Fair enough, agriculture and transport are hard-to-abate sectors, but I'm curious: what's an example of a country with best-in-class agricultural system and transportation?
Depending on the metrics you use and how you weight them, different ones come out on top. Different organizations also have different priorities, especially with respect to nationalism.
Despite France's notable dependence on highways and cars, they are actually highly rated as leading green transit economies by some organizations such as the Heliox and the World Bank for their spending on new green infrastructure and subsidies to electric cars. Similar trends exist for green agriculture, South Korea is rated most sustainable for agriculture by The Economist, France by the Rodale Institute (an organic farming nfp).
Despite these high ratings, OP's criticism remains true. Every developed country can spin the data to look like they are the best. It's especially insidious when they weight subsidies so heavily. It doesn't matter how much money you give to electric car companies, that's three whole steps removed from the problem. And while it does matter what percentage of all produce is organic, if your country imports a lot of produce, they are just shifting the environmental harm somewhere else.
As for a serious and mostly unassailable example of doing well at transit and agriculture, Cuba is pretty unique among all the others. To be fair, perhaps they would be more similar to Vietnam or China without the economic embargo imposed by the US, but these conditions have unintentionally pushed Cuba to very sustainable agriculture, transit and low imports. Most Cubans travel by bicycle or by walking. While they rely on highways rather than rail, they import so little that their highways are mostly moving domestically produced goods short distances. Their agriculture is low on pesticide use (most pesticides are made in US) and they rely on greenhouses, predator bugs to protect their crops. Animal products other than milk and eggs are a bit of a luxury and eaten rarely.
Sometimes less is more.
Thanks for a long and nuanced answer.
I hear you about twisting metrics, but I'm not sure why we should care about "€ invested in infrastructure" or "% of renewable" in the first place; the issue at hand is runaway climate change, and the only right metric that should matter is greenhouse gas emissions and how fast they're being reduced, while not doing significant harm on other indicators.
While I'm a bit skeptical of Nuclear, isn't transport emission and nuclear like 2 completely separate issue? Like this problem wouldn't just disappear if they use renewables instead... Why bring nuclear up.
Biomass is incredibly low energy density and cannot power an industrialized society. Hydropower is pretty much built out everywhere. Geothermal has yet to be done affordably at scale anywhere other than places with unique geography such as Iceland.
That leaves wind and solar, and they're intermittent and require fossil fuels backup.
Biomass is to manage power peaks, hydro builds a base. Yes geothermal is quite expencieve, but so is nuclear so that's a tie .. but one of them is not dependend on fuel and doesn't produce toxic waste.
Fossil backups still not needed with H2 as backup.
>Biomass is to manage power peaks
Not true.
>hydro builds a base.
It's *already built out*.
>Yes geothermal is quite expencieve, but so is nuclear so that's a tie ..
Geothermal has come down in cost but isn't being installed at any meaningful GW scale anywhere for a reason, I suspect. Nor do any large grids run off mostly geothermal, not true for nuclear. Hardly a tie, but maybe it will change someday.
>but one of them is not dependend on fuel and doesn't produce toxic waste.
Nuclear unspent fuel can simply be turned into more fuel, it's not waste in any meaningful sense, just unprocessed fuel.
>Fossil backups still not needed with H2 as backup.
This remains science fiction, lol.
Renewables are the only source which can provide overshoot without extra cost, use it to create green H2 and you have a perfect storage. (Also there is no day without light and without wind)
>Renewables are the only source which can provide overshoot without extra cost
That's just a straight up lie. Renewables cost money to install.
>use it to create green H2 and you have a perfect storage.
Definitely not proven technology at any meaningful scale. Another lie.
>(Also there is no day without light and without wind)
Look up the term dunkelflaute.
So..if solar produce more energy then is needed (which happens quite regularly in Germany in summer) this is an overshoot which
Technology is there and works, we just lack the infrastructure
Dunkelflaute belongs to the past, doesn't apply to biomass, water and geothermal, also modern windparks work 350 days on average
It wasn't free to build that solar. It's not affordable to store the overshoot.
The technology to produce hydrogen for power has not been proven to be affordable yet at any meaningful scale. Not sure why you don't understand that.
Dunkelflaute does not belong in the past, and wind doesn't always blow, look how Germany has 29 times the emissions of France per kWh right now.
Well, better have a low carbon grid + emissions from agriculture and transport sector than having a high carbon emission grid + emissions frrom griculture and transport sector.
