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

Charts show how little progress has been made in limiting greenhouse emissions

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 147 posts

Re: Charts show how little progress has been made in limiting greenhouse emissions

#41

Post by BurningFrog »

dcolkitt wrote: post #18
mattigames wrote: post #11

Is so obvious where this is all going: The wealthy -the factories owners and their close allies- the very same ones ignoring the pledges to stop contributing to climate change will be the only ones protected enough from most damages of climate change, only the wealthy will afford to live in the cities with livable temperature, to buy potable water, only the most resilient of the poor and middle-class will survive, an…

Frankly this kind of doomsaying view has no basis in reality. While it's true that unmitigated global warming will impose a very large economic cost, it's simply not the case that it's going to turn the world into some unlivable hell-scape. There's just no basis for that belief in the actual evidence. The best estimates say that global warming will lower per capita GDP by somewhere between 5-20% by 2100. That's a tra…

Someone at Reason actually read the UN/IPCC report. There is no doomsday in it. From https://reason.com/2018/10/11/how-big-of-a-deal-is-half-of-a...

> So how much economic damage will pursuing the IPCC's fast transition to a no-carbon energy system spare us? The report asserts that if no policies aimed specifically at reducing carbon dioxide emissions are adopted, then average global temperature is projected to rise by 3.66°C by 2100, resulting in global GDP loss of 2.6 percent from what it would otherwise have been. Comparatively speaking, in the 2°C and 1.5°C scenarios, global GDP would only be reduced by 0.5 percent or 0.3 percent respectively.

> Concretely, the global GDP of $80 trillion, growing at 3 percent annually, would rise to $903 trillion by 2100. A 2.6 percent reduction means that it would only be $880 trillion by 2100. A 0.3 percent decrease implies a loss of $2.7 trillion resulting in a global GDP of $900 trillion. Note that the IPCC is recommending that the world spend between now and 2035 more than $45 trillion in order to endow $2.7 trillion more in annual income on people living three generations hence. Assuming the worst case loss of 2.6 percent of GDP in world with a population of 10 billion that would mean that they would have to scrape by on an average income of just $88,000 per year (the average global GDP per capita now is $10,500.)

Re: Charts show how little progress has been made in limiting greenhouse emissions

#42

Post by eloff »

I've thought a lot about climate change and it's consequences. If we trigger runaway warming through feedback loops involved permafrost and ocean (hydrates) methane - things are going to get really, really bad. This happened when ~5C degree warming from millions of years of the Siberian traps eruptions caused methane hydrates to be released into the atmosphere, triggering another ~5C warming and the greatest mass extinction on Earth, the End-Permian Extinction, also known as "the Great Dying" where 96% of marine species went extinct, and 70% of terrestrial species. Clearly if that happens, we're really in trouble. I don't know how likely that is, or what the trigger point would be. The climate today is not the same as it was 250M years ago.

On the other side of the coin, the Earth is uncomfortably cool these last few million years. We have these repeated periods of glaciation. Having Europe, Russia, Canada, and the northern US ground to dust beneath kilometers of ice would be a bit of tragedy too on a similar scale. That it's further away in the future doesn't make it less of a problem - if we're too aggressive solving climate change we could imagine a future where we have to deliberately pump methane into the atmosphere to stave off an ice age. For better or worse we seem to be at no risk of this through our ineptitude in responding to climate change.

For people worried about coral reefs dying, it happened less than 10K year ago at the end of the last ice age. Sea level rose 400ft and drowned the world's coral reefs. They bounced back, as you can see today. They will also bounce back from climate change - it will just suck in the meanwhile. There are undoubtedly things we can and will do to make it suck less, like developing heat resistant corals, planting reefs further north/south, etc.

For people worried about coastal cities being submerged, relax, you'll be dead by then. Long term, we should be moving our investment to more sustainable areas. But infrastructure doesn't last forever anyway, so I think a lot of that may occur naturally as people just stop developing new infrastructure in low-lying areas. There's no question it will cost us though.

If you're really worried about climate change for your descendants, get Canadian citizenship. That's one of the few countries likely to benefit from climate change.

