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

261–270 of 522 posts

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#261

Post by JshWright »

fsloth wrote: post #177
lazyasciiart wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Of course it does. Many organization that provide contraception also provide abortion services, and therefore are ineligible for funding.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#262

Post by spangry »

mavhc wrote: post #130

We've already felt the first major problem (to the west) of global warming, mass migration. Most recent wars have had environmental issues as part of the cause. Syria's mismanagement of the water table, Rwanda's water shortages. Most conflicts seem to occur near the equator, and in deserts. Our political system won't cope when a billion people start migrating

Sadly, I think you're right. When you get down to it, wars are usually just one group trying take another group's stuff. The common precursor to large-scale war appears to be 'resource scarcity'. I'm almost beginning to think the 'billions of people migrating' scenario is the more optimistic one.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#263

Post by mikelyons »

d_theorist wrote: post #232

I don't understand why more isn't done to implement large-scale carbon capture and storage technologies. There are quite well-understood and proven technologies to do this, but they don't seem to be on anybody's agenda. Trying to bring down CO2 concentration by convincing people to give up cars, food and planes is obviously a losing strategy. If we're serious about preventing climate change we're going to have to act…

Aren't trees the ultimate carbon-capture devices? They are solar powered, turn co2 into building materials, and require very little maintenance.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#264

Post by huxley »

JackdawX wrote: post #240
pjc50 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too expensive, too slow. We're having this conversation with Hinkley Point C in the UK. It's going to get subsidised more than wind power and it's going to take a decade to build. If you start building reactors now, then in a decade you end up with a bunch of eternal liabilities that are more expensive than renewables+storage will likely be by then.

Most renewables are not reliable power sources, the wind blows when it blows. That is why a diverse power strategy is needed, including nuclear. When you say the amount subsidised, what is your source, and what do you mean by 'more'? Do you mean more in total, or per kwh generated?

The subsidy per KWh from Hinkley Point C is roughly equal to to the current market rate for electricity because of the guaranteed price needed to build the plant, so the electricity effectively costs twice as much.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/13/hinkley-poin...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/13/hinkley-point...

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#265

Post by gnode »

eru wrote: post #231
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…

Why? We can just keep solving problems. If we really wanted to, we could be carbon neutral in a few years and even pay for carbon sequestration. (Basically, just run the whole global economy on nuclear for example.) Not gonna happen, of course, because it's a huge and expensive undertaking---and there's no(t enough) political will nor even any consensus. But the problem is not our lifestyle per se, nor is competition…

I disagree that it isn't happening. Solar PV capacity is growing rapidly. Vehicles are increasingly powered by electric batteries.

These things were all prohibitively expensive for most people in Western countries, but their declining cost has made them more affordable and more used.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#266

Post by Jare »

demonshalo wrote: post #182
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…

> 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, outcompeting, etc. All those ego-centric values that are the basis of our socio-economic systems - focused on disconnecting the `self` from `other` - are wrong on a fundamental level. By 'spirituality' I mean the deep realisation of the larger conte…

> we are making one of the BEST trade-offs humanity has ever seen

Either you believe that we are not heading to a near extinction-level event, that we will prevent it before it happens, or that such an event is a fair price to pay for enjoying a century of computers and iphones.

The first option seems blind, the second baseless optimism, and the 3rd... I don't really know what to say. Is there a 4th?

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#267

Post by Touche »

delegate wrote: post #249
demonshalo wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, outcompeting, etc. All those ego-centric values that are the basis of our socio-economic systems - focused on disconnecting the `self` from `other` - are wrong on a fundamental level. By 'spirituality' I mean the deep realisation of the larger conte…

> the ONLY reason you can say this crap is simply because people competed ... and be pretentious and ungrateful about what society have achieved so far. Even though you're grossly exaggerating what I've said in the comment, I'm still going to answer with a rhetorical question: What good is all that shit if the price for that is the suffering and death of our children and eventual end of our species ? This is what the…

I think you're looking at the world's history with rose-colored glasses. World poverty is at the lowest levels today than it has been in recorded history: https://ourworldindata.org/slides/world-poverty/#/declining-...

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a time in history when life was better than it is today. And if you did find one, it would be so long ago than population levels were a fragment of what they are now.

We can't go back. Get that idea out of your head. The question is how can we steer the ship.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#268

Post by qwtel »

> Limiting the global mean temperature rise to below 2°C with a probability of 66% would require an energy transition of exceptional scope, depth and speed.

It seems that sovereigns don't quite think like individuals: If this was a personal decision, I'd just put my hopes in boarding a plain that has a 66% chance of making it to its destination (or at least that's what the pilot, in an effort to look respectable, is telling me). But since I got the ticket on sale, I've convinced myself that it's "rational" to take the gamble. There's other tickets on sale, but they'd cost 30 - 50% of my total net worth. Clearly, I think to myself, it's better to die in a plain crash than to live in a smaller house.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#269

Post by mikelyons »

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…

For anyone who responds like the top response to this comment: What he means is that if people were seeking enlightenment and were aware of the dogmatism inherent in religion and equally in rationality and science, they would be practicing extreme lifestyle minimalism, and would not respond to the economic/emotional/sexual incentives to support the systems that destroy the planet, the money would simply evaporate. Now how do you convert 100% of the global population to this? It's likely impossible in the required timeframe :(

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#270

Post by huxley »

spangry wrote: post #127
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...

Yep. Anyone who has bothered to look at the numbers would likely agree with you. To that end: - Here are my numbers on German solar & wind capacity factors (nuclear generally achieves 90% by comparison): https://gist.github.com/anonymous/f1a6d064890d67fbfc98d66dbd... - Sketchier numbers for India: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14085871 - The view of the Brookings Institute in 2014: http://www.brookings.edu/~/m…

Rocky Mountain Institute criticized Frank's paper and showed that it had many incorrect or outdated assumptions:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/amorylovins/2014/08/05/sowing-c...

http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/Library/2014-21_Frank-Re...

Post reply on HN