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

Observation-based early-warning signals for a collapse of the Gulf Stream

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 441 posts

Re: Observation-based early-warning signals for a collapse of the Gulf Stream

#381

Post by UglyToad »

doitLP wrote: post #359
Permit wrote: post #36

I often hear that as individuals we can't really be held responsible for climate change and that instead we should look to our government to impose laws that restrict carbon output. This made me curious: what is the "fair" amount of carbon dioxide that the average individual can emit? According to this article[1][2] published in Nature it looks like the answer is 1.61 metric tons of CO2/year. That strikes me as close…

Lots of responses here focusing on planes and air travel. Just wanted to call out what a small part (1.9%) of the problem that actually is: https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector

Thanks for re-iterating this. Granted, due to where the emissions take place, air travel is slightly stronger/higher but I feel like the sole focus on air travel is an annoying feature of a lot of climate-change discussions. It's something we really don't have many technically or economically viable alternatives for yet.

Why don't climate-change measures and discussions focus on the other 95%+ of sources that are easier to address?

Re: Observation-based early-warning signals for a collapse of the Gulf Stream

#382

Post by handrous »

tablespoon wrote: post #243
handrous wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. The late 70s and early 80s mark the beginning of several strategies, policies, and chess moves that paid off big time in the 90s. The neoliberal movement gained a major presence in the Republican Party at the beginning of that span, and by the early 90s it had also captured the Democrats. The Fairness Doctrine fell, and its absence was quickly exploited. The ball took a while to get rolling, but was moving fast…

> Economic libertarianism saw some important activity near the beginning of that span, and its very confident anti-government and laissez-faire positions and language became very influential through the 90s, and it continues to grow. That's true, but I'd quibble with the "it continues to grow" part. IMHO, it's peaked. It's still strong, but Trump and other populists dealt it a blow; and it's arguably now sclerotic "o…

Yeah, of course the Trumpist/(maybe? I'm not 100% sure on connecting the two)Tea-party wing is the new wave I'm talking about that might represent another transformation of the party (we'll see, may just be a blip). You're right that there's probably less influence from the libertarian thought in that—there remains a rhetoric of "government is definitely bad always" but I'm not sure there's follow-through in actual policy, and it's (much) less free-trade friendly. Trump, personally, was also highly notable for talking a pretty big anti-neoliberal talk, which is unique among major-party candidates for President in the last, oh, 30-40ish years—to be clear, this is not to be read as an endorsement of him, just noting something remarkable about his candidacy & time in office.

Incidentally, these shifts are at the level of party leadership and policy. Nearly every Republican I've actually known since at least the 90s has had positions that match Trump's more than they match the average R politician, even as the party itself ignored, downplayed, or gone directly against many of those positions—I think that's exactly why Trump took those positions and ignored the orthodox Republican platform where it didn't match, in fact, and at times you could even see him apparently workshopping positions live, it really was fascinating—so I'd say the Republican electorate has been Trumpist for quite a while. Actually, some Trumpist positions, including anti-neoliberalism, anti-interventionism, and free trade skepticism, are very popular on the left too, but, as with pre-Trump Republicans, not well-represented among their politicians—I think there's an opportunity there, should someone find the right angle to attack it.

Re: Observation-based early-warning signals for a collapse of the Gulf Stream

#383

Post by felgueres »

jacquesm wrote: post #320
felgueres wrote: post #212

Solutions to climate change are not behavioral as some suggest here. It’s about incentives. Transitioning to carbon neutral energy is possible at the expense of businesses’ cost structure, ie. less competitive. Same applies to building retrofitting, agriculture and other major carbon emitters. There is no serious conversation about climate change without looking at nuclear energy; it is base load generation (24/7), c…

"Bipartisan federal mandates to scale nuclear energy is the only real solution to this problem" Where to start? Bipartisan implies 'America', which is not 'the world'. Scaling up nuclear energy implies even more energy consumption rather than to do the obvious: shut down coal and gas fired plants and cap the per capita energy budget to something reasonable. Finally, nuclear instead of solar/wind is going to push yet…

Energy consumption correlates to quality of life.