So to sum up, climate change is not all bad, just mostly bad, until or unless it runs away on us, and then the doomsayers may be right for a change.

Re: Charts show how little progress has been made in limiting greenhouse emissions

#43

Post by vincent-toups »

dcolkitt wrote: post #18
mattigames wrote: post #11

Is so obvious where this is all going: The wealthy -the factories owners and their close allies- the very same ones ignoring the pledges to stop contributing to climate change will be the only ones protected enough from most damages of climate change, only the wealthy will afford to live in the cities with livable temperature, to buy potable water, only the most resilient of the poor and middle-class will survive, an…

Frankly this kind of doomsaying view has no basis in reality. While it's true that unmitigated global warming will impose a very large economic cost, it's simply not the case that it's going to turn the world into some unlivable hell-scape. There's just no basis for that belief in the actual evidence. The best estimates say that global warming will lower per capita GDP by somewhere between 5-20% by 2100. That's a tra…

For some people "unnecessary lost wealth" is just that. For the poor, it can mean dying in the street.

Re: Charts show how little progress has been made in limiting greenhouse emissions

#44

Post by colinyoung »

perfunctory wrote: post #10

Climate crisis is getting scarier and scarier by the day. Don't know about you guys but I am done with sitting behind my computer and whining about what "they" should or shouldn't do. I am joining Extinction Rebellion.

Good, I did too

Re: Charts show how little progress has been made in limiting greenhouse emissions

#45

Post by patientplatypus »

dcolkitt wrote: post #18
mattigames wrote: post #11

Is so obvious where this is all going: The wealthy -the factories owners and their close allies- the very same ones ignoring the pledges to stop contributing to climate change will be the only ones protected enough from most damages of climate change, only the wealthy will afford to live in the cities with livable temperature, to buy potable water, only the most resilient of the poor and middle-class will survive, an…

Frankly this kind of doomsaying view has no basis in reality. While it's true that unmitigated global warming will impose a very large economic cost, it's simply not the case that it's going to turn the world into some unlivable hell-scape. There's just no basis for that belief in the actual evidence. The best estimates say that global warming will lower per capita GDP by somewhere between 5-20% by 2100. That's a tra…

Que? No basis in reality you say?

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/neonicotinoid-pesticide...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/15/insect-c...

https://www.gq.com/story/sperm-count-zero

https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/plastics-have-ente...

https://phys.org/news/2018-04-climate-ocean-food-chains-fish...

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2019/08/freshwate...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-49433767

https://www.salon.com/2019/08/27/massive-siberian-forest-fir...

I could go on and on and on. Have you been paying attention at all?

EDIT: Flagged? Really? Is evidence that you are factually incorrect actually that damaging to your self esteem?

Re: Charts show how little progress has been made in limiting greenhouse emissions

#46

Post by vonmoltke »

eloff wrote: post #42

I've thought a lot about climate change and it's consequences. If we trigger runaway warming through feedback loops involved permafrost and ocean (hydrates) methane - things are going to get really, really bad. This happened when ~5C degree warming from millions of years of the Siberian traps eruptions caused methane hydrates to be released into the atmosphere, triggering another ~5C warming and the greatest mass ext…

> This happened when ~5C degree warming from millions of years of the Siberian traps eruptions caused methane hydrates to be released into the atmosphere, triggering another ~5C warming and the greatest mass extinction on Earth, the End-Permian Extinction, also known as "the Great Dying" where 96% of marine species went extinct, and 70% of terrestrial species.

That's a theory for what happened, but as I understand it the cause of this extinction has not been conclusively proved.

Re: Charts show how little progress has been made in limiting greenhouse emissions

#47

Post by eloff »

vonmoltke wrote: post #46
eloff wrote: post #42

I've thought a lot about climate change and it's consequences. If we trigger runaway warming through feedback loops involved permafrost and ocean (hydrates) methane - things are going to get really, really bad. This happened when ~5C degree warming from millions of years of the Siberian traps eruptions caused methane hydrates to be released into the atmosphere, triggering another ~5C warming and the greatest mass ext…

> This happened when ~5C degree warming from millions of years of the Siberian traps eruptions caused methane hydrates to be released into the atmosphere, triggering another ~5C warming and the greatest mass extinction on Earth, the End-Permian Extinction, also known as "the Great Dying" where 96% of marine species went extinct, and 70% of terrestrial species. That's a theory for what happened, but as I understand it…

Yes, it's the leading theory. That doesn't mean is true, just the most likely explanation for the data we have now.