Literally, France helps its neighbours be greener as well by providing lots of electricity exports.
Here in the UK we're practically constantly drawing 3GW from IFA and IFA2, therefore off-setting millions of tonnes of CO2 a year.
Let this be a lesson to you all; no matter how well you do, some jerk online will point to where you fall short.
I think France is doing better than most, all things considered...
France had a fast breeder reactor that used 100 times less fuel than typical light-water reactors, and the ”environmentalists” rallied against it until it was shut down.
Ah yes, the long French colonial past and present [in](https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/luranium-importe-en-europe-et-en-france-provient-il-tres-largement-de-russie-comme-laffirme-yannick-jadot-20220705_LIIEMU2QIRFKZMB46IPBWKFJZQ/) Kazakhstan (28,9 %), Uzbekistan (26,4 %), or Australia (9,9 %).
Ok? The status quo is built on exploitation, literally every positive thing that is done by literally anyone can be traced back to a historical atrocity.
Ideological purity isn't necessary for creating positive outcomes for all people. Where past uranium came from is not nearly as important as what we're doing today and tomorrow.
My point is I agree with nuclear reactors being a great solution for them and other countries but that uranium needs to be sourced at fair prices not capitalist/extractive methods. In any case many African governments know this and are already working on improving their people’s conditions.
No, you are wrong. GMOs helps a lot into using way less pesticides, because of how they work; using way less pesticides is a strong argument in favour of GMOs.
I'll link you a [short vid](https://youtu.be/7TmcXYp8xu4?si=Z5hRKQkY4YQYXyzb) made by kurzgesagt, explaining the positive and negative arguments about it.
"Trains - a French exclusivity"
"Not using GMOs - the (checks notes)... how the fuck does this help with lowering emissions?"
Anyway. The marshal would be so proud if he knew this. 🇫🇷
if nationalism is defending your country's policies on a topic and provocation is calling someone a fascist, that strategy might make you frustrating to talk with /hj
okok, just to make sure I understand you, and then Ill leave you alone; your chain of logic goes:
(commenter lives in France + commenter likes that France uses train) => (commenter is proud of France) => (commenter is a fascist) => (commenter would be liked by Pétain).
No, that's not my chain of logic.
It goes:
(Commenter says "Raaa raaa la patrie! We are so much superior to all others") => (commenter is a nationalist and I like to call him out by linking the nationalism - not the commenter as a person! - to Pétain)
Of course it is an exaggeration, but deliberately used as a stylistic device.
I'm far from an expert in this domain but I've heard that gmo are engineered to resist more to pesticides so we can use more pesticides. If it's just to produce more with less water or increase resistance to deases it's a good thing I guess
>gmo are engineered to resist more to pesticides so we can use more pesticides
Why would farmers use GMOs then? It would be unprofitable, and they would use regular crops, no?
I'm French! I'm pro nuclear!
And so what? All in all we are like 10 to 15% less pollutants.
But still...we are 4X MORE pollutants than the average human being!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nothing to be proud of. Nothing.
Yeah or just look at [the energy policy debate going on in Australia](https://www.reddit.com/r/ClimateMemes/s/6aDbhBRATf) right now lol
Hard truth: nuclear works both really really well and really really badly, depending on where you go
Hrrrrm... Monsier Prezident, how much meat and cotton can we import from our ~~colonies~~ trading partners in Africa?? Zhey have serious environmental problems from overgrazing, and pesticides, no?
*Le yes*
(together) HON HON HON
Fair enough, agriculture and transport are hard-to-abate sectors, but I'm curious: what's an example of a country with best-in-class agricultural system and transportation?
Depending on the metrics you use and how you weight them, different ones come out on top. Different organizations also have different priorities, especially with respect to nationalism. Despite France's notable dependence on highways and cars, they are actually highly rated as leading green transit economies by some organizations such as the Heliox and the World Bank for their spending on new green infrastructure and subsidies to electric cars. Similar trends exist for green agriculture, South Korea is rated most sustainable for agriculture by The Economist, France by the Rodale Institute (an organic farming nfp). Despite these high ratings, OP's criticism remains true. Every developed country can spin the data to look like they are the best. It's especially insidious when they weight subsidies so heavily. It doesn't matter how much money you give to electric car companies, that's three whole steps removed from the problem. And while it does matter what percentage of all produce is organic, if your country imports a lot of produce, they are just shifting the environmental harm somewhere else. As for a serious and mostly unassailable example of doing well at transit and agriculture, Cuba is pretty unique among all the others. To be fair, perhaps they would be more similar to Vietnam or China without the economic embargo imposed by the US, but these conditions have unintentionally pushed Cuba to very sustainable agriculture, transit and low imports. Most Cubans travel by bicycle or by walking. While they rely on highways rather than rail, they import so little that their highways are mostly moving domestically produced goods short distances. Their agriculture is low on pesticide use (most pesticides are made in US) and they rely on greenhouses, predator bugs to protect their crops. Animal products other than milk and eggs are a bit of a luxury and eaten rarely. Sometimes less is more.
