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

CO₂ and Other Greenhouse Gas Emissions

ourworldindata.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 89 posts

Re: CO₂ and Other Greenhouse Gas Emissions

#71

Post by Glench »

frankbreetz wrote: post #8

It is always interesting to see graphs like this, I am curious how much something like a new green deal would move the 2100 temperature line. A common argument against it is that everything depends on China and India. I don't suspect this is true. The USA is one of the highest per capita emitters, it doesn't seem right that we would get to live like that while we take away resources from these other countries who are…

I think Otherlab's analyses talk about this a little:

The Green New Deal: The enormous opportunity in shooting for the moon. https://medium.com/otherlab-news/decarbonization-and-gnd-b8d... (electrifying everything with clean generation will reduce energy needs by half even without any changes in lifestyle)

How do we decarbonize? https://medium.com/otherlab-news/how-do-we-decarbonize-7fc2f... (A fairly balanced take on how realistic various solutions are, from engineering, policy, and economic perspectives)

Re: CO₂ and Other Greenhouse Gas Emissions

#72

Post by antisthenes »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #53
NotPaidToPost wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, the major issue that is always conveniently forgotten is population growth. Stopping it should at the top of our priorities along with renewable energies.

The parent didn't say population growth, they said population . There's way more people currently alive on Earth than the planet's carrying capacity under 1600-level tech, to which we'd had to backtrack globally if we wanted to fix the climate crisis through reducing consumption alone. This is unacceptable for pretty much every reason. We either find technological solutions to this problem - both on the emission end…

Luckily, we don't have to go back to 1600-level tech, even if our energy output falls to 1/2 of what it currently is.

Vaccines, and reducing child-mortality (and other health care), for example, are not inherently energy-intensive. Neither is massive computing power and storage (data centers are ripe for being carbon-neutral).

What might happen is that we'll have 1 farmer supporting 100 people, instead of 1000, so we'll end up having a larger agricultural population, but not as large as at the end of 19th century. Consumption WILL go down whether you like it or not, even though you might find it politically unpalatable at this point in time.

This might have the additional benefit of slowing down population growth even more, resulting in sustainable levels. It might also result in a healthier population as we embrace reduced consumption and maybe slightly more physical labor.

Re: CO₂ and Other Greenhouse Gas Emissions

#73

Post by jnurmine »

adrianN wrote: post #35
mikelyons wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pragmatically its more a return to old-style living in many ways but will seem radical to groups addicted to modern lifestyles.

No, return to old style living won't save us, because the planet can't sustain our current population levels with old-style living. Unless you want to trigger civil unrest and kill many people, the solution has to be technological. Renewable energy and improved energy efficiency can do it, it just needs a few trillion dollars of investment.

Triggering civil unrest and such is not really required to reduce population sizes: as we seem to be tracking ca. +3.5 C increase in average temperatures by 2100, the reduction in population levels will happen automatically by extinctions of animals, disease, extreme weather, flooding of coastal areas, loss in crop productivity, droughts, melting ice cover, societal unrest, and so on.

Renewable energy will have a hard time winning globally unless cheap dirty stuff like coal and oil is made much more expensive through taxes or other means. There is also active resistance from the fossil fuel industry too.

Re: CO₂ and Other Greenhouse Gas Emissions

#74

Post by greglindahl »

fearai wrote: post #47
baron_harkonnen wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can watch the Arctic melt before your eyes[1] and we will very likely see an ice free Arctic for the first time in at least 100,000 years in our lifetime. Claiming that isn't happening isn't "skepticism" it is denying what you can easily verify with your own eyes. But let me ask you a very important question that will easily settle where the dogma lies. What would convince you that climate change is happening? Be…

totally believe the earth is getting warmer. never said otherwise. weaponizing weather for political gain is disgusting and not scientific. skepticism is a fundamental pillar of science but the we are told to call them "deniers" to swing sentiment and get votes. [1] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-...

Climate and weather are different things.

I totally agree that it's terrible some pepole are "weaponizing" weather for political gain by claiming that occasional cold weather in the winter is a disproof of a warming climate -- is that what you are referring to?

Because that's terrible science. Even if it sounds skeptical.

Re: CO₂ and Other Greenhouse Gas Emissions

#75

Post by usrusr »

roter wrote: post #44
usrusr wrote: post #12

What happened in 1600 that made CO2 levels drop? Natural reforestation after European germs wiped out agricultural civilizations in the Americas?

Carbon dioxide and temperature are linked. 1650 was the height of the Little Ice Age [0]. Lots of interesting theories and research, e.g. [1], for the specific carbon dioxide drop. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2769

The link from CO2 to temperature is well discussed. But carbon does not randomly disappear from the atmosphere, so either the trigger must have been something on the ground/at sea or there's also a reverse causal link from temperature to CO2 (so it could be triggered by something sun activity), which would imply a terribly unstable system. A very interesting topic indeed. Could variations in the amount of living biomass (which temporarily binds carbon to be released after death unless buried into isolation) make that much of a dent in atmospheric carbon concentration? My gut feeling says atmospheric carbon far outweighs biologically bound (and is in turn dwarfed by geologically bound, until we have dug it all up), but that's really just a guess.

