Be kinde to folk. This changeth the whole habitat.
- Manlobbi
Stocks A to Z / Stocks M / Markel (MKL)
No. of Recommendations: 0
https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/topics/in-depth/clima...This is an impressive report.
Snippet
In the past decades, the EU took firm action against climate change, resulting in a more than 37% drop in EU emissions in 2023 compared with 1990 levels. This is mainly a result of a growing use of renewable energy and decreased use of carbon-intensive fossil fuels. Improvements in energy efficiency and structural changes in the economy also contributed to meeting these goals.
Now, more ambitious goals are set that include a net 55% or greater reduction below 1990 levels by 2030 and a climate-neutrality objective by 2050. Reaching these goals will require even higher emission cuts through transitioning from fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy. It also means halting deforestation, using land sustainably and restoring nature until we reach the point where the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is balanced with the capture and storage of these gases in our forests, oceans and soil.
We have a few people in the US who are eager to capitalize on fossil fuels.
No. of Recommendations: 2
We have a few people in the US who are eager to capitalize on fossil fuels.
Let's use them--as the material to be decomposed. Just like in the Twilight Zone, they get taken to the Landscape business--which then composts them into fertilizer.
No. of Recommendations: 9
We have a few people in the US who are eager to capitalize on fossil fuels.
By "a few people," do you mean "a majority of voters?" Because that's why our fossil fuel usage looks the way it does. Most voters want to capitalize on fossil fuels. They don't want to pay more for energy in order to reduce GHG emissions. Oh, sure - many voters will pay a little more for energy if it would solve climate change, and there are some voters who would (and do!) pay a lot to avoid climate impacts. In very blue states, these voters are the majority. But most voters nationwide are unwilling to bear more than a tiny amount of cost to reduce climate emissions.
It's not just the companies who make fossil fuels that capitalize on it. It's all their customers, too.
No. of Recommendations: 0
True enough
Europeans had demand side economics and were richer than us.
No. of Recommendations: 20
It's not just the companies who make fossil fuels that capitalize on it. It's all their customers, too.
I've been tracking fossil fuels for some 70 years now. I don't recall anyone who ever bought fossil fuels because they "liked" them. They bought products derived from fossil fuels because they liked the benefits they received from them. The benefits, in their views, outweighed the costs. No one was ever forced to buy gasoline, or jet fuel, or natural gas for heating and cooking, or plastics for clothing, medical equipment, food packaging, because they loved their sources. They liked the benefits they received at the costs they paid. Demand drives supply.
Modern civilization happened because fossil fuels supplied energy (via steam engines and ICI's, then electricity generation) that had previously been available only by manual labor (own and slaves), domesticated animals, and limited use of wood for fuel, wind for sailing, and flowing rivers. That's what kept human productivity limited for thousands of years. New sources of energy from fossil fuels broke that bottleneck only circa 150 years ago. Then followed the industrial revolution followed by the electric revolution and then the information revolution from the internet. The anticipated AI revolution will also be powered by fossil fuels for a long time. Wind and solar only contributed some 3% of the world's power in 2024. The building blocks of modern civilization - cement, steel, plastics, and fertilizers - all come from fossil fuels, and cannot be replaced by electricity.
Now we're faced - as a civilization - by the consequences of using fossil fuels for power: climate change and overuse of earth's resources. And, so far, we're unwilling to pay the costs of removing the CO2 generated by fossil fuels. We don't like the consequences of using them, but we like the benefits more than reducing their use for power and materials.
We're either going to have to adapt or change. So far, we're unwilling to do so. Also, because of abundant power, we've outcompeted other forms of life for earth's resources. Our numbers grow - they're going extinct.
This can't go on forever. Somethings must change. It's not fossil fuels that are the problem, it's all of us. We've evolved to compete for resources. Now we've overdone it. Can we change our behavior?
I doubt it until the pain of not changing outweighs the pain of changing. That's going to be a tough period. And pretending it isn't real isn't going to prevent it happening.
No. of Recommendations: 0
And, so far, we're unwilling to pay the costs
The USA is not the only "We".
