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

991–1000 of 1001 posts

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

#991

Post by roenxi »

elproxy wrote: post #970
mywittyname wrote: post #760

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear power can be fast to build. It would need to be constructed in volume, with immutable designs. Right now, America builds so few nuclear plants that they are essentially all one-off designs. Mass production is key here. Vis-à-vis costs, the government can poof into existence trillions of dollars with no ill effects. Cost is an easily overcome obstacle. If a mandate came down to produce 1000 new nuclear reactor…

Beyond the fact that electricity-generation is once again only part of our emissions issue, there's about ~450 reactors worldwide and the uranium ore reserves give us around ~120 years of operation on current 3rd (/3+) gen reactors (short of having fast neutron reactors basically). Having 1000 in the US (or rather 900 more or 3 times as many globally) would have brought that deadline closer by the inverse ratio, and…

There are 100 years of uranium reserves available. Nobody is looking for more. If they were, they're probably going to find it.

Exploration programs are expensive.

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

#993

Post by marvoronc345 »

merpnderp wrote: post #720

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…

nice

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

#994

Post by kieranmaine »

signaturefish wrote: post #752
kieranmaine wrote: post #738

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it will be more feasible to decarbonize the heating instead. If feasible heat storage technology can mature and lower the cost of electric heating then it becomes financially viable. Out of interest, what work are you getting done?

The whole bill of work is as follows: * Full external-wall-insulation (180mm thick) with brick slip dressing so it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb amidst all the brick houses in the road. * Triple-glazed windows and doors throughout, replacing single-glazed original units which are at end-of-life. * 300mm deep loft insulation, replacing poor-quality and patchy 80-100mm insulation. * Full airtightness sealing (i.e…

That's an impressive list! Hats off to you. It would be really interesting to know which gives you the greatest benefit/cost ratio. I live in flats built in 1969 and they're generally fairly warm. However I'd really like to push for improved insulation, so any info on what works best would help me argue my case.

Also it might be worth looking at the following trial:

https://www.ovoenergy.com/smart-home/zero-carbon-heating-tri...

I'm not sure if they're still accepting participants but if you want to help push the boundaries on decarbonising heat it would be a good thing to get involved in.

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

#995

Post by TaylorAlexander »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #388
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Only 12% of ROAD TRANSPORT emits co2. So to be clear, electric cars are nice, but they're solving almost nothing. I just want to add, that so many people buy in to the idea that the solution to gas powered cars is electric cars. But I feel like the significantly climate friendlier solution is bicycles and trains. The latter requires us to really go outside of our comfort zones (in the USA anyway) and we just don't…

> I just want to add, that so many people buy in to the idea that the solution to gas powered cars is electric cars. But I feel like the significantly climate friendlier solution is bicycles and trains. And I want to say: yes. Everyone knows that. I don't get why this point has to be raised every time the topic of EVs and climate intersect. EVs aren't competing with bicycles and trains, they're competing with ICE car…

> EVs aren't competing with bicycles and trains, they're competing with ICE cars. Both for market and attention. If bicycles could work instead of EVs where people want to introduce EVs, they would've already replaced ICEs in that role.

This feels like a free market fallacy. “No one is buying it therefore it is not useful.” Well actually we have to plan our cities as we build, expand, and improve upon them. So we could decide to make them more bike friendly and then bikes would be a viable alternative to cars. But since the US doesn’t have a lot of bike friendly cities, that hasn’t happened.

But it is our choice whether or not to build those cities. We have to exercise foresight to find the best solution. Otherwise we’re just making incremental changes which may not be best in the broader picture.

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

#996

Post by tibiahurried »

kuraudo wrote: post #794
tibiahurried wrote: post #592

Still, it is so sad to see companies who could avoid their employees commuting and polluting, fighting to get their employees back to the office! This shows how overall businesses and people don’t really care for climate change.

I do find it odd that, given the reported reduction in carbon emissions from covid, that governments are not outright mandating work from home for compatible jobs as an easy win to this problem.

Exactly! It annoys me so much reading about big tech co, pledging on becoming carbon negative, produce zero waste, etc ... but still force thousands of people everyday to commute and pollute just for the sake of it.

They really don't care.

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

#997

Post by Bryan22 »

rocgf wrote: post #718
titzer wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every single plane ticket I take should have a tax which is used to offset or capture the carbon emissions of my flight. I will pay it. So what you're saying is that it won't change your behavior. Why don't you just donate $1000 or whatever to a charity? (I dunno, maybe you already do). I don't mean to attack you, but encoded in your very language is the exact problem. No one is willing to change their own behavior…

Pardon me, but your post is just about virtue signalling or you're missing the point entirely. If you increase the taxes for something, you will drop the demand and, therefore, consumption. It doesn't matter whether OP will change his/her behaviour, it matter that we, as a planet of people taking X flights per year, will reduce our flights by Y% due to tax. I don't want to change my behaviour because that doesn't fix…

>I don't want to change my behaviour because that doesn't fix anything. I want to be forced to changed my behaviour, along with everyone else on the planet...

That first sentence is the problem with this world. Everyone says that they want to fix a problem until it comes time to take action. You're just lying to yourself and virtue signaling to everyone else if you're not making steps in your own life to actively make a change in your own behavior.

That second sentence will be the downfall of all free people. It's weak willed people like you who won't make changes in their own lives literally begging for government to take more power. Asking the government to force you to change your own behavior.

You're very naive to think this power you would give so freely will be used benevolently. You needn't look any further than the government's inaction to punish those big companies who are destroying our oceans, our economies, our rivers. No big company CEOs ever go to prison for destroying our planet because our politicians are bank rolled by them. There is the ruling class, then there is you me, and everyone else. These are the people you will surrender your freedoms to so cheerfully.

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

#998

Post by palanq »

habosa wrote: 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…

National carbon taxes for the US are politically infeasible. Best we can do right now is big climate-tied infrastructure spending packages, sector-specific targets, R&D investments--whole mess of things. That is the stuff that can pass for the foreseeable future. Carbon taxes as the exclusive solution is a naive dream of economists.

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

#999

Post by Thlom »

Thlom wrote: post #492
ihuk wrote: post #478

We bought an expensive washing machine 3 years ago thinking it will last us a long time. It already broke down twice. It's been broken for almost a month now waiting for parts and whatnot. There's a good chance we'll have to get another one. Does Electrolux/AEG care? No. They don't care about the environment, their only obligation is to their shareholders. But frankly neither do I anymore. Next time, I'll buy the che…

I bought a relatively expensive Miele washing machine and a Miele dryer 7-8 years ago. No problems what so ever. Just a tip.

Haha. Two days after this post the drier started acting up. Luckily it was just a matter of opening it up and putting back the rpm counter/home sensor.

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

#1000

Post by cx42net »

masklinn wrote: post #816
bradleyjg wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ordinary people are tasked with saving the planet I can’t read minds, but my sense is that much of what individuals are asked to do is knowingly conservation theater. If you want to put a positive spin on that, you can say it makes them feel more committed to supporting the regulatory changes necessary by building a sense of shared sacrifice. The cynical version writes itself.

> I can’t read minds, but my sense is that much of what individuals are asked to do is knowingly conservation theater. Oh it's not just conservation theatre, it's also cynical responsibilities shifting: by convincing everyone that the public at large is to blame, corporations get off scot-free

There was a leak from Exxon (always them) (source: https://www.vox.com/22429551/climate-change-crisis-exxonmobi...) ? That showed they made campaigns to push the responsibility to the public.

We can do all the efforts we can, if the big corps don't act properly, it will be for nothing.

Post reply on HN