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

UN says “No credible pathway” and “woefully inadequate” to stop global 1.5C

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 349 posts

Re: UN says “No credible pathway” and “woefully inadequate” to stop global 1.5C

#191

Post by globular-toast »

abyssin wrote: post #144
globular-toast wrote: post #87

I used to be really depressed about this sort of thing. It caused me to severely limit my lifestyle out of a desire to "do the right thing". I didn't own a car. Very low consumption and minimal waste (no takeaway food, coffee etc., very frugal, didn't use things like paper towels and napkins). I cycled and walked everywhere. Didn't go on holidays abroad or even very far away. Then I looked around and noticed that eve…

I’m still on the side of cyclists. I don’t think I’d be able to stand a lifestyle where I’m surrounded by people in denial. I have a child but I don’t think I’ll raise her in the belief that only a comfortable life is one worth living. I’m also wondering by who childless people expect to be taken care of when they get older, if not by their children in a broad sense?

You expect your child to take care of you?

None of us know what the future holds. You might very well have nobody to care for you either. Your children are free agents and might move to the other side of the world or might simply not care about you. Like me you'll probably choose not to overly concern yourself with this.

Re: UN says “No credible pathway” and “woefully inadequate” to stop global 1.5C

#192

Post by throwaway5752 »

timr wrote: post #137
Yizahi wrote: post #45

1.5*C ? What kind of fictional reality are living in? We are way past 2.4*C projection and are actually on track for 2.9*C or so. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/09/cop26-se...

Let's be perfectly clear: the projection you are citing is on the extreme end of a spectrum. Other projections differ. Per the (non-headline) part of the article: > The estimate stands in sharp contrast to optimistic forecasts published last week that suggested heating could be held to 1.9C or 1.8C, thanks to commitments announced at the talks, now in their second week and scheduled to end this weekend. > Those estim…

We're not going to hit the targets, not even close. The models are trending worse than expected. As someone that has spent some time on this topic in my lifetime, all I can do is thank fate that I'm likely to be dead from natural causes around 2050.

Maybe the Guardian is bad (and I disagree with your opinion of them, I think they are generally reliable) but in this case, they are correct.

Re: UN says “No credible pathway” and “woefully inadequate” to stop global 1.5C

#193

Post by enraged_camel »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #192
timr wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's be perfectly clear: the projection you are citing is on the extreme end of a spectrum. Other projections differ. Per the (non-headline) part of the article: > The estimate stands in sharp contrast to optimistic forecasts published last week that suggested heating could be held to 1.9C or 1.8C, thanks to commitments announced at the talks, now in their second week and scheduled to end this weekend. > Those estim…

We're not going to hit the targets, not even close. The models are trending worse than expected. As someone that has spent some time on this topic in my lifetime, all I can do is thank fate that I'm likely to be dead from natural causes around 2050. Maybe the Guardian is bad (and I disagree with your opinion of them, I think they are generally reliable) but in this case, they are correct.

I've found that Guardian has by far the best environmental news coverage out of basically all mainstream outlets.

Re: UN says “No credible pathway” and “woefully inadequate” to stop global 1.5C

#194

Post by [deleted] »

gitfan86 wrote: post #186
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it is the demand for batteries that will make them cheap This isn’t how supply and demand work. Demand can induce scale efficiencies in production, which lowers costs. That’s what’s happening in your link, which tracks through 2018. In 2019, electric car sales shares rose globally and non-linearly [1]. We persist on that path. As a result, battery costs are spiking [2][3]. [1] https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/asse…

It is exactly how supply and demand works, lithium refiners are making huge profits, which causes more investment in refining capabilities which unlocks larger economies of scale. If you don't understand this please just circle back to this thread in 5 years, and I can show you what actually happened.