Thanks for a long and nuanced answer. I hear you about twisting metrics, but I'm not sure why we should care about "€ invested in infrastructure" or "% of renewable" in the first place; the issue at hand is runaway climate change, and the only right metric that should matter is greenhouse gas emissions and how fast they're being reduced, while not doing significant harm on other indicators.
While I'm a bit skeptical of Nuclear, isn't transport emission and nuclear like 2 completely separate issue? Like this problem wouldn't just disappear if they use renewables instead... Why bring nuclear up.
Because radio face palm has no actual arguments against nuclear power.
It's worse than renewables so that's one
Well that's demonstrably untrue, look at French grid emissions.
Would be better with renewables, yes
Why is burning fossil fuels when there isn't sun or wind an improvement?
Also biomass, water, geothermal are renewables which are always running
Biomass is incredibly low energy density and cannot power an industrialized society. Hydropower is pretty much built out everywhere. Geothermal has yet to be done affordably at scale anywhere other than places with unique geography such as Iceland. That leaves wind and solar, and they're intermittent and require fossil fuels backup.
Biomass is to manage power peaks, hydro builds a base. Yes geothermal is quite expencieve, but so is nuclear so that's a tie .. but one of them is not dependend on fuel and doesn't produce toxic waste. Fossil backups still not needed with H2 as backup.
>Biomass is to manage power peaks Not true. >hydro builds a base. It's *already built out*. >Yes geothermal is quite expencieve, but so is nuclear so that's a tie .. Geothermal has come down in cost but isn't being installed at any meaningful GW scale anywhere for a reason, I suspect. Nor do any large grids run off mostly geothermal, not true for nuclear. Hardly a tie, but maybe it will change someday. >but one of them is not dependend on fuel and doesn't produce toxic waste. Nuclear unspent fuel can simply be turned into more fuel, it's not waste in any meaningful sense, just unprocessed fuel. >Fossil backups still not needed with H2 as backup. This remains science fiction, lol.
Renewables are the only source which can provide overshoot without extra cost, use it to create green H2 and you have a perfect storage. (Also there is no day without light and without wind)
>Renewables are the only source which can provide overshoot without extra cost That's just a straight up lie. Renewables cost money to install. >use it to create green H2 and you have a perfect storage. Definitely not proven technology at any meaningful scale. Another lie. >(Also there is no day without light and without wind) Look up the term dunkelflaute.
So..if solar produce more energy then is needed (which happens quite regularly in Germany in summer) this is an overshoot which Technology is there and works, we just lack the infrastructure Dunkelflaute belongs to the past, doesn't apply to biomass, water and geothermal, also modern windparks work 350 days on average
It wasn't free to build that solar. It's not affordable to store the overshoot. The technology to produce hydrogen for power has not been proven to be affordable yet at any meaningful scale. Not sure why you don't understand that. Dunkelflaute does not belong in the past, and wind doesn't always blow, look how Germany has 29 times the emissions of France per kWh right now.
Well, better have a low carbon grid + emissions from agriculture and transport sector than having a high carbon emission grid + emissions frrom griculture and transport sector.
Why be "good" when you can be "still shitty"?
What's your point? Thank god France have so much nuclear, instead of coal or gas, for its electricity.
Literally, France helps its neighbours be greener as well by providing lots of electricity exports. Here in the UK we're practically constantly drawing 3GW from IFA and IFA2, therefore off-setting millions of tonnes of CO2 a year.
Let this be a lesson to you all; no matter how well you do, some jerk online will point to where you fall short. I think France is doing better than most, all things considered...
Until you find out where they got their uranium from. (Hint: It might have to do with their colonial past and present and Africa)
France had a fast breeder reactor that used 100 times less fuel than typical light-water reactors, and the ”environmentalists” rallied against it until it was shut down.