Lower energy consumption is politically less feasible to implement, regressive and undesirable.

Bipartisan refers to cooperation of two political parties, not 'America'. But sure, few other countries have only two major political factions. More generally I meant to promote nuclear energy in political cooperation.

You are right in that the obvious is shutting down coal and gas plants.

The less obvious is that natural gas generation is very cost competitive. Solar/Wind are not viable solutions at the deployment velocity we need to achieve targets.

Also, they are not base load, so you are assuming storage is available and cost-competitive which seems to be 5-10 yrs from now.

An honest conversation of decarbonizing electricity has nuclear front and center.

Re: Observation-based early-warning signals for a collapse of the Gulf Stream

#384

Post by ZeroGravitas »

RikNieu wrote: post #349
NonContro wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The popular attitude to the pandemic is set by politicians and the media. If those groups want urgent action on climate change, they will get it. Those groups wanted lockdowns, and they got it (along with most of the $5.2trillion printed in the US alone since the pandemic began). This not a new concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent The question is, why don't the elites want urgent action on cli…

Because it's a choice between two apocalypses. One is slow motion and over the horizon, and "no ones fault" and the other would be voluntary. I wrote about my thinking on this last year. https://www.riknieu.com/no-one-believes-in-climate-change-no...

I bailed out half way, but despite the disclaimer, that post does sound like climate change denial.

"Dealing with it would be just as bad as not dealing with it" appears to be the core of your claim, and I don't think thats backed up by anything I'm aware of. It is a fairly common trope of people who would be widely described as climate change deniers though.

Even more so, dealing with it say 20 years ago would have been even more straightforward.

We couldnt do it because we couldbt co-ordinate, like the prisoners dilemma, not because the two outcomes were equally bad but by working towards out own best outcome we've headed towards the worst overall outcome.

Re: Observation-based early-warning signals for a collapse of the Gulf Stream

#386

Post by pasabagi »

Permit wrote: post #36

I often hear that as individuals we can't really be held responsible for climate change and that instead we should look to our government to impose laws that restrict carbon output. This made me curious: what is the "fair" amount of carbon dioxide that the average individual can emit? According to this article[1][2] published in Nature it looks like the answer is 1.61 metric tons of CO2/year. That strikes me as close…

I do everything you've said, essentially 'by accident'. I don't have a car, don't fly, and don't live in a remote area. It's basically a function of how good the infrastructure is. If you live in a dense city, with good cycle lanes, and decent train connections, you don't really need a car. Not flying is also enabled by this.

Everybody could definitely live like this. I would actually prefer it - cars degrade my cycling experience. I think it's just a function of shit urban planning that makes this impossible in some places.

It would be a major social change, but no more major than everybody moving out of cities and into suburbs in the first place.

Re: Observation-based early-warning signals for a collapse of the Gulf Stream

#387

Post by gorbachev »

joelbluminator wrote: post #370
gorbachev wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No disaster, other than maybe targeted terrorist strikes, will ever hit the wealthy, because with their incredible wealth they can buffer against them in ways that poor people can't. Coastal flooding...move to your vacation home in Vail, CO. 120F heat? Fit your house with 100000W AC units...the electric bill is pocket money. Civil unrest from effects of climate change? Hire a private army to protect you.

I agree to an extent. But Fires hurt everyone, hurricanes hurt everyone. Some very rich people got hurt in the Californian fires; even if these houses were insured it's quite a traumatic event having your whole house wiped out. But yeah, the poor will suffer much more. > Hire a private army to protect you. You seem to be talking about the ultra rich, like the top 1%.

> You seem to be talking about the ultra rich, like the top 1%.

I am, because they own the legislators.

