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

Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 210 posts

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#61

Post by majewsky »

zaarn wrote: post #26
sonium wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Physics/Chemistry: Solid carbon (e.g coal) is more energy-dense than CO2 (per molecular weight unit). This is why you can gain energy from burning coal. To go the other way round you need to add this energy back in to break the very stable double-bonds in the CO2 molecule. This energy is what makes it expensive and there is no way around (except finding a really cheap energy source, but then you probably wouldn't bur…

I would, however, propose that once we have CO2-neutral energy production, we use some of it to recapture CO2 if the effect would be even minimal.

The problem is that "once we have CO2-neutral energy production" is way too late. There are several tipping points where the rising temperature sets off other processes that speed up warming even further.

For example, when the Russian permafrost melts, it will release gigantic amounts of methane, a very potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. Once that happens, not only do you have to capture all the CO2 you emitted, you also have to capture all that methane.

Also, you'll want to recreate the kilometers-thick ice sheets in the arctic. When those are gone, the earth's albedo will drop, which means that it heats up even more quickly since less sunlight is reflected.

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#62

Post by majewsky »

nmeofthestate wrote: post #9
jamesblonde wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have a solution - reduce carbon/methane emissions. Why bet the bank on a technology that hasn't been invented yet? If you said to somebody with 100 billion dollars: capture as much carbon as you can. What would they do? I would just plant trees for that money. Sure, we need basic research on carbon sequestration, but we need fundamental breakthroughs to make it happen. Time, we don't have.

>We have a solution - reduce carbon/methane emissions. Why bet the bank on a technology that hasn't been invented yet? Unfortunately we haven't invented the technology to implement your broad brush "solution" either. In fact, I'm skeptical about the claim Climate Change could have been solved generations ago, given that we still haven't developed the means to do it yet. Edit: okay, perhaps nuclear could provide us wi…

> In fact, I'm skeptical about the claim Climate Change could have been solved generations ago, given that we still haven't developed the means to do it yet.

Path dependence. We have not developed the means to solve climate change from where we are now.

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#63

Post by nmeofthestate »

agumonkey wrote: post #54
cup-of-tea wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People want more than they already have.

until they can't, are we that blind ?

No solution to climate change involves persuading everyone to choose to live in energy poverty. Get that out of the way and look for workable solutions. Without a workable solution there will be no solution.

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#64

Post by seren »

js8 wrote: post #22
erikrothoff wrote: post #3

Why isn't there a billion dollar reward to any person or company that comes up with a cost-effective way to capture carbon from the air and convert back to solid carbon? I'd love to understand the physics (or chemistry? maybe economy?) that prevents this from materialising.

The thing that prevents this from materialising is that it requires energy. For the most part, we get energy from.. converting solid carbon to CO2. Unfortunately, due to 2nd law of thermodynamics, this conversion always incurs a loss of energy in the form of heat. We can also get energy from other sources, such as solar radiation, but I think you get the gist - the most cost-effective way to carbon capture is not to…

Whatever the solution we could find to turn CO2 into C back it would require to roughly spend as much energy as it has been already spent in the XIXth and XXth century combined burning coal or oil to go back to pre industrial level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#65

Post by pier25 »

Comevius wrote: post #14
erikrothoff wrote: post #3

Why isn't there a billion dollar reward to any person or company that comes up with a cost-effective way to capture carbon from the air and convert back to solid carbon? I'd love to understand the physics (or chemistry? maybe economy?) that prevents this from materialising.

I'm not a physicist, but isn't the second law of thermodynamics puts a limit on what we can do with the excess energy, most of which are being absorbed by the oceans. Besides most of the damage is already done. EPA: It’s as if you’re sitting in your car, in your garage, with the engine running and the door closed, and you’ve slipped into unconsciousness. And that’s it. McAvoy: What if someone comes and opens the door…

Yes, we are too late.

Emissions affect the climate decades later, some 40 years later. So we're now only seeing the consequences of the emissions from the 70s-80s.

We've emitted more CO2 since the 80s to today, than the previous 150 years.

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#66

Post by nmeofthestate »

cup-of-tea wrote: post #30
agumonkey wrote: post #18

Who is into low tech and (near) zero waste ? How much would you be happy to lose in today's practices ? (I'm curious about what people need/want)

People want more than they already have.

This isn't actually true (although there are billions who do, understandably) - a lot of people would be fine with continuing with their level of energy usage. The problem is how to produce that much energy without releasing CO2.

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#69

Post by HONEST_ANNIE »

yesyesno wrote: post #33

Ouch. I read this and I am completely confused about what to do with the rest of the time I have left. Should I even bother with my current career in tech, or would it be better to quit it and do something that could have even a slight impact now? These articles are great, but preaching to the choir. What should any of us do? I'm seriously and sincerely asking. Are there any suggestions, from a personal stand point i…

Political action.

Effective greenhouse gas taxation is a single thing that could solve the issue with the current system and be efficient.

* It would have to be significantly higher than today.

* It would tax exported emissions.

* It would be well designed to avoid loopholes. It would include CO2 produced by food production (especially meat) and CO2 emissions from concrete.

Post reply on HN