Live data from Hacker News

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

bbc.com

841–850 of 1001 posts

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

#841
post #829

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As pointed out in he comments below, the climate crisis will reduce political stability. And stability is essential to ensure that there will be a strong enough society left to properly decommission a nuclear plant when it will be EOL in 50 years. Decommissioning is likely to be vastly more expensive than initial construction, and after that you still need to figure out how to make sure no one will want to touch the…

"capitalism should sort it out" Oh, you sweet summer child!

We can at least try putting a price on fossil fuels. Actually the 1973 oil crisis had a profound effect on behavior, so yes a capitalistic system is perfectly capable of responding to something being (artificially) scarce. OPEC should really get their shit together and start another oil crisis "in order to save the world"

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

#842
post #621

Just. Tax. It. We have warmed the earth because we love comfort and money. We will never stop loving those things. So instead let's use the same systems to fix this (or at least slow things down). As an individual my largest carbon impact is air travel. I like to go places, it's one of the main things I work to afford. Every single plane ticket I take should have a tax which is used to offset or capture the carbon em…

Economists have been saying this for years. Really it's the only way to let market forces decide. Make it a publicly listed company that collects the tax, and distribute dividends equally to all citizens. Such things should be possible with digital currencies.

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

#843
post #247

If some things "are irreversible on timescales of centuries to millennia" then really just going carbon neutral etc. sounds like a pretty weak approach as it would create costs now and large benefits only far in the future. Maybe this really needs geoengineering (and more spending on mitigation)?

Here is one engineering solution: Weather should be very controlable by how much sun hits the earth. Which then causes heat, wind, water evaporation etc etc. Large sun screen satelites (very simple ones that can fold out foil origami style) could block out a lot of sun at places according to stabilization weather models. Same for reflector sattelites, which could add more sun in specific places. The difficulty is tha…

Sun screen using balloons:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_geoengineering

Altering albedo alone still leaves us with ocean acidification problem, but I'm not up-to-date with the risks of that (other than coral reef dying out, which is absolutely tragic).

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

#844
post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Believe it or not, western countries have reduced carbon emissions over the last ~15 years, in both absolute and per capita terms (despite a growing population). The only countries that are growing their carbon emissions are developing countries; mainly China, India and Russia. China is particularly troubling since they make up 28% of all emissions (US is 15%) and they have both a growing population and growing emiss…

I'm looking at how China's currently pummeling their tech sector for the sake of the party* and am hoping that they'll apply the same decisioning to their emissions-heavy industries as well. Doubt it'll happen, but I can be wishful with my thoughts. ---- * https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/China-tech/China-s-tech-cra...

First of all, saying China's actions against tech sector is for the sake of the ccp, or that ccp simply felt they are too big is a narrow way to look at it. And makes the regulatory actions as a political game and not legitimate. You need to look at case by case. I argue each case has a legit issue, and in many of the cases, government is enforcing the laws that already exists but weren't enforced earlier. Chinese government didn't place any regulatory burden on tech sector earlier. But as the tech sector grew, there have been significant issues: 1) consolidation of power and use dominate market power to negatively affect the competition 2) Vast collection of personal data, commercializing personal data detriment to privacy 3) Use of algorithms and big data to detriment of consumers or workers. Ex: Tests shows that Didi chuxing show more expensive prices on a device you use to order multiple times before than a device you have not for the same trip. meituan's delivery algorithm drives delivery workers to the extreme. The delivery algorithm also gets harder if you work harder, resulting in ever intensive work condition, and they penalizes you each time you can't meet the algorithm.

I can present my points for supporting each of the regulatory actions but I won't go into details here. Overall, my view is that these regulatory actions are overdue. It doesn't mean we don't want tech sector. The society is a web of relationships between entities. Any time an entity that has a lot of advantage over another party, I argue that the red line should at least be that the more powerful entity shouldn't use its power to the detriment of the weaker party. The role of the government and laws should be to at least be to prevent that from happening. In terms of tech, the relationship is tech company vs its competitors, vs consumers, vs workers. In these relationships, a tech company can have significantly more advantaged because data it collected, characteristics of a digital business, network effects and capital. And if the weaker party is negatively affected because of the interaction between the powerful entity and the power difference, that should be a sign that public power should step in to either protect the weaker party or increase weaker party's power.

In regards to environment. I can list specific actions Chinese government took just recently: 1) A carbon credit and trading system is operational. The first batch of companies required to tally carbon credits and purchase credits include 2000 companies in the power generation sector, covering an emission of 4 billion tons of co2 annually. Steel, metal, cement, petro-chemical sectors will also be included as the plan progresses(https://www.reuters.com/article/china-carbon-market-0714-wed...) 2) Government is ordering more crude steel capacity reduction, can you imagine any country where the government is forcing businesses to reduce production and capacity 3) Aug 1, government removed export tax benefit for 23 types of steel, and placed export tariffs up to 40% on a few types of steel. Does any other country has self imposed export tariffs? The purpose looks like reduce exports of energy heavy, pollution heavy, and low margin metal products. Aiding steel capacity reduction. (http://finance.people.com.cn/n1/2021/0801/c1004-32177024.htm...) 4) Many state owned companies, such as state grid, petrochina now have even more green development tasks and initiatives. For example, more ultra high voltage DC powerlines are being built. This removes one of the primary adoption blocker for more renewables in china. One of the successful development model is villages in the western provinces are building solar farms, the revenue from power sales are dividend given to the local people, increasing renewables at the same time increasing people's income. And some villages in the dessert, have found its even possible to grow plants under solar panel's shade where before the sun was too strong. Now they have agriculture + solar energy development parks. Solar, wind, hydro installation are all increasing. In terms of industry and private sector, EV sales continue to grow, I believe EVs in China, given the quality of the products, market competition and gains in infrastructure, is starting to reach the consumer acceptance. Sales of Chinese companies in green sector, such as CATL is growing by a lot, stocks reaching all time high.

