Current Events > GE to cut 12,000 jobs due to falling demand for fossil fuels

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://qz.com/1150061/ge-cuts-12000-jobs-from-its-power-division-as-fossil-fuel-energy-demand-drops/

Meanwhile, renewable energy is creating jobs 12 times faster than any other industry.

http://fortune.com/2017/01/27/solar-wind-renewable-jobs/

The free fucking market is about to bend fossil fuel over.

@Antifar
@hockeybub89
---

yeet
---

Not if Trump has anything to say about it
---

Good. Not because I hate fossil fuels, but because I like the free market. It ensures that the best practices move on while the inefficient ones are left behind.
---

Do you think Antifar is against renewable energy or something?
---

emblem boy posted...

Do you think Antifar is against renewable energy or something?

Hes against capitalism.
---

emblem boy posted...

Do you think Antifar is against renewable energy or something?

No, he's saying regulation of the energy industry is bad because the free market will excert it's will anyway. And since Antifar isn't lacking common sense, he's proregulation of the market.
---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Not if Trump has anything to say about it

Trump is powerless to meaningfully impact this trend. It has already been decided by forces that are far greater.

emblem boy posted...

Do you think Antifar is against renewable energy or something?

No but this is a great example of how the government's role ought to be investment into the private sector which is ultimately what creates and leverages innovation. Don't underestimate the power of profit, mass production, and economies of scale. :D
---

I wonder how accurate these numbers are. I personally know a few environmental engineers from good engineering schools with good grades and they haven't been able to find jobs.
---

Callixtus posted...

I wonder how accurate these numbers are. I personally know a few environmental engineers from good engineering schools with good grades and they haven't been able to find jobs.

Are they going after the states that have those jobs? Not every state is equally invested into renewables yet.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Callixtus posted...

I wonder how accurate these numbers are. I personally know a few environmental engineers from good engineering schools with good grades and they haven't been able to find jobs.

Are they going after the states that have those jobs? Not every state is equally invested into renewables yet.

Can't say. I know these jobs are growing in the Sunbelt states especially, and I don't know if they focused on applying there.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

The free fucking market is about to bend fossil fuel over.

After decades of bad policy and overt kingmaking, the switch to renewable will finally happen, quickly, simply because it's become more cost-effective and demand has increased.

Imagine that.

Questionmarktarius posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

The free fucking market is about to bend fossil fuel over.

After decades of bad policy and overt kingmaking, the switch to renewable will finally happen, quickly, simply because it's become more cost-effective and demand has increased.

Imagine that.

Yeah, it's almost like free-market capitalism takes the best ideas and makes them accessible at lower costs over time.
---

Callixtus posted...

I know these jobs are growing in the Sunbelt states especially, and I don't know if they focused on applying there.

I don't have much sympathy for anyone who complains about a lack of jobs and affordable housing, yet refuses to leave the coast.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Callixtus posted...

I know these jobs are growing in the Sunbelt states especially, and I don't know if they focused on applying there.

I don't have much sympathy for anyone who complains about a lack of jobs and affordable housing, yet refuses to leave the coast.

---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

The free fucking market is about to bend fossil fuel over.

After decades of bad policy and overt kingmaking, the switch to renewable will finally happen, quickly, simply because it's become more cost-effective and demand has increased.

Imagine that.

Yeah, it's almost like free-market capitalism takes the best ideas and makes them accessible at lower costs over time.

Such as healthcare
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Callixtus posted...

I know these jobs are growing in the Sunbelt states especially, and I don't know if they focused on applying there.

I don't have much sympathy for anyone who complains about a lack of jobs and affordable housing, yet refuses to leave the coast.

I'm not in that position, but no way am I leaving my coastal haven if I were. I need to live in an actual real city, not a gigantic glorified suburb. And frankly, cities like that are few and far between in the middle of the country.
---

ManSpread posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

The free fucking market is about to bend fossil fuel over.

After decades of bad policy and overt kingmaking, the switch to renewable will finally happen, quickly, simply because it's become more cost-effective and demand has increased.

Imagine that.

Yeah, it's almost like free-market capitalism takes the best ideas and makes them accessible at lower costs over time.

Such as healthcare

Healthcare is not in a free market right now. There's a lot of regulation and bureaucracy behind the scenes.

But in general there have been substantial improvements in medicine and technology within healthcare. Things like sequencing the human genome have become drastically cheaper over the last few years. I remain optimistic that it'll bleed into the rest of the healthcare industry, even though right now the government has had its hands in it for a long time.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

There's a lot of regulation and bureaucracy behind the scenes.

See also:
http://www.freenation.org/a/f12l3.html

Questionmarktarius posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

There's a lot of regulation and bureaucracy behind the scenes.