[deleted]

Re: UN says “No credible pathway” and “woefully inadequate” to stop global 1.5C

#195

Post by lapcat »

jamescostian wrote: post #170
lapcat wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think you've misunderstood my position. I'm definitely confused about it now. You said: "The poorer you are, the less you can individually consume, and the more you must go for things that are cheap at the expense of other things (e.g. buying single-use goods over and over is cheaper short-term than buying something made to last)." I disagree that the part in parentheses follows logically from the part outside th…

> I disagree that the part in parentheses follows logically from the part outside the parentheses Me too, it does not! It's the reverse, the part in parentheses is what causes the larger part. Say I want water. A case of water bottles is a lot "cheaper short-term" than a single, reusable, water bottle. That's an example of the parenthetical, I'm sure you can think of many more. Now, look at how it connects to the par…

> A case of water bottles is a lot "cheaper short-term" than a single, reusable, water bottle.

Uh... no? What size case are you talking about? Water bottles can be super cheap.

> So for example, if I were poor enough, I'd buy cases of water instead of a water bottle, EVEN IF I knew the single use water bottle was better for the environment and a better choice long-term!

I disagree. This seems to be based on pure speculation and projection.

> It's about "this box of pads costs the cheapest so I'll buy it".

You seem to be imagining that poor people can't do any long-term economic planning in their own lives, which is false. As if they're somehow trapped in irrational, short-term, self-defeating thinking.

Poor people can plan. They can budget. They can put off purchases. (They can also drink tap water, except in Flint, Michigan.) We're not talking about a homeless person with a few dollars to their name, who wouldn't be buying cases of water anyway, because there would be nowhere to put a case of water.

In any case, how much do you think water containers are contributing to global warming? This is why I asked for examples. The topic here is the 1.5C threshold.

Re: UN says “No credible pathway” and “woefully inadequate” to stop global 1.5C

#196

Post by globular-toast »

NickM wrote: post #150
globular-toast wrote: post #87

I used to be really depressed about this sort of thing. It caused me to severely limit my lifestyle out of a desire to "do the right thing". I didn't own a car. Very low consumption and minimal waste (no takeaway food, coffee etc., very frugal, didn't use things like paper towels and napkins). I cycled and walked everywhere. Didn't go on holidays abroad or even very far away. Then I looked around and noticed that eve…

It sounds like you're bitter because you think having all people take personal responsibility for their own actions is the only solution, and you don't see people doing that. I used to feel similarly. But I think the real problem is not the moral failings of individuals; I think the real problem is that we've collectively built a system that rewards people for doing the wrong thing. If we can collectively decide to f…

I definitely do not think people taking personal responsibility is the solution. Quite the opposite. I believe the only way it top-down enforcement of cutbacks for everyone. A giant reset button. I simply don't think we have the ability to do that. COVID was a nice try but we couldn't resist going back to "normal".

Buying an EV is a no-op that makes people feel good for sacrificing nothing. You need to get a bicycle instead.

I like the idea of a system that rewards people for doing the right thing. I'd like it even more if such a system existed.

Re: UN says “No credible pathway” and “woefully inadequate” to stop global 1.5C

#197

Post by tialaramex »

wazoox wrote: post #73
benj111 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it a 'trick'? Building a wind turbine isn't shuffling emissions anywhere. Neither is solar. Or a more efficient boiler, or....

It's not replacing fossil fuels, merely freeing them for other uses. In fact it's even common now to build wind turbines around coal mines to produce power to extract coal... We must reduce our fossil fuel consumption in absolute numbers. So far we're merely adding more energy resources; that way political and corporate PR representative can make triumphal announces about how we're reducing the part of fossil in our…

I'll link a page with a chart on it, the web page relies on Javascript to actually render charts, the chart we care about here is "Electricity generation mix by quarter and fuel source".

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/energy-data-and-research/data-porta...

Now, on the left is 1998, on the right is this year. There are a few noteworthy differences

1. The UK actually produces less electricity, partly from efficiencies and partly de-industrialisation in some areas.

2. Coal went from over 30 TWh in 1998 to 2.24 TWh today. Are we instead burning that coal in homes? Nope. Steam locomotives? A handful of quaint examples. Coal mining largely stopped in the UK.

