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

241–250 of 349 posts

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

#241

Post by wazoox »

tialaramex wrote: post #197
wazoox wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pa…

UK has massively de-industrialised, as has most of Europe (but Germany). However global industrial production, energy consumption in general and fossil fuels in particular all enormously increased since 1998.

Global numbers are all that counts, climate-wise. Plus I'm pretty sure that including imported emissions would annihilate (or even worsen) the apparent reduction for countries such as UK, France, etc.

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

#242

Post by aperson_hello »

It really is starting to feel like the fringe of the environmental movement have really been the bad guys all along. Blocking nuclear starting in the 70s, focusing only on recycling in the 80s and 90s (consumption doesn't matter as long as something could be recycled), blocking natural gas/oil in favor of coal in the 90s-2000s, blocking wind farms ("think of the birds!!"), batteries, and solar panels (too many chemicals/can't be recycled) in the 2010s, and now pushing the plastic straws will kill us all narrative in the 2020s (at the direct expense of the climate narrative).

I'm being a bit hyperbolic here, but only a little bit. It's a decades long story of not seeing the forest for the trees and focusing on minor environmental impacts rather than the big climate issue staring us down. Like, this is exactly the strategy I'd take if my goal were to create as much warming as possible without anyone catching on...

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

#243

Post by BiteCode_dev »

SimbaOnSteroids wrote: post #200
macspoofing wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because there is an homeostasic relationship between the co2 in the ocean and the air, and it always end up balancing out automatically.

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

#244

Post by marcosdumay »

GekkePrutser wrote: post #205
toomuchtodo wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 nuclear power continued to be rolled out at the same rate as it did in the 60s/70s. 25%…

By the time we're in a position to 'pay back' the emitted CO2 we have to be well beyond CO2 neutral energy. Otherwise it's easier to just offset our existing fossil uses instead of reclamation. We'll have to have a huge surplus of say 10x our energy use right now because reclaiming at any decent speed will cost huge amounts of energy. At that point most of the climate change will have already happened and we'll have…

> By the time we're in a position to 'pay back' the emitted CO2 we have to be well beyond CO2 neutral energy.

That certainty is not warranted.

Solar does seem much easier to generate than to store. It's uncertain how mobile usage will evolve on the short term. We have a lot of capital dependent on fossil fuels that won't be deprecated immediately. And finally, it's not clear if we can't do carbon capture at a loss before renewables win the market for generation.

Or, in conclusion, we should make a new global climate conference, with targets for capture. There is no reason for waiting the energy market to fully convert before doing it.

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

#245

Post by dclusin »

aperson_hello wrote: post #242

It really is starting to feel like the fringe of the environmental movement have really been the bad guys all along. Blocking nuclear starting in the 70s, focusing only on recycling in the 80s and 90s (consumption doesn't matter as long as something could be recycled), blocking natural gas/oil in favor of coal in the 90s-2000s, blocking wind farms ("think of the birds!!"), batteries, and solar panels (too many chemic…

Admitting that the decision to continue petroleum production is a cost benefit analysis and we still derive significant benefits from it is a conversation that much more than just the fringe environmentalists are unwilling to have. Had we been able to have these discussions earlier, we would have started working on carbon capture with much more credible allocations sooner.

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

#246

Post by tejohnso »

GekkePrutser wrote: post #179
Sharlin wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At some point we have to stop talking about the 1.5° number as if it were anything but a ludicrous pipedream by now. Even ten years ago it was an entirely hypothetical "if the entire global economic system magically turned around overnight then it might be possible". Now it's "if we had a literal time machine and could go back and magically turn around the global economy overnight".

Indeed, it promotes inaction because the goal is so impossible you might as well not even try. Better to set a goal we can still actually achieve and take the consequences of that level for granted.

A goal we can actually achieve results in the collapse of civilization. But that doesn't sell well. Not many want to take that for granted.

Any better consequence than that requires very significant changes from BAU and so lots of short term pain. Especially for the wealthy. And so we're back to impossible.

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

#247

Post by lamontcg »

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.

The upper bound of scientific predictions of climate change have generally been correct over the past 20 years.

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

#248

Post by Schroedingersat »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #166
Schroedingersat wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it increases living standards immensely. Fission reactors do not help towards this goal.

> Fission reactors do not help towards this goal Of course they do. Reactors produce electricity. You don’t like how they do it. But that they electrify borders on tautology.

No, they hinder the goal because they will never provide more than a tiny fraction of the needed energy and building one would tie up immense amounts of resources that could electrify many more households and cause permanent outflows for interest on debt that can never be paid off and fuel that they are not allowed to make.

I have an idea for a program where I pour lead onto your food and loan you $100k but you can only spend it on preordering a sports car I sell that doesn't work on unpaved roads for $150k which can only be charged at chargers I own and if you do anything I don't like ever I'll just ban you from using my cars altogether. It won't explode iff you keep up with perfect maintenance and I'll be removing all of the chargers in 2060 (or 2050 if I get lots of orders). It may arrive any time between 2028 and 2040 or maybe I'll just cancel the order (but you still have to pay back the loan).

The alternative is you buy a LEV that charges itself if you use it less than 30 miles a day, can accept any charger and costs $30k but you have to find a loan yourself. It might fail to charge up to 20% of the time with a few days' notice if you don't buy the $50k deluxe package.

They're both transport, right? Transport is good.

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

#249

Post by abyssin »

globular-toast wrote: post #191
abyssin wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, I feel responsible for those who need to get cared for. I take care of my parents and I’ll do more so in the future. Many people have cared for me when I was in need. I believe there’s a good chance that my children, as free agents, will choose to take care for me when I need it.

I also mean it in a more generational sense.

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

#250

Post by BiteCode_dev »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #40
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #9

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, and we don't even stop putting it in there. Janvici had a nice way to put it: the 1.5C are already signed for, which means we won't ever see the climate of today again in the next 5000 years.

I believe you meant Jancovici? https://jancovici.com/en/

Yep, typo.

I like the way he models the problem from first principles. Economic views have a tendency to hand wave the laws of thermodynamic.

Post reply on HN