See also:
http://www.freenation.org/a/f12l3.html

B-b-b-b-but government NEVER makes mistakes or ruins things. More government involvement is a good thing!!!!
---

that's great, but nowhere close to where we'll need to be to prevent a substantial temperature increase
---

Darkman124 posted...

that's great, but nowhere close to where we'll need to be to prevent a substantial temperature increase

I'm 100% sure we're on the right path and that we'll avoid a substantial temperature increase. Renewables are on the right track, and heavy investments are being made into carbon scrubbing/packing technologies.

We'll be 100% fine, and we'll both live long enough to see it work out.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

I'm 100% sure we're on the right path

Case closed.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

We'll be 100% fine

Comfortably closed.
---

COVxy you're trying really hard to get my attention. Are you really that disturbed that I said I don't care what you think about anything? LOL!!!!!!!!!
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

I'm 100% sure we're on the right path and that we'll avoid a substantial temperature increase.

Allegedly, if we somehow magically stop burning dinosaurs right now, there's still a couple generations where it gets warmer anyway.
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/what-would-happen-climate-if-we-stopped-emitting-greenhouse-gases-today/

FLUFFYGERM posted...

I'm 100% sure we're on the right path and that we'll avoid a substantial temperature increase. Renewables are on the right track, and heavy investments are being made into carbon scrubbing/packing technologies.

We'll be 100% fine, and we'll both live long enough to see it work out.

what track do you think we're on

what level of CO2 production do you think we'll see in 15 years

reference image for what tracks exist:



to be clear in 2016 we continued following the red line.
---

Darkman124 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

I'm 100% sure we're on the right path and that we'll avoid a substantial temperature increase. Renewables are on the right track, and heavy investments are being made into carbon scrubbing/packing technologies.

We'll be 100% fine, and we'll both live long enough to see it work out.

what track do you think we're on

what level of CO2 production do you think we'll see in 15 years

We're on a fantastic track.

The biggest polluter in America is no longer power plants. It's transport.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-04/america-crowns-a-new-pollution-king

And the reason for that isn't because transport got more inefficient over time - it's because power production has become more efficient. We already know that transport is going to become electrified as electric vehicles become the norm over the next few years, so that's going to change too.

Saudi Arabia is investing heavily in renewables.

https://www.reuters.com/article/saudi-renewable/saudi-arabia-pushes-ahead-with-renewable-drive-to-diversify-energy-mix-idUSL8N1HP10B

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/saudi-arabia/2017-06-06/saudi-arabias-renewables-revolution

Solar and wind are by far the cheapest energy sources even if we remove subsidies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwSkQa1tNmE

All of this is setting the stage for rapid and permanent adoption of wind/solar/etc for new energy production.

I mean India is already cancelling plans to build giant coal power plants because they want to build solar plants instead.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/india-solar-power-electricity-cancels-coal-fired-power-stations-record-low-a7751916.html

There's also carbon scrubbing technology in the works.

https://www.fastcompany.com/40421871/this-machine-just-started-sucking-co2-out-of-the-air-to-save-us-from-climate-change

http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/01/technology/smog-free-tower-china/index.html

In 15 years I could see all new vehicles being electric, with a substantial portion of active vehicles being electric too. Along with better carbon scrubbing and better transportation of goods thanks to applications of machine learning in logistics. I'm really optimistic.
---

in 15 years we'd need to be at emissions levels less than half of our present ones to avoid a 2C increase

but our emissions appear to be increasing
---

Darkman124 posted...

in 15 years we'd need to be at near-zero emissions to avoid a 2C increase

We really only have less than 20 years left at current emission rates to have a good chance of limiting emissions to less than 2C, says Chris Field, director of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and coauthor of a recent paper discussing carbon removal. So its a big challenge to do it simply by decreasing emissions from energy, transportation, and agriculture. Removing carbonwhether through planting more forests or more advanced technology like direct carbon capturewill probably also be necessary to reach the goal.
---

yep, he's absolutely right about the need for capture--carbon capture is required, as the image i posted shows--all of that range below 0 is a combination of no emissions + carbon capture tech

i edited my post for accuracy. but he's not correct that we can sustain current emission rates; we have to cut current emission rates drastically. all the sub-2C cases involve carbon release peaking in or around 2014. it didn't.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

In 15 years I could see all new vehicles being electric, with a substantial portion of active vehicles being electric too. Along with better carbon scrubbing and better transportation of goods thanks to applications of machine learning in logistics. I'm really optimistic.

We still need a substantial breakthrough in battery tech, or supercapictors to finally catch on.

Darkman124 posted...

yep, he's absolutely right about that--carbon capture is required, as the image i posted shows--all of that range below 0 is a combination of no emissions + carbon capture tech

And we're on track to mass produce carbon capture technology. Not to mention that as transportation becomes electric, we'll buy more time.

Questionmarktarius posted...

We still need a substantial breakthrough in battery tech, or supercapictors to finally catch on.

All of which is happening right now.
---

Government investment into the private sector is communism
---

Darkman124 posted...

carbon capture is required

I've got a neat idea for that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0xHCkOnn-A

josifrees posted...