Re: Observation-based early-warning signals for a collapse of the Gulf Stream

#388

Post by jacquesm »

felgueres wrote: post #383
jacquesm wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Bipartisan federal mandates to scale nuclear energy is the only real solution to this problem" Where to start? Bipartisan implies 'America', which is not 'the world'. Scaling up nuclear energy implies even more energy consumption rather than to do the obvious: shut down coal and gas fired plants and cap the per capita energy budget to something reasonable. Finally, nuclear instead of solar/wind is going to push yet…

Energy consumption correlates to quality of life. Lower energy consumption is politically less feasible to implement, regressive and undesirable. Bipartisan refers to cooperation of two political parties, not 'America'. But sure, few other countries have only two major political factions. More generally I meant to promote nuclear energy in political cooperation. You are right in that the obvious is shutting down coal…

You are a couple of years behind the times when it comes to your knowledge of the cost effectiveness of solar and wind. They are $ for $ competitive with nuclear, and are being rolled out at scale. 8 MW onshore turbines are now pretty normal, larger ones are on the drawing board, and in the offshore wind market there are now 15 MW turbines.

Base load can be provided through carbon neutral sources, such as the burning of rest-mass left over from crop production. Smart control of appliances is another way in which the need for baseload power could be reduced, allowing for increased consumption to co-incide with periods of higher (or even excess) power generation, and high voltage DC has made it cost competitive to route electricity across larger distances than before allowing an excess in windpower from one location to be moved with relatively little loss to places where there is a shortage.

Storage is entirely optional in this scheme, but we already have more and more battery storage coming on-line in the form of the expanding fleet of electric vehicles which can provide a large sink.

Energy consumption correlates to qualify of life because that's the society that we've built. But it need not be so, not every source of pleasure or quality of life needs a combustion engine or a plug.

Re: Observation-based early-warning signals for a collapse of the Gulf Stream

#389

Post by 908B64B197 »

Permit wrote: post #36

I often hear that as individuals we can't really be held responsible for climate change and that instead we should look to our government to impose laws that restrict carbon output. This made me curious: what is the "fair" amount of carbon dioxide that the average individual can emit? According to this article[1][2] published in Nature it looks like the answer is 1.61 metric tons of CO2/year. That strikes me as close…

When you look at who's polluting and who's emissions are on an upward trajectory, there's one obvious country that's actively working against the environment. China's emissions aren't slowing down. Coal is incredibly cheap when there's no carbon tax or emission standards. One of the many reasons it's cheaper to manufacture in China and why North Americans and Europeans can't compete [0].

Comparing the US[1] and China[2], the US has:

- Decreasing per capita emissions in the US starting in 1973 (-27%)

- A decrease in the countries emission starting in 2007 (-13%)

Meanwhile for the same period China has had

- a 7x increase per capita since 1973 (+532%)

- 48% increase for its global emissions since 2007

So it is possible to drastically reduce our carbon footprint thanks to innovation and smarter power generation.

Time to add tariffs on goods produced by states who made the decision of going all-in on polluting power generation, and potentially apply immigration quotas to citizens of these countries.

> In France they implemented a modest fuel tax and they got the Yellow Vest Protests

The thing with fuel taxes is that, well, it doesn't help anyone. The poor single mother living and working in an area without great transit option will still have to rely on her car. Is the new tax going to help her afford an electric one or will it just contributes to some underperforming bureaucrat's pension fund?

[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/26/us-leads-greenhouse-gas-emis...

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states

[2] https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china

Re: Observation-based early-warning signals for a collapse of the Gulf Stream

#390

Post by VintageCool »

jacquesm wrote: post #320
felgueres wrote: post #212

Solutions to climate change are not behavioral as some suggest here. It’s about incentives. Transitioning to carbon neutral energy is possible at the expense of businesses’ cost structure, ie. less competitive. Same applies to building retrofitting, agriculture and other major carbon emitters. There is no serious conversation about climate change without looking at nuclear energy; it is base load generation (24/7), c…

"Bipartisan federal mandates to scale nuclear energy is the only real solution to this problem" Where to start? Bipartisan implies 'America', which is not 'the world'. Scaling up nuclear energy implies even more energy consumption rather than to do the obvious: shut down coal and gas fired plants and cap the per capita energy budget to something reasonable. Finally, nuclear instead of solar/wind is going to push yet…

The easiest path to reducing our carbon emissions is to electrify everything (notably: transportation and heating) and clean up the power grid. That is going to require doubling the size of the electrical grid in the next 20 years. There's a lot of wind and solar that we're going to need to be bringing online in the next couple of decades!
Post reply on HN