3. Gas went from almost 30 TWh in 1998 to slightly less today. We are still burning gas to heat homes and businesses but I doubt it's more than in 1998.

4. Wind and solar went from negligible to almost 25 TWh today. It's about a third of today's electricity generation.

I don't see a way to read this which doesn't have us significantly replacing fossil fuels. Those coal mines are shut. Does the UK still have petrol stations and gas boilers? Yes, but it doesn't have many more of them than in 1998. That displacement shown is a real improvement.

It just isn't enough.

Re: UN says “No credible pathway” and “woefully inadequate” to stop global 1.5C

#198

Post by chimprich »

timr wrote: post #137
Yizahi wrote: post #45

1.5*C ? What kind of fictional reality are living in? We are way past 2.4*C projection and are actually on track for 2.9*C or so. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/09/cop26-se...

Let's be perfectly clear: the projection you are citing is on the extreme end of a spectrum. Other projections differ. Per the (non-headline) part of the article: > The estimate stands in sharp contrast to optimistic forecasts published last week that suggested heating could be held to 1.9C or 1.8C, thanks to commitments announced at the talks, now in their second week and scheduled to end this weekend. > Those estim…

> Let's be perfectly clear: the projection you are citing is on the extreme end of a spectrum.

It's worth pointing out that "on the extreme end of a spectrum" is some rather blatant editorializing. There is simply no way that's an objective fact.

> After the past three years and watching their coverage of Covid (an area of science I know well, and in which I read the primary literature)

That's little more than an appeal to authority, to try to get us to believe your opinion, rather than highly-respected international organisations.

> I give zero credibility to the Guardian as a source of objective information.

The Guardian is not perfect, but generally gets the science pretty much right most of the time - at least compared to other news organisations. Saying it has "zero credibility" is hyperbole that rather reveals your biases.

Would you like to cite some projections you think are more accurate?

Re: UN says “No credible pathway” and “woefully inadequate” to stop global 1.5C

#199

Post by renewiltord »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #141
macspoofing wrote: post #70

There is no chance of removing existing CO2 from Air to make any sort of difference. There is no chance of meaningfully reducing CO2 emissions, because outside of Nuclear (and hydro/geothermal but only if you have the geography for it) there is no alternative to replacing fossil fuels. At some point the public will realize the lie of solar/wind as a replacement. We lost 50 years of greatly reduced emissions had nucle…

Nuclear is just a scapegoat. If it was easy or cheap, the free market would have done its magic. All manufacturing would already be done in a country with unlimited free and clean energy, even if other countries had issues with it. Plant costs, operation, safety, waste management, and non-proliferation are real hard problems. It's just lazy and wishful thinking that there's a deus ex machina if some people would just…

Nuclear tech is dual use so it is strongly controlled. That's what makes it impossible for, say, Sudan to become some energy+manufacturing powerhouse in the way you're talking.

If you try to start a civil nuclear program and America finds out, America will kill your program. And America will find out.

Re: UN says “No credible pathway” and “woefully inadequate” to stop global 1.5C

#200

Post by SimbaOnSteroids »

macspoofing wrote: post #53
Tuna-Fish wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not a surprise, since co2 is an oxide, and therefore very stable in the athmosphere. It would take a huge amount of energy to remove it, There is an exothermic reaction that removes CO2 from the atmosphere, the formation of carbonates from weathering of silicate rocks. As this is naturally very slow, there is currently ongoing research into multiple different ways to speed it up.

That doesn't change anything. You need a huge amount of energy to remove CO2 from the atmosphere because CO2 is a tiny constituent part of Air (~400ppm) - that means one has to move a million molecules of air across a collector (whatever that is) to remove 400 molecules of CO2. You can't do that without huge amounts of energy and a huge surface area for your collector ... on any human timescale.

Why do we talk about removing CO2 from the atmosphere but not trying to pull it out of the ocean?
Post reply on HN