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

Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

unenvironment.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 205 posts

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#51

Post by PaulHoule »

We're close to the tipping point for geoengineering.

Elites don't want to stop global warming, they've spent billions of dollars trying to stop a response to global warming.

Ordinary people say they want to do something about global warming but if it inconveniences them such as an increase in gas taxes, they will riot in the streets. (See the Yellow Shirts in France.)

The conspicuous inability of governments to make elites feel a little pain (Macron and the wealth tax) means that governments have no legitimacy with which to demand sacrifices from anybody else. Thus you see "last straw" rebellions just about anywhere when there is an unpopular change, say a 4% increase in subway fares.

With geoengineering you only need to scrape together a few billion a year which could be done by a small group of elites or governments (if Bloomberg didn't waste his time and money and reputation running for pres he could do it...)

The best part of it is that a credible threat to Geoengineer might solve the collective action problem for other interventions:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0102-0

As for all the reasons why geoengineering is seen as a "cop-out" note that if it's really an extinction worth rebelling about, then we have to use "all means necessary" and that includes solar radiation management.

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#52

Post by toomuchtodo »

graeme wrote: post #49
toomuchtodo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you would absolutely want to stave off nuclear generator retirements as long as (safely) possible to displace carbon producing generators. I use the example only to demonstrate the ease of renewable deployments versus nuclear. You could go do a green bond offer (or PPA contract), bid out the construction project, and build a solar generation facility next to a nuclear power plant to replace its capacity. You can…

China started building coal again, and global coal production is rising. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia-pacific/years-afte...

Use economic sanctions if necessary to encourage better behavior from participants in the world economy. There will be some bumps on the energy transition journey. We fixed the Ozone hole [1], this is no different.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#Public_policy

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#53

Post by ng12 »

I don't understand why globalism rarely, if ever, factors into the debate. It boggles my mind that if I walk down to the drug store to buy a toothbrush that toothbrush was likely made in a Chinese factory, shipped across the Pacific ocean in a diesel-spewing container ship, and then driven a good thousand miles in an 18-wheeler. It seems like a tremendous waste of energy for something that could be made locally for cheap.

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#54

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

I think it should be somewhat obvious that it will be impossible for us to avoid the absolute worst of global warming. Humans simply don't have the capability to act in the coordinated, political way that is necessary. Somehow holding out hope that we'll all come to our senses and things will change is like holding out hope that we'll never have any wars again. It is just not compatible with human nature.

I'd love it if I were wrong, or if someone can change my mind, but in a world where we have never had as much access to information, large swaths of the population don't even believe global warming is _real_, let alone something we should do something about.

We should just start planning for the worst case scenarios, because they are going to happen regardless.

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#55

Post by rossdavidh »

altacc wrote: post #26
LinuxBender wrote: post #6

Is there a chart that shows the progress each nation is making year over year to cut emissions?

The problem with country by country analysis is that people turn it into an excuse not to do anything. "Why should the US/EU do anything if China is just going to keep polluting." Countries should be focusing on what they can do themselves, as well as globally, and be leaders, not laggards.

Yeah, but I have the sneaking suspicion that the countries which have "committed" to meeting these goals, may not actually in fact be cutting their emissions any better than the rest. Seeing some country vs. country data on that, would help.

Also, looking at which countries _are_ having the most success (if any), would help to show which strategies work better than others (e.g. the nuclear debate).

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#56

Post by rossdavidh »

altacc wrote: post #21
astrodust wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trees. You're talking about trees.

Trees seem to be the solution of the day but, cynically, it seems to be a smokescreen in that some people are promoting this as the solution to climate change. No amount of tree planting is going to solve long term climate change, so it should be seen as one action amongst many. The focus on tree planting shifts the focus away from the action needed to reduce carbon emissions. It's a bit like building an extension to…

"No amount of tree planting..." is a strong statement. Not "we won't do enough", but "No amount..." will work? I find that hard to imagine. Is there a reason you say this?

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#57

Post by elihu »

astrodust wrote: post #4
verdverm wrote: post #2

Or create sequestration systems so the net is that? Or would the numbers change?

Trees. You're talking about trees.

Well, trees can store a lot of carbon while they're alive. When they die, they release a lot of that back into the atmosphere as they decompose. So, trees are medium-term carbon storage. I expect we'll eventually need to figure out some way to store carbon long-term (for example, put it back in the ground in a way that it'll stay there).

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#58

Post by DennisP »

cogman10 wrote: post #13
maxharris wrote: post #3

I searched for 'nuclear' on that page, and found no mention of the word at all. Whatever you might think of nuclear energy, I don't think such a drastic energy cut is even possible to implement without it. (After all, I see little point in cutting CO2 emissions in the US if people in other countries emit an amount equivalent to whatever gets cut here.)

The time for nuclear has passed (at least fission. Fusion may still be a good future energy source). I say this because the cost of building a new nuclear plant is more expensive than wind and solar. Nuclear might still be a good solution for northern and southern habitats. But, at this point, where most pollution is produced, solar and wind are viable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source With…

The cheapest option is probably to build nuclear to the level that meets minimum demand at night, and solar for everything on top of that, with just enough storage to even out the remaining discrepancies.

Storage is quite a bit more expensive than nuclear, and while the cost is dropping it has a long way to go. At the same time, new nuclear technologies like molten salt reactors could well drop the price of nuclear. For that to be a factor, we'd likely have to get more aggressive with licensing new nuclear technologies; i.e. we'd have to treat climate change with the urgency it deserves.

Here's a Lazard report on levelized cost of storage: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2019

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#59

Post by irrational »

ng12 wrote: post #53

I don't understand why globalism rarely, if ever, factors into the debate. It boggles my mind that if I walk down to the drug store to buy a toothbrush that toothbrush was likely made in a Chinese factory, shipped across the Pacific ocean in a diesel-spewing container ship, and then driven a good thousand miles in an 18-wheeler. It seems like a tremendous waste of energy for something that could be made locally for c…

How could it be made locally for cheap? Who is going to pay to build the local factories for everything your local drug store stocks (not to mention all the other local stores)? Who is going to work in all of those factories for cheap? Wont all of those thousands of local toothbrush factories worldwide pollute even more than a single toothbrush factory worldwide?

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#60

Post by gorpovitch »

LinuxBender wrote: post #6

Is there a chart that shows the progress each nation is making year over year to cut emissions?

I would add it doesn't take into account imported emissions - when a country emits CO2 to produce things that other countries buy. I'm not really sure who is responsible then.
Post reply on HN