Government investment into the private sector is communism

no it's not
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

And we're on track to mass produce carbon capture technology

i think it's hard to say this with confidence. a piece of capture tech exists; whether it is something we can expend the needed resources on in time is another question.

we'll keep trying, though.
---

josifrees posted...

Government investment into the private sector is communism

Private sector
Communism

Come again?
---

Darkman124 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

And we're on track to mass produce carbon capture technology

i think it's hard to say this with confidence. a piece of capture tech exists; whether it is something we can expend the needed resources on in time is another question.

we'll keep trying, though.

It's not hard to say it with confidence.

In just a handful of years we've seen battery costs and solar panel costs plummet at an insane pace. Another 15-20 years of progress is a lifetime when it comes to technology, and we've never been more poised to make substantial progress than we are now.

Imo the people who fear monger really hard about how we're screwed are just doing it because they're closet statists who want the government to exert more influence over people's lives. *shrug*
---

Anyone know where I can toss money at thorium investments?

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Imo the people who fear monger really hard about how we're screwed are just doing it because they're closet statists who want the government to exert more influence over people's lives. *shrug*

idk man, i feel like the people with the ulterior motives are the ones denying it's happening at all. they're trying to find ways to get out of their fossil fuel investments without crashing the sector while they do so (or paying politicians to do the same).

the "fear mongering" people are at least not lying to the general population. there is a real threat, and the road to overcoming it is long.
---

Darkman124 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Imo the people who fear monger really hard about how we're screwed are just doing it because they're closet statists who want the government to exert more influence over people's lives. *shrug*

idk man, i feel like the people with the ulterior motives are the ones denying it's happening at all. they're trying to find ways to get out of their fossil fuel investments without crashing the sector while they do so (or paying politicians to do the same).

the "fear mongering" people are at least not lying to the general population. there is a real threat, and the road to overcoming it is long.

idk they kinda are lying

the solutions aren't going to come from more taxes and restricting people's behaviors and freedoms. i'm reminded of the "stop eating meat" groups that always try to force people to feel guilty about how they're "destroying the environment" even though meat is a negligible factor when all is said and done

these people only know how to levy taxes on consumption, to the tune of expecting to stunt our standard of living while giving people in developing countries a free pass. i'm not inclined to trust those people or the politicians who are into those "solutions" tbqh
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

idk they kinda are lying

the solutions aren't going to come from more taxes and restricting people's behaviors and freedoms.

that's not a lie

that's an ineffective solution plan

one place we agree on is that effective solutions come from govt investment in private sector solutions. if the carbon capture tech can be proven to be functional, the developer should be seeing a lot of grants thrown his way.

lying is saying "global warming isn't caused by carbon emissions produced by humans"
---

Darkman124 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

idk they kinda are lying

the solutions aren't going to come from more taxes and restricting people's behaviors and freedoms.

that's not a lie

that's an ineffective solution plan

one place we agree on is that effective solutions come from govt investment in private sector solutions. if the carbon capture tech can be proven to be functional, the developer should be seeing a lot of grants thrown his way.

lying is saying "global warming isn't caused by carbon emissions produced by humans"

I think that they know it's an ineffective solution plan. They're still peddling it for the same reason that the governments peddle "OMG we gotta stop terrorists! GIVE ME ACCESS TO YOUR PRIVACY NAO" even though terrorism is actually extremely rare.

They just want an excuse to invade privacy and extend their authority. That's all it is tbqh.

But yeah, definitely agreed 100% that government investment into the best private sector candidates/solutions is the way to go. There's no other organization that can raise as much capital as the government, and no better means to allocate that capital efficiently than to let the private sector compete for the profit.
---

o forgot to tag @Godnorgosh
---

I mean, from a basic economic theory standpoint, both increasing investment in alternative energy sources and carbon sequestration, and making investments in fossil fuel less viable, achieve the same goal. Carbon tax makes sense with the same exact logic as investment into these technologies.

The issue with pure investment is that you'd nee to invest a shit ton of capital to make it worth these companies from turning down their involvement in fossil fuels while picking up these other technologies. I just don't see that kind of investment happening.

From a basic economic standpoint, at least.
---

Carbon tax does not make any sense because it will not meaningfully reduce actual consumption/usage. And we're already seeing drastic reduction in interest/demand in fossil fuel without implementing large-scale carbon taxes, so they're not necessary.

It's just a means of controlling/punishing consumption. It's not going to actually effect real change.
---

@Darkman124

Speak of the devil

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-017-07820-6
---

Technology changes and you ether need to adapt with it or fail.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

@Darkman124

Speak of the devil

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-017-07820-6

the concept of using AIs to research is a very neat one, but a subject area I know little about. tx for the link.

i think AI alarmists are missing the bigger picture for sure--we do need to take some risks to fight bigger ones.
---