Episodi
-
In some areas, yes. If you want to get out of lignite production, jobs will be lost. But, what is remarkable, is that despite subsidies the number of people working in lignite industry in Germany has steadily fallen over the last few decades and currently there are working less than 15.000 people in this area in Germany. Of course, the transformation is very painful for the directly affected people and therefore it is very important to show them new employment prospects and to help them, e.g. by providing further training.
So, climate protection can lead to a loss of jobs but more often, new jobs are created and jobs change.
Firstly, we see that within occupations environmental and climate protection activities and requirements become more and more important over time. And this increase in importance is associated with high employment growth.
Secondly, firms in the environmental sector show more dynamic employment growth than other firms and this is especially true for highly innovative firms.
And thirdly, there are several studies that show said stimulus packages that promote climate protection help the economy and the labor market more than packages without a climate protection focus.
So, altogether, I see more positive employment effects from environmental and climate protection efforts than negative ones. In other words, I see more chances than risks. -
From my perspective it’s central to implement the golden triangle of transformation:
First: binding climate targets. Long-term targets are important for consumers and the economy, so that they know where the journey is going and when they will arrive.
Short-term goals ensure quick action.
Binding rules enable to base investment decisions on them.
Second: prices should tell the ecological truth. Constantly rising carbon prices, or long-term reward rates for ecological services such as for renewable energy are necessary price signals for people and companies, they are tail wind to support sustainable action. This is socially just if those who earn less will be supported.
Third: the financial sector has to be able to distinguish and to assess whether an energy intensive company is on the way to greenhouse gas neutrality or not. So far, there is still a lack of reporting commitments and stress tests which show whether a business model fits the necessary climate targets and CO2-price.
Binding targets, strong price signals and clear rules for the finance market are the golden triangle of transformation. It’s time for rapid implementation – and to invite partners in the world to cooperate. -
Episodi mancanti?
-
If one thinks about energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, typical candidates come to mind, like traffic, electricity generation and so on. However, also the information and communication technology is a player in this field.
First, you might only think about charging your mobile phone or the electricity that your computer needs. However, the total energy consumption does not only include the use of electronic devices, but also their production. Additionally, when accessing for example the internet, there is a large infrastructure which also needs electricity. 300 Google searches need about as much electricity as boiling one liter of water.
Currently, approximately 3000 TWh of electricity are used globally per year for communication and information technology. That corresponds approximately to the power of 300 large power plants running day and night. Approximately one third of this electricity is used to charge and operate mobile phones, while a little less is needed for data centers and networks. However, this is expected to increase significantly in the future.
In the worst case, information and communications technology will need up to 50% of the electricity and be responsible for one fourth of the greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. While more likely are 10 to 15% of the greenhouse gas emissions, which is still approximately as much as traffic.
What does that mean for us? We should use wherever possible renewable energies, especially for operating the data centers. Furthermore, we should try to reduce the power consumption, by using new energy-efficient technologies which we are doing research on at the moment, but also by adjusting our very own behavior.
Sources:
D. MacKay, Sustainable Energy – without the hot air (http://www.withouthotair.com)
L. Belkhir et al., J. Clean. Prod. 177, 448 (2018)
A. Andrae et al., Challenges 6, 117 (2015)
https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/powering-google-search.html -
The basis for answering this question is the account of internationally binding legal targets in environmentalism, such as the 1.5 degree Celsius limit for global warming. Given this target, it is clearly necessary not to rely only on technological strategies but also on behavioral strategies. Consuming less, not only consuming smarter. And this will probably take us to an overall situation of post-growth or degrowth, which poses serious challenges in terms of pension schemes, labour markets, etc. It will be necessary to develop solutions for that because just forgetting about the environmental targets is clearly no option. Because this would take us to severe consequences of climate change, biodiversity loss, disturbed hydrogen cycles, etc.
-
There is no doubt that burning fossil fuels is the main cause of global warming.And yet some people nonetheless deny the existence of climate change or that we cause it.
Science denial uses several telltale techniques. Learning how to spot them can protect you against being misled. -
Year after year, the ocean absorbs about a quarter of man-made carbon dioxide. In doing so, it reduces the additional greenhouse effect, but this comes at a high price. This is because the carbon dioxide reacts with seawater to form carbonic acid, which gradually acidifies the sea. A phenomenon known as ocean acidification.
-
We need land to produce food. But today around 9% of humanity is starving and at the Amazon woods are on fire. So, to feed all people, we need more arable land.
-
To answer this question is not really straightforward. But I think, it very much depends upon how we deal with the earth nowadays and how we guarantee a future of sustainable production of food, together with the conservation of ecosystems and biodiversity.
-
On a superficial view, climate protection is expensive. Regional bio-products are more expensive than industrially produced mass products. We consumers have to pay more for green electricity than for nuclear power. And gasoline for car travel costs less than a train ticket.But the truth is that the lack of cost transparency hides how the prices really come about.