Uplifting News
Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews (rules), a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity and rage (e.g. schadenfreude) often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news—in text form or otherwise—that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good, from a quality outlet that does not publish bad copies of copies of copies.
Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!
view the rest of the comments
Who was projecting that global energy related CO2 emissions would increase from 34 gigatons to 50 gigatons between 2014 and 2040? Was that a reasonable projection? What was it based on? Is this evidence of "progress" or inaccurate projecting into the future?
I can project that the murder rate will increase 50% between now and 2050, and then when the murder rate only goes up 10% I can say, "omg, we've made such great progress on the murder rate," even though it still went up, because it didn't go up as much as I projected it would. But was my projection likely or even feasible in the first place?
From the article:
I haven't chased up the data myself, but that seems like a reasonable baseline to use.
This is whose data they're using. The IEA has made notoriously bad predictions of renewable deployment. They're a body heavily entrenched in the fossil fuel and nuclear industries. This is why the progress reported in the original article isn't so. We're measuring against the projections of people opposed to renewables.
Yes, that shows that the curve we're on is a distinct improvement against the 'no renewables added' baseline, which we'll get if we don't keep pushing. It's shows some progress, but it's also a warning that that progress is both fragile and insufficient. Even the lower projection, which shows emmisions decreasing is not enough. As they put it in the article it's bad vs. worse.
A bit of perspective, and arguably positivity, is no reason to slacken effirts, but a call to redouble them.