# Interesting data - [Tomas Pueyo sur X : "18 surprising facts I learned about climate change](https://twitter.com/tomaspueyo/status/1679245407061172229) - [Emissions by sector - Our World in Data](https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector): can be filtered by country to have the trend per country. - [Live 24/7 CO₂ emissions of electricity consumption | App | Electricity Maps](https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/FR) - Consulter en temps réel et pays par pays : - La production en Kwh - Les sources de production de l'electricité - Les volumes importés et exportés - La quantité de CO2 émis. - 2024-08 [Roles of Earth's Albedo Variations and Top-of-the-Atmosphere Energy Imbalance in Recent Warming: New Insights from Satellite and Surface Observations](https://www.mdpi.com/2673-7418/4/3/17) - Main conclusion: Current knowledge is limited - "Past studies have reported a decreasing planetary albedo and an increasing absorption of solar radiation by Earth since the early 1980s, and especially since 2000. This should have contributed to the observed surface warming. However, the magnitude of such solar contribution is presently unknown, and the question of whether or not an enhanced uptake of shortwave energy by the planet represents positive feedback to an initial warming induced by rising greenhouse-gas concentrations has not conclusively been answered." - "Our analysis revealed that the solar forcing (i.e., TSI and albedo changes) measured by CERES explain 100% of the observed global warming trend and 83% of the interannual GSAT variability over the past 24 years, including the extreme 2023 heat anomaly. Albedo changes were found to be by far the dominant GSAT driver, while TSI variations only played a minor, modulating role. The sustained increase of sunlight absorption by the planet was also identified as the most likely driver of ocean warming in recent decades based on a high correlation (R2 = 0.8) between the shortwave radiation uptake and the mean annual temperature anomaly of the 0–100 m global oceanic layer. These results suggest a lack of physical reality to both the anthropogenic radiative forcing attributed to rising greenhouse gases and the positive (amplifying) feedbacks hypothesized by the greenhouse theory and simulated by climate models." - "This is because any real forcing (or amplifying feedback) outside of the increased planetary uptake of solar radiation would have produced additional warming above and beyond the amount explained by changes in the planetary albedo and TSI. However, no such extra warming is observed in the available temperature records. Hence, the anthropogenic radiative forcing and associated positive feedbacks are likely model artifacts rather than real phenomena." - "Our analyses also showed that this energy imbalance results from a varying sunlight absorption by the planet and would only disappear if the Earth’s albedo stops changing and the uptake of shortwave radiation stabilizes, which is unlikely to ever occur. The reduction of human greenhouse-gas emissions cannot and will not affect EEI. " - Article de presse sur le sujet : [Climat : une étude nous invite à la précaution - IREF Europe FR](https://fr.irefeurope.org/publications/les-pendules-a-lheure/article/climat-une-etude-nous-invite-a-la-precaution/) # In defense of growth? - Is it possible to have energy abundancy and a reduction in emissions? - [In defence of growth - Lloyd Pinnell](https://illuminem.com/illuminemvoices/in-defence-of-growth) - The problem with degrowth - Firstly, growth does not necessarily result in higher energy and resource use. In fact, it is now mostly having the opposite effect, with GDP rising and emissions falling in many parts of the world. - Secondly, the transition to a low-carbon economy will require massive investments across not only our energy systems, but also to retrofit buildings, redesign transport and manufacturing processes, and transform agricultural practices. To pull this off, we need strong growth to make capital available and underpin the business case for low-carbon technologies. - We should instead stay focussed on what works – supporting clean growth. - What is degrowth? - The core argument put forward by the degrowth movement is that economic development necessarily results in higher greenhouse gas emissions and resource extraction. - Economic growth is decoupling - ![[Decoupling - Economic growth & CO2 emissions reduction.png]] - In the UK, for example, total CO2 emissions have fallen back to levels last seen in the [1870s](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-is-now-halfway-to-meeting-its-net-zero-emissions-target/), and the country is already halfway towards meeting its target of reaching net zero by 2050. - This is not because we have outsourced our emissions to other countries like China. It is easy to see this by comparing national emissions from consumption relative to those from production. - For example, if a TV is produced in China but purchased in the US, the emissions will show up in the consumption-based emissions for the US, rather than for China. - It's the technology, stupid - Emissions and resource extraction are therefore not falling in rich countries because of offshoring, but rather because of technological progress. - China and India, who now jointly make up for almost two thirds of global emissions, still have both rapidly growing economies and emissions. It is a tempting conclusion therefore to suggest that we should slow or stop growth to save the planet. But this is a distraction from what is actually desperately needed: more clean growth. - What’s so good about growth, anyway? - Growth, or the ability to produce more and higher quality goods and services, has lifted most of the world out of desperate poverty in a remarkably short period of time. - Before the industrial revolution, more than 1 in 3 children died before the age of 5. From this point to 1950, this figure halved, before dropping again 5-fold from 1950 to today. - In the same period, the share of the population living in extreme poverty has fallen from over 50% to less than 10%. - The degrowth movement argues that instead of more growth we should focus on providing basic services for everyone through income redistribution. But the extent to which we can do this depends on our ability to collect tax revenues, which depends on growth. - Clean growth, not degrowth - Degrowth policies won’t work - It would require taking decisions on which businesses should shut down and on how to compensate the workers. It is difficult to imagine a peaceful, let alone, democratic political solution. - As Branko Milanovic points out, if we were to try redistributing incomes globally so that everyone had $17,000 per person per year (the current global average), we would need to ask 86% of people in rich countries to give away a major share of their incomes. ## Interesting new techs ### On nuclear energy? - SMR: [Small modular reactor - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor) - MSR: [Molten-salt reactor - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-salt_reactor) ### Cooling surfaces: barium sulfate? - New way to cool surfaces to diminish greenhoust effects of increasing earth temperature: - Barium sulfate powder mixed with an acrylic base - [How To Make Infrared Cooling Paint (Electricity Free Air Conditioning) - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3bJnKmeNJY&ab_channel=NightHawkInLight) - [Revolutionary Paint: How to Make Surfaces Stay Cool in the Sun - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNs_kNilSjk&ab_channel=TechIngredients)