Re[19]: 28.04.2019-21:33:47 :: Something smarter than us is going to emerge


node:	Re[19]: 28.04.2019-21:33:47
template:	4
parent:	Re[18]: 28.04.2019-21:33:47
owner:	dobso
viewed by:
created:	14.08.2019 - 13:35:06

cwbe coordinatez:
866
1551575
63561
4476245
8620479
8639354
8639359
8640296
8649968
8652239
8652354
8652421
8652441
8652503
8652545
8652667
8652670
8652684
8652699
8652796
8652797
8652800
8652803
8652879

ABSOLUT
KYBERIA

permissions
you:	r,
system:	public
net:	yes

keby SVK malo HDP ako v 85, myslim si ze by nicilo zivotne prostredie na tejto planete vyrazne menej. Ak nesuhlasis, skus aj vysvetlit preco.
Opakujem ze mi nejde o lokalne zlepsenie kvality vzduchu v nasej krajine. Ide mi o kumulativny vplyv na tuto planetu. Vhodny ukazovatel je mnozstvo zabranej plochy, intenzita obhospodarovania krajiny ci emisie uhlika.

00000866015515750006356104476245086204790863935408639359086402960864996808652239086523540865242108652441086525030865254508652667086526700865268408652699086527960865279708652800086528030865287908652892

Ok, tak skúsme globálne: v roku 2014 bolo HDP (PPP, konštantné USD) 105.2 trillion. V roku 2015 to bolo 108.8 trillion. Medzi tými rokmi teda svet zažil hospodársky rast vo výške 3.8%. Zároveň svetové emisie CO2 klesli z 35.5 gigaton v roku 2014 na 35.6 gigaton v roku 2015, teda o pokles o 0.3%. Globálny príklad hospodárskeho rastu bez vplyvu na emisie.

Takto, ak by si na to siel vedeckou metodou (napriklad neriesil jeden rok), vide ti to co vedcom - korelacia medzi HDP a emisiami existuje. Pozri si napriklad emisie pocas hospodarskej krizy.
Nejdem tu hladat teraz na to konkretne vedecke studie, dam len random graf

Neviem už ako lepšie to povedať. Je rozdiel medzi levelom HDP a levelom CO2 (resp. environmentálny vplyv) a rastom HDP a rastom emissii CO2 (environmentálneho vplyvu). Navyše úplne súhlasim, že existuje aj korelácia medzi rastom HDP a rastom emisii (environmentálneho vplyvu). Čo tvrdím je že nie je nič nevyhnutné na tej korelácii a je úplne v ľudských silách tieto veci od seba oddeliť, tak ako sme ich oddelili medzi rokmi 2014-2015.

Dokonca na stránke odkiaľ si zobral tento graf (!!!) je to popísané: "Market forces, technology cost reductions, and concerns about climate change and air pollution have been the main forces behind a recent decoupling of emissions and economic growth. While the pause in emissions growth is positive news to improve air pollution, it is not enough to put the world on a path to keep global temperatures from rising above 2°C. In order to take full advantage of the potential of technology improvements and market forces, consistent, transparent and predictable policies are needed worldwide."

Ten zazrak roku 2014 a 2015 je obavam sa tvojou domnienkou, pretoze taketo zavery mozu vychadzat iba pri pouziti vedeckych metod, a to co si tu napisal ma od toho daleko. V praxi sa medzi ekonomickymi a fyzikalnymi ukazovatelmi prejavuju rozne opozdenia a podobne.

Co sa tyka decouplingu, roky to bola velka tema ekonomov, ale novsie studie ktore som si na tuto temu cital typicky tvrdia, ze sa to nestalo. Skratka tieto dve veci idu ruka v ruke.

Ked budem mat cas, mozem skusit popisat preco si myslim ze to tak je.

IMF, 2018:

We have proposed a simple but comprehensive framework—the trend/cycle decomposition that is widely used in many other fields in economics—to investigate the decoupling of emissions and growth. For the twenty largest emitters, the average trend elasticity, viz. the response of trend emissions to a 1 percent change in trend GDP, is 0.4. For the advanced economies within this group, the elasticity averages zero; some countries have negative elasticities, suggesting that they had made progress in decoupling their trend emissions from trend GDP. Taking account of consumption-based emissions weakens the case for progress but does not overturn it. Encouragingly, we find suggestive evidence that trend elasticities can be lowered through policy efforts on the part of countries. Moreover, our investigation of the historical relationships between emissions and GDP shows that elasticities in recent decades are considerably lower than in previous decades.

EC, 2019
To solve such research gap, this paper assesses the decoupling in the EU focusing on potential environmental impacts, complementing a production-based approach with two options for accounting for the impacts of consumption. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the decoupling of the economic growth (in terms of Gross Domestic Product) from the environmental impacts due to EU-28 consumption, assessed by means of life cycle assessment (LCA). The decoupling is then assessed in impact terms rather than limited to pressures by using the Environmental Footprint (EF2017) indicators, which allows assessing 16 different impacts. The Consumption Footprint indicator quantified the environmental impacts of EU apparent consumption, including the territorial impacts (Domestic Footprint) and the embodied impacts in both imports and exports (Trade Footprint). The inventory of pressures for the trade component is compiled either with a bottom-up approach (process-based LCA of representative traded goods) or a top-down approach (input-output-based LCA). Methodological aspects influencing the decoupling assessment and the resulting outputs are presented and discussed. According to the results, the environmental impacts of EU-28 consumption showed decoupling during the last decades (2005–2014), between relative to absolute decoupling depending on the inventory modeling approach taken. Some countries showed higher decoupling levels than others displaying a heterogeneous map of EU-28 decoupling, which was led by acidification, particulate matter, land use and eutrophication impacts. Notwithstanding current limitations, the assessment of decoupling using consumption-based environmental indicators is very promising for supporting policy-making towards addressing the actual impacts driven by the EU production and consumption system

hehe no nemam teraz cas si to vsetko studovat, ale je to s tou statistikou tazke, ja som si pred casom cital studie s presne opacnym vysledkom, tj. ze decoupling nefunguje.
Kazdopadne faktom zostava, ze emisie nadalej rastu, a jediny krat v ostatnych rokoch padli prave pocas ekonomickej krizy.

Ja som tie štúdie hladal, nebolo to tak že by som niečo vypichoval, takže si naopak veľmi rád prečítam že decoupling nefunguje. Nehovoriac o tom že rec nebola o tom či nefunguje, ale či principiálne nemôže fungovať.