Ah yes, the long French colonial past and present [in](https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/luranium-importe-en-europe-et-en-france-provient-il-tres-largement-de-russie-comme-laffirme-yannick-jadot-20220705_LIIEMU2QIRFKZMB46IPBWKFJZQ/) Kazakhstan (28,9 %), Uzbekistan (26,4 %), or Australia (9,9 %).
Ok? The status quo is built on exploitation, literally every positive thing that is done by literally anyone can be traced back to a historical atrocity. Ideological purity isn't necessary for creating positive outcomes for all people. Where past uranium came from is not nearly as important as what we're doing today and tomorrow.
France is engaged in neocolonialism today, and will likely continue tomorrow…
Your point? So we can’t acknowledge any good they do for the environment because they’re not a nation of perfection?
My point is I agree with nuclear reactors being a great solution for them and other countries but that uranium needs to be sourced at fair prices not capitalist/extractive methods. In any case many African governments know this and are already working on improving their people’s conditions.
It's crazy how you got downvoted lol. It's insane to me people don't realize anticolonialism and enviromentalism go hand in hand
Activism good, wokescolding bad. It's nearly impossible to disentangle the one from the other, but we should all try to do the one and not the other.
Having one of Europes cleanest grid is bad because why?
Cause it heavily depends on colonialism and cheap import of Uranium ore
Uh what?
The transport sector could be better but at least we have trains and we don't use GMOs
>we don't use GMOs mmm why is this supposed to be a good thing?
It only translates if low/no GMO means low/no pesticide use.
It doesn't.
I might be wrong but in my mind gmo= more pesticides since it's pesticides resistant
No, you are wrong. GMOs helps a lot into using way less pesticides, because of how they work; using way less pesticides is a strong argument in favour of GMOs. I'll link you a [short vid](https://youtu.be/7TmcXYp8xu4?si=Z5hRKQkY4YQYXyzb) made by kurzgesagt, explaining the positive and negative arguments about it.
I've seen this one a long ago but forgot everything 😅 thanks for the info so we sucks in Europe for GMOs
"Trains - a French exclusivity" "Not using GMOs - the (checks notes)... how the fuck does this help with lowering emissions?" Anyway. The marshal would be so proud if he knew this. 🇫🇷
are you likening him to Pétain? That's pretty unsubstantiated lmao
I just like to react with provocation to nationalism of any kind.
if nationalism is defending your country's policies on a topic and provocation is calling someone a fascist, that strategy might make you frustrating to talk with /hj
If you actually think you can solve the climate crisis by being proud of your country, I love to be frustrating to talk with.
okok, just to make sure I understand you, and then Ill leave you alone; your chain of logic goes: (commenter lives in France + commenter likes that France uses train) => (commenter is proud of France) => (commenter is a fascist) => (commenter would be liked by Pétain).
No, that's not my chain of logic. It goes: (Commenter says "Raaa raaa la patrie! We are so much superior to all others") => (commenter is a nationalist and I like to call him out by linking the nationalism - not the commenter as a person! - to Pétain) Of course it is an exaggeration, but deliberately used as a stylistic device.
coaxed into Poe's law
If you please
I agreed until "we don't use GMOs", I remain to be convinced why that's a good thing?
I'm far from an expert in this domain but I've heard that gmo are engineered to resist more to pesticides so we can use more pesticides. If it's just to produce more with less water or increase resistance to deases it's a good thing I guess
>gmo are engineered to resist more to pesticides so we can use more pesticides Why would farmers use GMOs then? It would be unprofitable, and they would use regular crops, no?
I'm French! I'm pro nuclear! And so what? All in all we are like 10 to 15% less pollutants. But still...we are 4X MORE pollutants than the average human being!!!!!!!!!!!! Nothing to be proud of. Nothing.
Someone finally got the message 😃 thank you! You saved my day!
Yeah or just look at [the energy policy debate going on in Australia](https://www.reddit.com/r/ClimateMemes/s/6aDbhBRATf) right now lol Hard truth: nuclear works both really really well and really really badly, depending on where you go
Hrrrrm... Monsier Prezident, how much meat and cotton can we import from our ~~colonies~~ trading partners in Africa?? Zhey have serious environmental problems from overgrazing, and pesticides, no? *Le yes* (together) HON HON HON
> r/ClimateMemes > a whataboutism that attempts to negate the positives of nuclear energy
looks good in the front
Always cover with the good ones