -- I am exaggerating. But is any country on earth likely to meet is Paris commitments? Are we going to stay below 2 degrees? The best efforts so far by individual countries are almost a rounding error.
Well, it depends what you look at. You are not wrong that most countries are not going to meet their Paris commitments. The US and Europe have both managed to decrease carbon emissions overall. China's emissions have been increasing but some have suggested they are peaking. We would be noticeably worse off if those decreases in America and Europe had not happened, and if we refer to them erroneously as "rounding errors" then that will make it harder to consolidate those gains.
Yet again, rhetoric is disproportionately important. Do you seriously believe this conversation in the comments to my Substack post will adversely affect climate action?
I do agree that there are problems with policing rhetoric too much, but, I confess, to my mind the biggest issues are in areas where the policing of rhetoric is about tone or about repressing people's honest opinions. In this case, my primary dispute is one of fact. Perhaps you are correct that I should therefore have kept my focus more narrowly on the fact itself, instead of trying to make the case that accuracy in your substack comments matters in any measurable sense.
Okay, let's focus on facts. I asked you if any country is going to meet their Paris commitments. You handwaved that. Is even Sweden going to? Are countries adding up to 1% of global GDP going to? And were those standards even remotely adequate in the first place? I think the answer to all of those questions is, within a rounding error, no. And in that context, showing up to bug me for being unfair to the people who are in charge of failing on climate seems... not helpful.
It literally doesn’t matter what anyone in Europe does to bring about the climate transition if the rest of the world fails to do so (and there are many permutations of this point). The solution requires the whole world achieving something together, and this is precisely what Adam is pointing out as essentially unprecedented.
I think we’ve already established that this is a useless conversation, and you don’t seem to be enjoying it very much, so I won’t torture you with further substantive responses. I’ve said my piece. Best wishes.
I don't think you're entirely correct about the lack of any climate transition. In America, perhaps. But electricity generation in several European countries has indeed made great strides away from fossil fuels. 99% of Sweden's electricity comes from renewables or nuclear power. In the UK, the proportion of renewable electricity generation went from less than 10% in 2010 to over 50% in 2024. It's fine to note that more could be done, and that many other parts of the world have made less progress than this. But when you say it's all talk, you make it sound like meaningful changes of any kind are politically impossible everywhere. That's just not true.
Fair enough -- I am exaggerating. But is any country on earth likely to meet is Paris commitments? Are we going to stay below 2 degrees? The best efforts so far by individual countries are almost a rounding error.
Well, it depends what you look at. You are not wrong that most countries are not going to meet their Paris commitments. The US and Europe have both managed to decrease carbon emissions overall. China's emissions have been increasing but some have suggested they are peaking. We would be noticeably worse off if those decreases in America and Europe had not happened, and if we refer to them erroneously as "rounding errors" then that will make it harder to consolidate those gains.
Yet again, rhetoric is disproportionately important. Do you seriously believe this conversation in the comments to my Substack post will adversely affect climate action?
I do agree that there are problems with policing rhetoric too much, but, I confess, to my mind the biggest issues are in areas where the policing of rhetoric is about tone or about repressing people's honest opinions. In this case, my primary dispute is one of fact. Perhaps you are correct that I should therefore have kept my focus more narrowly on the fact itself, instead of trying to make the case that accuracy in your substack comments matters in any measurable sense.
Okay, let's focus on facts. I asked you if any country is going to meet their Paris commitments. You handwaved that. Is even Sweden going to? Are countries adding up to 1% of global GDP going to? And were those standards even remotely adequate in the first place? I think the answer to all of those questions is, within a rounding error, no. And in that context, showing up to bug me for being unfair to the people who are in charge of failing on climate seems... not helpful.
It literally doesn’t matter what anyone in Europe does to bring about the climate transition if the rest of the world fails to do so (and there are many permutations of this point). The solution requires the whole world achieving something together, and this is precisely what Adam is pointing out as essentially unprecedented.
I think we’ve already established that this is a useless conversation, and you don’t seem to be enjoying it very much, so I won’t torture you with further substantive responses. I’ve said my piece. Best wishes.