Did Setting a Timeline Doom the Fight Against Global Warming? • Hacker News Board

Re: Did Setting a Timeline Doom the Fight Against Global Warming?

#11

Post by WhompingWindows » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 12:57 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #3

Climate change was never going to be reversible with behavioral measures. Even if everyone had followed the Kyoto protocol to the letter starting in 1992 that wasn’t going to avert climate change, because nobody contemplated how quickly China and India would develop. There is no calculus where you can significantly limit climate change through behavioral measures that also allow the third world to have comfortable, m…

In the BP World Energy statistical review for 2018, they showed that though renewable energy had fantastic falls in prices, there wasn't enough addition to meet new energy demand, especially in China and India for industry, and for the USA regarding its huge growth in natural gas. They then asked the question, how much faster would renewables need to grow to JUST meet this new energy demand (nevermind decarbonizing existing demand). They found renewables would have to grow over 2X as fast (from 800 TWh up to 1,800 TWh).

Let this sink in: We are literally adding half the renewables we need just to keep the emissions curve flat. We probably need to go 4X faster to bend the curve downwards on emissions.

Can engineers solve that? They are a piece of the puzzle, but their most fundamental innovations will take years to kick in. We need policy, we need individual behavioral changes, we need everything we can get.

Re: Did Setting a Timeline Doom the Fight Against Global Warming?

#12

Post by bureaucrat » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 12:58 PM UTC

Ensorceled wrote: post #4

There was a lot of talk about how the world will be "uninhabitable by 2050" or "civilization will crumble by 2050" and anecdotally, that really backfired for all my elderly aunts and uncles. They happily admit that climate change is real but don't care because they will be dead by 2040. Hell, I'll be in my 80's.

Kek, in 1970 crude oil was predicted to run out in 2020. They also predicted the world will be inhabitable by now because of intense pollution.

How are we? We breathe cleaner air and use more petroleum than 1970.

I will be 55 in 2050, and I bet my entire fortune that the world will be better then.

Re: Did Setting a Timeline Doom the Fight Against Global Warming?

#13

Post by Ensorceled » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 12:58 PM UTC

redleggedfrog wrote: post #6

School-Cotton wrote: post #2

It annoys me when people act like Y2K was apocalyptic scaremongering. No, Y2K was a real threat, which the human race spent huge resources to meet and thereby mitigated appropriately.

I remember my father, a mainframe programmer, spending years correcting code for Y2K for the bank he worked for. COBOL and assembly. At the rollover, it went without a hitch, but there was a lot of sweat to make that happen

My uncle (a COBOL programmer in the 60's) got together with some other retired guys and made a lot of money doing exactly the same thing in the late 90's. One of his contracts he landed because they found his name all over the code.

Re: Did Setting a Timeline Doom the Fight Against Global Warming?

#14

Post by rayiner » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 12:59 PM UTC

WhompingWindows wrote: post #11

rayiner wrote: post #3

Climate change was never going to be reversible with behavioral measures. Even if everyone had followed the Kyoto protocol to the letter starting in 1992 that wasn’t going to avert climate change, because nobody contemplated how quickly China and India would develop. There is no calculus where you can significantly limit climate change through behavioral measures that also allow the third world to have comfortable, m…

In the BP World Energy statistical review for 2018, they showed that though renewable energy had fantastic falls in prices, there wasn't enough addition to meet new energy demand, especially in China and India for industry, and for the USA regarding its huge growth in natural gas. They then asked the question, how much faster would renewables need to grow to JUST meet this new energy demand (nevermind decarbonizing e…

According to IPCC projections we need to hit zero emissions worldwide within the next decade to avoid a 2C increase. Can politicians do that?

Re: Did Setting a Timeline Doom the Fight Against Global Warming?

#15

Post by paulsutter » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 1:01 PM UTC

School-Cotton wrote: post #2

It annoys me when people act like Y2K was apocalyptic scaremongering. No, Y2K was a real threat, which the human race spent huge resources to meet and thereby mitigated appropriately.

Y2K was indeed a real threat, AND there was also a good bit of apocalyptic scaremongering. No conflict.

Those writing apocalyptic scare stories were poorly informed and deliberately trying to activate people’s base fears. AND there was a huge effort by very smart folks to avert it. No conflict.

Re: Did Setting a Timeline Doom the Fight Against Global Warming?

#16

Post by roenxi » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 1:02 PM UTC

School-Cotton wrote: post #2

It annoys me when people act like Y2K was apocalyptic scaremongering. No, Y2K was a real threat, which the human race spent huge resources to meet and thereby mitigated appropriately.

There is huge then there is huge. Having a bunch of smart people think about something is a huge deal and a lot of attention that could probably have been better spent elsewhere. For a business. Businesses are under constant pressure to demonstrate that they are using people's time effectively. As in, more effectively than the competition that is nipping at their heels.

But as a one-off thing it isn't really a big issue to a government, civilization or even an industry. At that level what does it matter if a few weeks are spent unnecessarily, once? Governments burn more resources than that on a slow news day.

Re: Did Setting a Timeline Doom the Fight Against Global Warming?

#17

Post by ubertakter » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 1:03 PM UTC

I recommend the title be changed to the actual story title or something actually similar. The article is about how setting deadlines for action on climate change came from more of an advocacy perspective rather than scientific, which had an effect opposite what was intended.

Re: Did Setting a Timeline Doom the Fight Against Global Warming?

#18

Post by RubenSandwich » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 1:04 PM UTC

Ensorceled wrote: post #4

There was a lot of talk about how the world will be "uninhabitable by 2050" or "civilization will crumble by 2050" and anecdotally, that really backfired for all my elderly aunts and uncles. They happily admit that climate change is real but don't care because they will be dead by 2040. Hell, I'll be in my 80's.

Not doing something because "you'll be dead before it happens" is pure selfishness. My personal observations from those close to me who don't want to act on climate change seem that their reasons have changed within the last 5 years. They no longer claim that it isn't real or happening, they now dismiss it on grounds of losing the personal liberty provided to them by our over consumption lifestyle. (If you live in the West, then you are likely over consuming.)

So I actually don't think the "doom and gloom" is causing people not to act, if anything the younger generation are acting on that message. (Fridays for Future, etc.) Instead what is delaying action, in my mind, is that the West's middle class is disappearing and now with climate change demanding a further reduction of consumption it is casuing people to try to hold on tighter to their already disappearing lifestyle.

Re: Did Setting a Timeline Doom the Fight Against Global Warming?

#19

Post by paulsutter » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 1:05 PM UTC

Would sure be nice if we spent those war trillions to solve the real problem. Unfortunately most people seem to have discovered climate change in November 2016.

Good that they did. Better to see more focus on solutions. It would be great and exciting to work on mass scale solutions and government can easily create laws to incent it

Re: Did Setting a Timeline Doom the Fight Against Global Warming?

#20

Post by Ensorceled » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 1:05 PM UTC

knd775 wrote: post #9

Ensorceled wrote: post #4

There was a lot of talk about how the world will be "uninhabitable by 2050" or "civilization will crumble by 2050" and anecdotally, that really backfired for all my elderly aunts and uncles. They happily admit that climate change is real but don't care because they will be dead by 2040. Hell, I'll be in my 80's.

They sound like terrible, self-centered people.

Yes, and so is most of the population apparently. But they are also focused on their own problems; declining health, fixed incomes, cuts to government programs, etc. Hard to get to worked up about a problem that won't occur for 30 years when you're going in for surgery next week.

I keep trying to focus on the fact the process is already starting now and WILL affect them in their lifetimes ... hurricanes, fires, wierd storms, droughts ...