Re: CO₂ and Other Greenhouse Gas Emissions

#76

Post by NotPaidToPost »

free_bread wrote: post #70
NotPaidToPost wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, those growing countries are not the ones producing the most emissions. For now. Developing countries like China and India are the ones adding the most because that's what happens when a huge population is brought out of poverty. Emissions are far from being the only environmental problem. Population is obviously the main cause of the pressure we put on the environment and of our current situation. As I said top…

Increasing population will be a contributor in the future if we do not change our technology, but that does not matter because even if everyone but the west (who has a stable population level) stopped emitting carbon we'd still be screwed Focusing on reducing population is literally preemptive optimization on something that may or may not be a problem depending on the trajectory of energy/production over the next 10…

It is already a massive problem and it will only get worse.

Again, emissions are only a small part of the pressure we put on the environment. Deforestation, loss of natural habitat, dwindling fish stocks, pollution at large, and indeed emissions: These are all caused by ever more people needing ever more resources.

This has nothing to do with eugenics, which has a completely different meaning.

Re: CO₂ and Other Greenhouse Gas Emissions

#77

Post by TeMPOraL »

antisthenes wrote: post #72
TeMPOraL wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent didn't say population growth, they said population . There's way more people currently alive on Earth than the planet's carrying capacity under 1600-level tech, to which we'd had to backtrack globally if we wanted to fix the climate crisis through reducing consumption alone. This is unacceptable for pretty much every reason. We either find technological solutions to this problem - both on the emission end…

Luckily, we don't have to go back to 1600-level tech, even if our energy output falls to 1/2 of what it currently is. Vaccines, and reducing child-mortality (and other health care), for example, are not inherently energy-intensive. Neither is massive computing power and storage (data centers are ripe for being carbon-neutral). What might happen is that we'll have 1 farmer supporting 100 people, instead of 1000, so we…

> Vaccines, and reducing child-mortality (and other health care), for example, are not inherently energy-intensive. Neither is massive computing power and storage (data centers are ripe for being carbon-neutral).

They may not be that emission-dependent in principle, but their supply chains might. Remember that for any technology we want to keep through changes, we also need to keep its entire supply chain in some form - from raw material through all specialized processing steps, plus populations and transportation required. These may not be so easy to decarbonize, though I do have high hopes, especially if and when electric vehicles finally take over.

> This might have the additional benefit of slowing down population growth even more, resulting in sustainable levels.

Or it may have the exactly opposite effect - accelerating population growth. So far the only thing that seems to solidly correlate with population growth is the development level, and that correlation is negative. I.e. as countries become wealthier and consume more, their population growth rates decrease.

Re: CO₂ and Other Greenhouse Gas Emissions

#78

Post by fearai »

greglindahl wrote: post #74
fearai wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

totally believe the earth is getting warmer. never said otherwise. weaponizing weather for political gain is disgusting and not scientific. skepticism is a fundamental pillar of science but the we are told to call them "deniers" to swing sentiment and get votes. [1] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-...

Climate and weather are different things. I totally agree that it's terrible some pepole are "weaponizing" weather for political gain by claiming that occasional cold weather in the winter is a disproof of a warming climate -- is that what you are referring to? Because that's terrible science. Even if it sounds skeptical.

using Orwellian newspeak to change words to match your "scientific" agenda should be considered an attack on science and not regurgitated by people who believe the agenda. no conspiracy, they don't hide the manipulation

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-...

well aware climate and weather are different and so is the Green New Deal leader who was schooled last week https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/1131676480281427968

Re: CO₂ and Other Greenhouse Gas Emissions

#79

Post by godelski »

WhompingWindows wrote: post #55
godelski wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While renewables are awesome and we should do everything we can to support their growth, they have a major problem (which is why they currently can't replace fossil fuels). Renewables are not constant energy providers and they cannot scale to demand (either up or down). The best bet with them is batteries. But that means that you have to produce at minimum enough to fulfill a full day's worth of energy demands within…

Don't perpetuate the myth that intermittency of renewables is a dealbreaker. While intermittency of power supply with inflexible demand is a problem when renewables hit 80% penetration, the reality is we're going to see utilities buy up demand and then flexibly shift that demand to when renewables are producing electrons. This makes economic sense because renewables are FAR FAR cheaper than new-build nuclear, and the…

> Don't perpetuate the myth that intermittency of renewables is a dealbreaker.

I was trying really hard NOT to do this. How can I better rephrase it?

I tried mentioning that we should continue to support battery research. I tried using qualifiers like "yet" and "currently". I tried very hard to stress that the issue is with CURRENT technology. Every time I try to talk about this problem it seems to either be dismissed or pushed off as "we'll get there". Which I do believe we'll get there, but it is an unknown time frame and we need to act 2 decades ago.

How can I better rephrase my message? Because I don't think my message and yours are at odds.

Re: CO₂ and Other Greenhouse Gas Emissions

#80

Post by ralusek »

jlarocco wrote: post #40
ralusek wrote: post #25

Climate aside, doesn't the increase of CO2 from 280PPM to 400PPM not have a substantial impact on the respiration of trees and animals? 42% increase of poison to animals has no meaningful impact?

Phrasing it that way is a little misleading. At 400 ppm CO2 is only 0.04% of the total atmosphere. Increasing from 0.028% to 0.04% is a 42% increase, but 0.04% is too low to directly poison plants. The climate change effects will be a problem long before plants and animals start getting poisoned by it.

It doesn't poison plants, they rely on CO2 in much the same way that animals rely on O2. I know that it's a negligible part of the atmosphere, but a 42% increase on the primary mechanism for plant respiration, which is also a poison for animals, seems like it would have a meaningful impact.
Post reply on HN