Back

@gerrymcgovern I don’t see that as necessarily a problem provided the electricity generation is by renewables

@peterbrown @gerrymcgovern When asked, "How are we going to afford this?" they answer, "We'll just use renewables==earn more money!"

But we aren't even getting close to breaking even. More CO2 expenditure puts us even further into the red.

I see the argument you make all the time. It just horrifies me. We can't afford it!! We're losing the war!!

I wish that I could show you what the world 100 years today will look like, even just for one minute.

@TomSwirly @gerrymcgovern I don’t what arguments you’re accusing me of making “all the time” but those of us who live in countries producing 110% renewable electricity can afford to have a different attitude to data centres.
Or you could build them in Costa Rica, where they have 100% renewable electricity .

@peterbrown @gerrymcgovern

I am accusing you of making the very argument you just made in your post.

This argument is utterly, utterly wrong. CO2 is not a local issue!

Our carbon budget is global. Your power should not be used for new energy expenditures, but to replace existing, essential expenditures that use fossil fuels.

I'm sorry to sound angry: but I am. We are going to kill our planetary ecosystem: it is by far the biggest crime in history.

@TomSwirly @gerrymcgovern I’m afraid your anger is misplaced. You are preaching to the converted. But you need to direct your anger to the people that can do something about it - the politicians in your own country. Without wishing to sound holier than thou, our government has responded to the public and not only talks the talk but walks the walk.
Should we be held back by countries dragging their fossil feet?

@peterbrown @gerrymcgovern I live in France, where a majority of the electrical power is nuclear.

I'm very, very glad that Paraguay has done its share. It doesn't change the cold equations at all.

We need to decarbonize by 90% in a tiny amount of time in order to avoid catastrophe. That means degrowth everywhere, and particularly, no new unnecessary mass consumption of power anywhere.

(Me? No car, no kids, plant-based diet, etc...)

@TomSwirly
You're 100% right. This idea that "renewables" will save us is a dangerous illusion. We still think we can keep growing when to have any hope of survival we need a massive contraction. And these so-called renewables require a huge surge of mining, stressing already stressed biodiversity, water, soil. And even as "renewables" grow, oil, gas and coal grows too because the economy is growing.
@peterbrown

@gerrymcgovern @TomSwirly so how do you suggest we produce electricity? Or is it your suggestion that we should do without it completely?

@peterbrown
In the context of a massive reduction in energy use, wind, solar, etc., can make sense. A huge correction in human consumption is coming. We can make that correction or it will be made to us, but the limits of consumption are coming quickly into sight. We must radically slow down.
@TomSwirly

@peterbrown @gerrymcgovern In order to not heat the Earth anymore, we have a tiny CO2 budget.

As of today, animal agriculture alone consumes 150% of that budget; concrete, 50-100% of that budget; non-animal agriculture, about 50%; data centers are about 30% of that budget, expected to rise to 50% in the next five years; concrete is about 50%; transportation is about 600% of that budget; heating and cooking, about 300%.

2/

@peterbrown @gerrymcgovern Imagine your family earns €10k after taxes but spends €100k a year. In that context, any new expenses would be right out.

In exactly the same way, we cannot afford any new usages of power. Any new non-emitting energy we create needs to immediately be used to replace existing fossil fuel use.