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

#845
post #621

Just. Tax. It. We have warmed the earth because we love comfort and money. We will never stop loving those things. So instead let's use the same systems to fix this (or at least slow things down). As an individual my largest carbon impact is air travel. I like to go places, it's one of the main things I work to afford. Every single plane ticket I take should have a tax which is used to offset or capture the carbon em…

Economists have been saying this for years. Really it's the only way to let market forces decide. Make it a publicly listed company that collects the tax, and distribute dividends equally to all citizens. Such things should be possible with digital currencies.

That _publicly listed company_ sounds like... the government.

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

#846
post #740

If anyone actually believed it was "code red for humanity" they'd be pushing nuclear power. There is zero chance of moving off carbon energy sources without causing catastrophic mayhem, unless we use massive amounts of nuclear. For instance, the last 4 years my state has averaged 37% production of total possible installed wind generation capacity. This is a very windy state which is in the top 2 for installed wind ca…

I see this take a lot, and it’s kind of misinformed. The primary drawbacks of nuclear are: 1) incredible slow to build. A typical plant takes ~20 years from decision to productionized 2) extremely expensive, with a massively frontloaded cost. By contrast, solar and wind are fast to install and now cheaper. > wind power can be zero at some parts of the day There are a few solutions to this actually. First, having a mo…

Don't forget the substantial costs to clean up. Just think about growing up in a world full of EOL nuclear plants left by generations before you that need to be cleaned up... In a political unstable world due to an ongoing climate crisis.

Even today we as a whole struggle with decommissioning nuclear plants, and the costs are astronomical this is already a huge problem now, let alone in a post climate change world

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning

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

#847

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If there is anything covid has taught me its that collective action isn't something we can rely on and is a lot more wishful thinking about the state of humanity rather than a sober look at the reality. If climate change plays out the way the pandemic has, I think we will have collective action, but it'll be uneven and fall short. We'll avoid the most dire outcomes, but blow right past acceptable outcomes. Many, ma…

If the pandemic is anything to go by, the collective action will harm the common people (especially the poor) while the elites get to play by entirely separate rules! While there's no doubt that sacrifices in quality of life are going to have to be made I think it's very important that the elites are seen to suffer as much as the common man otherwise the inevitable result will be increasingly ungovernable countries.

Absolutely -- inequality has brought us to this pass, continues to be an obstacle, and will make the consequences far worse. Should we, as individuals, eat less meat, drive more fuel efficient vehicles, fly less, and other such activities to reduce our carbon output? Yes, but as many have pointed out in this and other discussions, that doesn't come anywhere close to being enough. It's the dynamic of the rich scolding people for a Starbucks latte habit, writ large.

Should the elite aggressively pivot their companies to carbon neutral strategies, divest their substantial investments from greenhouse gas producing holdings, put their political muscle toward laws that will get us off our current disastrous path, and fund this change via taxes on their wealth? Yes, and this would do far, far more to change things for the better.

If you can figure out how to make this happen, well you'll be some kind of sociological and political genius.

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

#848
post #740

If anyone actually believed it was "code red for humanity" they'd be pushing nuclear power. There is zero chance of moving off carbon energy sources without causing catastrophic mayhem, unless we use massive amounts of nuclear. For instance, the last 4 years my state has averaged 37% production of total possible installed wind generation capacity. This is a very windy state which is in the top 2 for installed wind ca…

I see this take a lot, and it’s kind of misinformed. The primary drawbacks of nuclear are: 1) incredible slow to build. A typical plant takes ~20 years from decision to productionized 2) extremely expensive, with a massively frontloaded cost. By contrast, solar and wind are fast to install and now cheaper. > wind power can be zero at some parts of the day There are a few solutions to this actually. First, having a mo…

>A typical plant takes ~20 years from decision to productionized

If this were truly "code red" and people really believed that, we would find a way to push the bureaucrats out of the way and build nuclear capacity way sooner than 20 yrs. Humans can do amazing things under dire stress.

This is not happening, so I will assume "code red" is hyperbole, something that the IPCC is not entirely known to shun.

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

#849
Given how impossible it is achieve global consensus on policy, I'm pretty inclined to believe that a technological breakthrough is the only solution. Maybe a series of them.

In the best case, carbon removal and sequestration tech. In the neutral case, clean and efficient energy tech. In the worst case, climate-catastrophe coping tech.

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

#850
post #759

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed - if the situation is as dire as presented then nuclear fission is the only clear solution today for baseload power. All the rebuttals I usually read seem to present hypothetical alternatives that may very well come to fruition but we have nuclear as a well-tested and known solution to the problem ready for us to begin using today should we simply decide to act.

Meanwhile California is busy decommissioning Diablo plant: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant I don’t see a path forward without Nuclear. Europe and China has done better in this area than US. There is a bunch of fear mongering in liberal California circles about Nuclear. Well informed and technically minded people I know in Bay Area all support Nuclear power. Frankly the media has done an awfu…

I really wonder what all the China talking point sorts will do the day China not only beats us on emissions per capita but also on total emissions? What excuse to continue doing nothing will they pivot to then? India?

https://spectrum.ieee.org/china-closing-in-on-thorium-nuclea...

Post reply on HN