Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

nationalobserver.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 522 posts

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#171

Post by uranian »

delegate wrote: post #145

The message I"m getting is not that I have to prepare for something or change energy sources , it's that "our lifestyle is killing the planet much faster than we thought". CO2 levels is just one of a myriad of indicators that are off the scale now. By lifestyle I mean supermarkets and restaurants and iPhones and planes ... all the stuff that we're so proud of as a society. Winning, getting ahead, being number one, ou…

Its the "economy" and the lack of vision and vigor of politicians to change it. As long as our policies and laws are still in favor of the economy we are doomed.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#172

Post by flukus »

gambiting wrote: post #51
flukus wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it sensationalism when it's accurately describing something truly sensational?

If both temperature and CO2 levels set new records every single year, then it's stoping sensational - it becomes expected. I'm still hoping to hear solid solutions that will work on a global level, and so far, there aren't any. As a matter of fact, with the global rise of populism it looks like in some areas, the world is going backwards. Leaked UK government memo says the environmental protections and pollution limi…

> If both temperature and CO2 levels set new records every single year, then it's stoping sensational - it becomes expected.

The increase isn't the sensational part, the acceleration is. That the acceleration is happening despite emissions plateauing is even more sensational, it may be the first indication that we've hit a limit in the earths ability to absorb excess CO2.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#173

Post by frevd »

ajdlinux wrote: post #141
frevd wrote: post #132

Nobody seems to mention cars, they run on burning fossils and they are a large factor due to the amount of cars in use (ever increasing worldwide). Forcing the industry to replace the exhaust by whatever thing which does not consume fossils to create energy (directly or indirectly e.g. by electrical power that needs to be generated by burning coal) is what might contribute a lot to a better atmosphere (at least in th…

Apart from every article you see on Tesla Motors and Elon Musk...

Yes, but there is the major problem that charging electrical car batteries today still requires burning of fossils to create the energy in the first place.

Beside, that's controversial, Musk has got both electrical cars and space rockets.

Germany afaik wants to have predominantly electrical cars driving around in the next decade. Forcing a ban on exhaust cars might create some incentive on producing renewable energies due to the demand, so companies can invest in that. Of course, banning exhaust cars should go hand in hand with banning coal power plants (by way of regulating CO2 limits by law/tax, so that it is expensive to create CO2). Then the demand has to be covered by solar+wind and mainly nuclear energy (the latter not being very popular and the former too space-needy), way to go for clever businesses to come up with solutions (one of them might even be to develop ways to convert created CO2 to solids).

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#174

Post by tgjsrkghruksd »

flashmob wrote: post #149
givan wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When debugging performance problems you always search for the biggest bottlenecks not the minor ones, so what are the biggest contributors to CO2? I don't think the problem is the number of people living on earth but how modern society is making people live, for example some big contributors are high meat consumption (cattle methane) inefficient transportation (big suvs with just the driver inside sitting in traffic…

You're right. Household CO2 emissions are nothing compared to commercial / transport. Just look at airlines. As a random example, Qantas Airlines, in the 2015 financial year, burned $3.9 billion AUD worth fuel! (About $3 billion in USD). Source: page 15 of their annual report: http://www.qantas.com.au/infodetail/about/corporateGovernanc...

Actually, you are be sorely wrong. Aviation is ~2% of human CO2 emission, and 12% of transport CO2 emission, versus 74% from roads. Judging from the streets and highways, most of that 74% is coming from household vehicles, and most of the rest is pretty much driven by household consumption.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#175

Post by devdoomari »

pjc50 wrote: post #129
scrps wrote: post #75

I generally get funny looks and the feeling that people are imagining me with a toothbrush mustache and a comb-over when I suggest this: Wouldn't population control to an extent help slow the rate of emissions? Caps on births or higher taxes on family sizes, etc. I know political/moral/ethical issues would make it impractical but I don't think any potential solution is worth ignoring.