Hardly anything is "conclusively proved", although theories we can design experiments for are much more robust than theories about historical or geological events where we don't have that luxury.

Re: Charts show how little progress has been made in limiting greenhouse emissions

#48

Post by carapace »

You don't have to wait for anybody.

Maybe the most important thing to know is that we can make carbon-neutral alcohol fuel, and, integrated into regenerative agriculture ("Permaculture" et. al.) the economics are totally different than large-scale industrial ethanol production.

Think Community-Supported-Agriculture that supplies your gas.

Dave "Farmer Dave" Bloom collected all the necessary info into a book (that was banned from public tv at the time!) http://alcoholcanbeagas.com/ Get the book, find or start your local fuel co-op!

- - - -

For practical advice on what to do I recommend Toby Hemenway's videos in re: Permaculture

http://tobyhemenway.com/videos/

Especially "How Permaculture Can Save Humanity and the Planet – But Not Civilization" and the sequel "Redesigning Civilization with Permaculture".

Permaculture is a school of applied ecology (the word itself is a portmanteau of PERMAnent agriCULTURE) that has adherents and practitioners world-wide. It's not the only form of regenerative agriculture either.

- - - -

See also https://www.greenwave.org/our-work Oceanic 3D farms! And now they are building reefs?

- - - -

For more inspiration and projects search "Geoff Lawton Greening the Desert"

Re: Charts show how little progress has been made in limiting greenhouse emissions

#49

Post by api »

coldtea wrote: post #8

> A set of troubling charts shows how little progress nations have made toward limiting greenhouse-gas emissions. When countries have made real progress "toward limiting greenhouse-gas emission" one would not need charts to see it: it would be immediately evident in everyday lifestyles, consumer habits, and energy use...

During the day California runs on up to 40% solar energy on some days and I don't notice any difference. My stuff doesn't care where its electricity comes from. I drive an electric car too.

http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.aspx

There is a lot of low-hanging fruit.

Coal is the #1 cause of climate change and phasing it out is the most important thing we can do. Just swapping coal for gas cuts CO2 emissions per kWh by 50%. The problem is that coal is cheap. In most places in the world it is still the cheapest way to generate electricity.

After that other big things are: live closer to work, use public transit, drive electric vehicles, eat less meat (especially beef), and improve home insulation if you use a lot of HVAC. Those are relatively minor lifestyle changes.

A lot of environmentalists really let the perfect (and very impractical) be the enemy of the good on this. We can make a substantial dent with very little change. After we do all the easy stuff like phase out coal, then we can look at what's left. This is how you solve problems in the real world.

Re: Charts show how little progress has been made in limiting greenhouse emissions

#50

Post by chimprich »

sarbaz wrote: post #4

So, is there any convincing reason to think that any emissions targets will be met? Does anyone buy the line in the article about India? Surely they will become an emitter at least as significant as China. Isn't our money better spent preparing for the inevitable effects of climate change?

> Isn't our money better spent preparing for the inevitable effects of climate change?

No. The numbers have been crunched. Averting climate change is much cheaper than dealing with the effects.

Even if that wasn't the case, you don't just deal with the effects and then get on with civilisation. You still have the effects, and you're still faced with the same problems in the future.

In case that didn't persuade on an emotional level, here's an analogy for that last point: a doctor points out to you that you're putting on weight at a dangerous rate. Sure, you could manage it by buying bigger clothes and taking medication for blood pressure and cholesterol, but if you're still overeating (and accelerating the rate at which you're gaining weight) then you haven't solved the problem. You have all the inconvenience and expense of dealing with the effects, and the problem is getting worse.

Post reply on HN