OK, #energytwitter, I'm wondering if anyone has recent references giving data on embodied/embedded/manufacturing emissions for electronic devices of all types.
This is great, but it's 8 years old now: Teehan, Paul, and Milind Kandlikar. 2013. "Comparing Embodied Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Modern Computing and Electronics Products." Environmental Science & Technology. vol. 47, no. 9. 2013/05/07. pp. 3997-4003. doi.org/10.1021/es3030…
This looks good: Clément, L-P P. V. P., Quentin E. S. Jacquemotte, and L M. Hilty. 2020. "Sources of variation in life cycle assessments of smartphones and tablet computers." Environmental Impact Assessment Review. vol. 84, 2020/09/01/. pp. 106416. sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
Any other leads?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
@rustneversleepz That was a widely cited article but it wasn’t state of the art at the time. I emailed Socolow in 2009 to explain his mistake of saying keeping emissions constant was a reasonable goal which he said elsewhere also. Still have the email.
@rustneversleepz This was state of the art in 2003, from @KenCaldeira Caldeira, Ken, Atul K. Jain, and Martin I. Hoffert. 2003. "Climate Sensitivity Uncertainty and the Need for Energy Without CO2 Emission " Science. vol. 299, no. 5615. pp. 2052-2054. <sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab…>
@rustneversleepz@KenCaldeira This was state of the art in 1989 (!): Krause, Florentin, Wilfred Bach, and Jon Koomey. 1989. From Warming Fate to Warming Limit: Benchmarks to a Global Climate Convention. El Cerrito, CA: International Project for Sustainable Energy Paths. <files.me.com/jgkoomey/9jzwgj>
Lyman is right here. Travel bans are an important part of pandemic response, and the more quickly they're implemented in a pandemic, the better off we'll be.
Of course, they are one part of a more comprehensive strategy that involves getting to zero transmission, extensive testing and tracing, masking, and eventually vaccines. Travel bans themselves won't do the job, but as part of a strategy to get to zero transmission, they work.
Related: The idea of "managing" respiratory pandemics is invalid. Getting to zero transmission (as NZ, Australia, and the Canadian Atlantics have done) is the right goal, and we need to remember that for next time.
I want to add a subtle clarification to this thread, in which people try to answer the question on whether we should "let go of [1.5 C] as a policy goal".
The nature of path-dependent systems dominated by increasing returns to scale, learning effects, network externalities, and spillovers, like our economic/social/technical society, is that we can't actually know what is possible until we try to take action.
Much has been made of the electricity used by Bitcoin, but the question of whether to use Bitcoin is not solely (or even primarily) a function of its electricity use. What problem does it solve? Does it offer advantages over conventional approaches to the same problem?
These same questions can and should be asked of blockchain more generally. What problem does it solve? Does it offer advantages over conventional approaches to the same problem?
I don’t take a public position on these questions because my focus is on getting the numbers for electricity use of blockchain correct, but others are starting to wrestle with the use case for crypto currency, as they should.
Here's a thread documenting the epic incompetence of the Trump administration + the GOP in dealing with the pandemic. Some Democratic politicos deserve severe critiques also (Cuomo and DeBlasio being the poster children there) but a national problem requires a national response.
Remember, that for pandemics as well as for climate change, "Speed trumps perfection". Stop obsessing about "optimality". There is nothing optimal about responding to a pandemic or to climate change, just move as fast as you can.
Hey look, the GOP (not Trump) hamstrung the Obama Administration's effort to build up strategic reserves to fight pandemics going as far back as 2011: rawstory.com/2020/04/heres-…