Not only is this too totalitarian, it's too late . Most western countries are already at stable or slightly declining population levels. It's worth reducing fertility in poorer countries, but this is best done by carrot rather than stick: education and job opportunities for women, and decent free baseline healthcare with contraception included. One of the main obstacles to the latter is US religious conservatives.

upvoted! I've heard that ppl in poorer countries would calculate percentage of how many children will grow up to adulthoods... so even though they might be contributing to the global population rise, they can't be blamed... kinda sad :(

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#176

Post by yrro »

retrac98 wrote: post #161
jessriedel wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This UN site says 5% of actual CO2 and 14% of CO2-equivalent emissions. Cow and pig production emit mostly methane and nitrogen oxide. http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/

Doesn't methane have a much more powerful greenhouse effect than CO2 though?

Yes but it breaks down into CO2 very quickly.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#177

Post by fsloth »

lazyasciiart wrote: post #165
fsloth wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"decent free baseline healthcare with contraception included...One of the main obstacles to the latter is US religious conservatives." I should imagine Catholic church's condemnation of birth control is the larger political issue in countries that are not US.

The US global gag rule, which has been in effect under every Republican president for decades, blocks foreign aid funding to any organization that mentions abortion. I think it was estimated to cut aid spending by $9 billion when Trump re-introduced it this year (especially as he expanded it from the old policy of health-related organisations to all organisations).

I had no idea such a gag rule existed. Does this affect distribution of contraceptives in some twisted way as well?

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#178

Post by Reason077 »

amarant wrote: post #95

We have to expand nuclear power. Many don't like it but at this point we have no other choice. Let solar drive the phasing out of nuclear reactors instead of coal power plants! Sadly in my country (Sweden) nuclear is not only taboo but it's illegal to perform research of the subject.. Laws passed by a severely misinformed "green" movement...

The problem with nuclear (at least in countries like the UK and USA) is not so much public perception or misinformation but the cost, particularly once eventual decommissioning and long-term waste storage costs are accounted for.

It's increasingly difficult for nuclear projects to compete with things like renewables, inter-connectors, and carbon-taxed gas turbines. The one project that has gone ahead recently in the UK (Hinkley C) did so only with a significant government subsidy (ie guaranteed inflation-linked strike price).

Renewables (wind turbines, solar panels, storage technologies, etc) all tend to benefit from commoditisation and economies of scale, so their costs keep coming down. Nuclear costs, on the other hand, keep spiralling upwards.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#179

Post by tgjsrkghruksd »

ZlxVLI1eWNFSDc wrote: post #138
EliRivers wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand peak child has been reached and the only reason the population is still increasing is that people aren't dying young at the same rate they used to. I think there are bigger gains to be made by changing other things, and they can be made much faster than a slow reduction of population.

>I understand peak child has been reached This is certainly not true on a regional basis, and I can hardly say with confidence that stagnating population levels in Europe really warrant African families having upwards of 10 children on average when the land can hardly feed the current population as is. We are talking about huge numbers here if African population really does increase by 3 billion during this century.…

Your numbers are out of date. There's not a single country where the TFR >= 7. Most of Africa is under 5. That's still too high, but the numbers are dropping, and they are especially dropping in countries with increased development and urbanization.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#180

Post by spangry »

delegate wrote: post #145

The message I"m getting is not that I have to prepare for something or change energy sources , it's that "our lifestyle is killing the planet much faster than we thought". CO2 levels is just one of a myriad of indicators that are off the scale now. By lifestyle I mean supermarkets and restaurants and iPhones and planes ... all the stuff that we're so proud of as a society. Winning, getting ahead, being number one, ou…

CO2 levels is just one of a myriad of indicators that are off the scale now.

By lifestyle I mean supermarkets and restaurants and iPhones and planes ... all the stuff that we're so proud of as a society.

Scale relative to what, or when? I mean, yeah, we are certainly 'off the scale' for supermarkets, iPhones and planes compared to, say, the ancient Romans. But in fairness, they've got us well and truly beat on the ignorance, slavery and infant mortality scales. How do we rank in 'spiritual' terms relative to the Romans?

But taking your assertion as a given, what specifically do you suggest we do about this problem? My concern is that, in the near future, we may find ourselves climbing down a few rungs of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, leaving 'self-actualisation' / spirituality way out of reach.

Post reply on HN