Well we have not raised the US standard of living in 40 years. Could be part of it.
China and Europe, the other WEs, are going forward without "us".
We do not even have good excuses.
No. of Recommendations: 0
The benefits, in their views, outweighed the costs.
We ignore 3/4 of the cost, the negative externalities.
Now we are unsure if we can continue to ignore those costs any longer. If you add up the true costs, this is damned expensive.
No. of Recommendations: 0
But most voters nationwide are unwilling to bear more than a tiny amount of cost to reduce climate emissions.
49.8% not over 50%
I would not call that most.
The Senate is a bad measure.
House seats? That flips back and forth. As 2022 showed us, most folks want to ease off on fossil fuels. The true big beautiful acts of 2022.
Fewer people voted in 2024 compared to 2020. 2020 was a landslide.
Where are you getting your "majority"? I do not see it.
No. of Recommendations: 1
agree, 'wanting to capitalize' is ridiculous.
unlike the extreme difficulty of 'buying american made', completely avoiding fossil\plastics\medication\anything passed through a refinery is an impossibility.
minimizing fossil for stationary power consumption is the most rational bang for the buck, solutions exist, and even for that most of the globe is unwilling and\or incapable.
and stem-incapable populism is not a plus.
No. of Recommendations: 7
Where are you getting your "majority"? I do not see it.Virtually all polling shows that the overwhelming majority of Americans are not willing to pay even as much as $100 per year to reduce emissions. See Chart #8 in the below link:
https://epic.uchicago.edu/insights/2024-poll-ameri...Most Americans want climate change to be addressed
and they don't want to bear any material costs to do it. Since those two goals conflict.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Americans are not willing to pay even as much as $100 per year to reduce emissions.
It doesn't cost that much. Just do the math.
5-7 plastic corks per MAGAt x 100-million MAGAts = $700-million.
Cork all of Spankee's openings and his followers will follow.
DONE !!!
No. of Recommendations: 0
Most Americans want climate change to be addressed and they don't want to bear any material costs to do it. Since those two goals conflict.
Americans were good with the acts in 2022. Until later. We got inflation out of those acts. Heatpumps went up in price for the salesmen to take the difference instead of the customer.
So yes, right now we do not want the cost.
But we have and will again. In a different way pay for cleaning things up. Meanwhile, a blurb on the radio said EV sales are up.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Americans were good with the acts in 2022.
By which I assume you mean the Inflation Reduction Act, and specifically the various subsidies for certain emission reducing activities.
There is modest support for such things. But those programs are nowhere near sufficient to materially reduce emissions. You can make small reductions in emissions for a small amount of cost. Many Americans are willing to support small costs to fight climate change. So small reductions in emissions are possible. But there is virtually no political support for larger costs to fight climate change, and you can't actually achieve material reductions in emissions without incurring larger costs.
Do not confuse the modest measures that can get adopted with the more significant measures that would have to be adopted (but never are) in order to actually meet the specific goals of limiting emissions.
That's why even when political parties that are predisposed to measures to reduce climate change get power (either in the U.S. or abroad), they never adopt stringent enough measures to actually achieve the levels of reduction necessary to materially reduce emissions by enough to achieve their stated goals. That's especially true in the U.S., where there is a particularly low appetite for non-trivial sacrifice.
Meanwhile, a blurb on the radio said EV sales are up.
It would be shocking if they weren't - with the $7,500 tax credit disappearing on 9/30, a lot of EV sales are being pulled forward into this quarter.
I would expect that EV sales will continue to increase for a while (though perhaps not the next few quarters), if only because so many automakers have invested so much capital into developing EV's. With so much new product coming to market, you're likely to see increased uptake. But the hoped-for "s-curve" in EV adoption seems a bit unlikely now.
No. of Recommendations: 0
That's why even when political parties that are predisposed to measures to reduce climate change get power
That is a malconfiguration of "why".
We are not producing enough as a nation to raise the standard of living. That should begin to change, but we are taking a very wrong turn in fiscal policy right now. The wealthier a country feels the more social goods get money.
