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

Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 1001 posts

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#321

Post by dantheman »

Bellamy wrote: post #174
wiz21c wrote: post #67

The article, and many like it, does a poor job of explaining the consequences we will face. 1.5°C doesn't mean much to the lay man. Explain that uncertain harvests, tied to speculation on risks, will much likely lead to an increase in the price of bread. Add to that an increase in oil will also lead to a price increase. Heatwave in Greece ? Greece is usually hot in summer so one doesn't care. Now explain how many hou…

Wildfires in Canada and Russia. Floats in Germany. Etc, etc... We have known 40 years what will happen and now for our leaders those consequences seem to come as a surprise. I hope the Germans will vote for the Green party in the September's federal elections and other countries will follow the example.

Didn't Germany b decide to dismantle their nuclear power plants?

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#322

Post by paganel »

I fail to see the same climate-related apocalyptic messages coming from the mainstream media exactly one year ago. It's either the situation has gotten exponentially worse in this last year (unlikely) or that the focus has turned from one apocalypse (covid in the wealthy countries) to another one (climate change). At this rate only a big regional war can shift the focus again from this specific subject.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#323

Post by cnity »

jimworm wrote: post #257

For all the carbon capture that the Devonian/Carboniferous period did over 100 million years, humanity undid a large part of it in 150 or so years. And now to preserve human civilisation in some form, the most direct way is probably to rebuild that carbon sink within a much shorter time. Much shorter than 150 years, not 100 million. Current carbon emissions are over 10 billion tonnes per year, so the capture speed wi…

In theory, a sink large enough to bring the Earth back to carbon neutral would be possible if the Sahara were reforested[0]:

> The team's calculations suggest the forested deserts could draw down around 8bn tonnes of carbon a year, about the same as emitted from fossil fuels and deforestation today.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/nov/04/forests-d...

Edit:

> if insoluble carbonates could be synthesised from atmospheric carbon dioxide

indeed, if only there was a highly efficient process that could convert the carbon in the atmosphere into hydrocarbons, using energy purely from the sun...

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#324

Post by tonyedgecombe »

smt88 wrote: post #268
zejn wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The easiest way to approach this is to "stop burning stuff". Is a material being burned? Then it almost certainly emits CO2. Do you call it fuel? Stop using it or use it as little as possible. Most personal energy use is for heating living spaces and transportation. EVs are great for transportation, e-bikes are even better. Heat pumps are great for heating and cooling living spaces. Using these one can drastically re…

Cows and concrete don't involve burning things, but they do produce a large percentage of total CO2 emissions.

A long way behind heating homes and transport though.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#325

Post by walton_simons »

thendrill wrote: post #282

Can someone please explain why should a middle class, middle aged blue collar worker care about this? How does any of this make his life better or worse?

Does he care about anyone but himself? Does he have children or grandchildren? Nephews or nieces? Does he care about their safety and welfare, and want them to have good lives?

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#326

Post by Cycl0ps »

jimworm wrote: post #257

For all the carbon capture that the Devonian/Carboniferous period did over 100 million years, humanity undid a large part of it in 150 or so years. And now to preserve human civilisation in some form, the most direct way is probably to rebuild that carbon sink within a much shorter time. Much shorter than 150 years, not 100 million. Current carbon emissions are over 10 billion tonnes per year, so the capture speed wi…

I've thought about it myself and the best answer that comes to mind is clear-cutting entire forests, tossing that biomass down a mineshaft, and replanting to start the process over again. All this talk of planting trees removes atmospheric carbon, but until it's out of the system entirely we're one forest fire away from wiping out decades of carbon removal.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#327

Post by api »

rich_sasha wrote: post #170

It’s just so hard to know what actions have what impact on CO2 production. Some are high-pain, low-gain (switching devices off instead of standby?), some are opposite (cycling instead of driving when possible etc). For that if for no other reason, I’d rather if consumer prices included an explicit CO2 tax. The here can be a rebate for poorer people, or personal allowance, whatever, but there would be a fixed yardstic…

Coal is 60% of all carbon emissions. Phase out coal for electricity production. Just doing that would go far.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#328

Post by tluyben2 »

virgilp wrote: post #226
zelphirkalt wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have children, then that is probably the most impactful. They will need/want the same living standards as other people. They get the full package of other impactful things you mention plus some more like house building. For example a young family does no longer live in the same small 2 person flat, but instead builds a house (or lets build). Especially in first world countries and developing to first world cou…

> one needs to continue to pay, while the children live? Can you kill them if you no longer afford the tax? (any answer to this question should suggest how ridiculous a tax like this would be)

I guess the GP's suggestion is to let people think twice before getting any? Children are expensive without this tax but most people don't think 1 second about that because it is somehow a right to have them so the state will provide (and in many countries here, indeed they will). If you can clearly see that you and your better half will never be able to support them until they are 18 (which goes for many people already, without any ridiculous taxation), you might think twice about having any at all?

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#329

Post by jokoon »

I'm still very skeptical how the measures will take into effect if they ever happen. In france the yellow vests protest was caused by a planned carbon tax increase on gas. Car dependent citizens rioted.

A carbon tax will reduce the living standard of everyone, and it will take time for society to readjust. I really think the economy will tank and take a lot of time to adjust to a green economy, as it's not only electricity, transportation and meat: it's also the production of cement and steel, landfills, chemical production, crop burning and deforestation, rice. There are tens of little things that once combined, emit a lot of CO2.

Road transport is only 12% of co2 emissions. So to be clear, electric cars are nice, but they're solving almost nothing.

Since humans generally compete against each other for everything, and since we live in an age of individualism and not collectivism, I'm quite pessimistic about humanity reducing their emissions, because the air is the single thing that is collectivized.

Edit: fixed grammar

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#330

Post by OJFord »

rich_sasha wrote: post #202
czzr wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The inability of the US to pass a carbon tax will be one of humanities great tragedies. That they are the theoretical champions of the free market is just piling cruel irony on top of that.

It's not just US. Is there a real carbon tax anywhere at all?

Road tax (levied on road-worthy vehicles) in the UK, and I'm sure elsewhere, has been tiered by emissions for decades. London also has had the congestion charge and now ultra-low emissions zone (ULEZ) for driving through with inefficient (and now with almost anything) per day.

I know that's not quite what you meant, but I think it's probably more feasible to have multiple specific things like that than an overall tax somehow?

Even for companies, forcing them to account for their carbon footprint, auditing it, etc. just seems like it'd be more 'busywork' and open to loopholes to me than 'just' taxing specific purchases or activities.

Post reply on HN