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

The world is losing the war against climate change

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 325 posts

Re: The world is losing the war against climate change

#121

Post by mavhc »

radicalbyte wrote: post #50
WhompingWindows wrote: post #12

If you look at global power sector emissions from 1998 to 2018, you'll see that while we have dramatically improved upon the energy intensity (energy/capita) and even are making improvements on carbon intensity (carbon/capita), but the sad reality is this: we are still using around 35% coal power in 2018, the same as we did in 1998. And the power sector is the easiest sector to decarbonize, by the way. If you look at…

I've been looking into carbon capture recently because it's going to be vital to slowing down the warming (and buying us another 50 years for the transition). What surprised me is that I can cover double my two-car-owning European family's carbon footprint via planting trees in the UK at an annual cost of around $400. It'll cost half that to do the same in a developing country. We need a global carbon tax and we need…

Exactly, it's stupidly cheap, "so you destroyed the world because you couldn't be bothered to pay 5% extra for clean energy? Thanks Grandpa"

Re: The world is losing the war against climate change

#122

Post by rsync »

WhompingWindows wrote: post #12

If you look at global power sector emissions from 1998 to 2018, you'll see that while we have dramatically improved upon the energy intensity (energy/capita) and even are making improvements on carbon intensity (carbon/capita), but the sad reality is this: we are still using around 35% coal power in 2018, the same as we did in 1998. And the power sector is the easiest sector to decarbonize, by the way. If you look at…

"For an energy realist, I recommend checking out Vaclav Smil, who has long been predicting 21st century as the century of natural gas"

My very recent reading on this topic has lead me to believe that while burning natural gas is quite an improvement in carbon emissions vs. burning coal or oil, unburned natural gas traps quite a bit more heat than carbon dioxide does.

It was even suggested that pipeline leaks, manufacturing leaks and (other misc. steps in the lifecycle) leaks make natural gas a wash in terms of climate change.

I hope this is not the case and I wonder if anyone here can comment further ?

Re: The world is losing the war against climate change

#123

Post by randomThoughts9 »

Not even the people that pretend to care are putting in the minimum necessary effort to fight this. So where does the war in the title come from?

"War on/against x" is becoming a meaningless expression.

As far as I can see, our only real plan is: we'll invent something. The rest is just rhetoric.

Re: The world is losing the war against climate change

#124

Post by gascan »

radicalbyte wrote: post #50
WhompingWindows wrote: post #12

If you look at global power sector emissions from 1998 to 2018, you'll see that while we have dramatically improved upon the energy intensity (energy/capita) and even are making improvements on carbon intensity (carbon/capita), but the sad reality is this: we are still using around 35% coal power in 2018, the same as we did in 1998. And the power sector is the easiest sector to decarbonize, by the way. If you look at…

I've been looking into carbon capture recently because it's going to be vital to slowing down the warming (and buying us another 50 years for the transition). What surprised me is that I can cover double my two-car-owning European family's carbon footprint via planting trees in the UK at an annual cost of around $400. It'll cost half that to do the same in a developing country. We need a global carbon tax and we need…

Hell, considering the UK is heavily deforested, probably a lot of people who would appreciate those new trees too.

Re: The world is losing the war against climate change

#126

Post by StavrosK »

Reason077 wrote: post #85
carry_bit wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is chemical/plastic production really a source of emissions? After all, oil is used in the production of plastic because plastic has a bunch of carbon in it.

Yes, it is. The chain of industrial processes that converts oil to plastics are energy intensive, and the chemical processes involved often have direct emissions as well. Not to mention the emissions from extracting, refining, and transporting the oil in the first place.

> The chain of industrial processes that converts oil to plastics are energy intensive

But that energy can come from renewables, no?

Re: The world is losing the war against climate change

#127

Post by rcMgD2BwE72F »

alkonaut wrote: post #67

So we need a quick plan B. The required goals from nations won’t be met and people won’t change lifestyle to do something about it. We need to also do something that ensures warming stops without any sacrifice made by people (other than taxe to fund the massive programs) Maybe we could turn things around in 10 or 30 years but the damage done may either be irreversible or runaway. So a short term solution that ensures…

We haven't done $%# to try and execute Plan A i.e. reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It's the cheapest and easiest plan by far, so why do you think we can afford to switch to some fanciful plan B?

Most alternative are either distractions by/for those who can't accept the harsh reality, Get-rich-quick schemes by some industrialists or science-fiction by/for those who prefer to dream of a nice future rather than doing something now.

"The American way of life is not up for negotiations. Period." -- The People In Charge.

Re: The world is losing the war against climate change

#128

Post by StavrosK »

sparkling wrote: post #110
Merad wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not in the US. The majority of the country isn't to the point of believing that climate change poses a serious threat, and among non-Democrats attitudes towards climate change are actually regressing: https://news.gallup.com/poll/231530/global-warming-concern-s...

Weather or not the majority believes in climate change is irrelevant. The simple fact is: while the US reduced its total carbon footprint by ~0,4% in 2017, it increased in the EU and China. No reason to point fingers at the US.

Are you suggesting the link is causal?

Re: The world is losing the war against climate change

#129

Post by nonbel »

steego wrote: post #103
nonbel wrote: post #33

"War against" ("War on") seems to mean it is a never-ending boondoggle that, at best, wastes a bunch of resources. Is there any example of these "wars" being a success? The three that come to mind are: War on drugs: fail War on cancer: fail War on poverty: fail Why is the economist trying to link climate change to this?

I can't help but think that picking apart a magazine's headline is a huge distraction from an important issue, but I also can't help myself in pointing out how off the mark you with such a superficial observation. As far as global poverty is concerned, between 1990-2013 more than a billion people were lifted out of poverty according to the World Bank. I'm sure you can point to local and anecdotal evidence that does n…

>"As far as global poverty is concerned, between 1990-2013 more than a billion people were lifted out of poverty according to the World Bank. I'm sure you can point to local and anecdotal evidence that does not correlate, but to say efforts to reduce poverty have failed are just flat wrong."

Those "war on" phrases refer to specific projects in the US. For that one I wasn't too familiar but quickly looked it up and didn't see anyone claiming success: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty

Regarding cancer, I responded here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17698877

Re: The world is losing the war against climate change

#130

Post by picsao »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #30
the_cat_kittles wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i dont understand. you completely omit laws in your suggested solution. we need to pass laws that prevent businesses from fucking everything up worse than they already have. you can innovate all you want, but i think you should also not elect people who are fucking STUPID about climate change.

This is hard. Like, really hard . It definitely needs to be done, but it takes tens, hundreds really, of millions of dollars and a vast network of candidates who can run for office and win (US-specific outlook). Whereas driving coal and natural gas out of the generation mix is "as easy" as getting PPAs signed with electrical consumers and getting solar and wind installed as fast as possible. You don't need to convinc…

You could euthanize large parts of the physical goods economy with a really good AR Google set. Kind of like the cellphone already made a dent into every carryable daily good supplying information. You wristwatch and paper notebook where are they?
Post reply on HN