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

291–300 of 349 posts

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

#291

Post by scohesc »

arbitrary_name wrote: post #269
scohesc wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The weird looks I get for even suggesting bringing manufacturing back home so we can have western-made goods, with low-carbon manufacturing regulations just shows that people don't understand how hard we're getting fleeced for our money. Bring these things home, we can regulate, control, and promote cleaner manufacturing practices - or at least control industrial waste output instead of "pipe the waste chemicals into…

Why do you think there is a dilapidated health care system today, if not due to the inaction of yesterday? Why do you think we have inflation, housing crises and environmental catastrophe today, if not for the short sightedness and selfishness of those who came before us? Your position appears to be one of self centered convenience, the exact same mindset that has prevented any solutions in the past. You are literall…

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying - maybe I didn't articulate it properly.

We have all these things going on today because of the actions of governments over the past 10-20-30 years. I didn't cause the inflation, I didn't cause the housing crisis, and I certainly didn't cause the environmental catastrophes.

Why the government wants to clean up their messes with more of _my_ money has me flabbergasted.

For some reason, society has decided to put trust in governments to help us with climate change, when the very same governments put us into this situation in the first place.

The very same governments who said to trust them, while encouraging economic policies for decades that favor the rich and politically elite - insider trading, complete and total export of manufacturing to third-world countries, back-door deals...

The very same governments who said they'd take care of our health is the same government that let the medical system get administratively bloated without caring about front-line staff. Now there's country-wide shortages that likely won't be fixed for at least a decade, if not more while we try and encourage more people into medical fields.

The very same governments who said that we care about stopping inflation, but are peachy keen with sending billions upon billions of dollars overseas to a country that before a year ago, 90% of us couldn't find on a globe.

So many times the government has lied to the people - why would this time be any different?

Sure, the government relies on experts to make their policy changes - climate scientists, economists, doctors, etc. But do you think they'd ever follow an expert that suggests advice that is _not_ in the governments best interest? Better yet - do you not think that governments don't find experts that tell them what government wants to hear?

Far as I'm concerned, this climate tax stuff is all an excuse to extract more money out of the middle and lower classes. People who have literally no idea on how the climate works just parrot "i'm helping the planet!" while their wallets get emptier and emptier.

You can't enjoy the nice climate/life when you're penniless, starving, and working slave labor to make ends meet. But the rich and elite sure are on your dime!

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

#292

Post by anton96 »

kolinko wrote: post #286
anton96 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because at best, Renewables run at 20% percent of their installed capacity comparing to more 80% for nuclear.

You are confusing efficiency with some other metrics. Solar is 20%, but there is no point comparing it to efficiency of gas or nuclear - it's apples to oranges.

It totally makes sense because you always compare price of installation against a certain installed capacity in TW.

I was not speaking of the efficiency of transforming 20% of the sun energy into electricity.

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

#293

Post by pier25 »

biotinker wrote: post #175
pier25 wrote: post #5

No surprises here. We've known for years we're going to shoot beyond 2C with very high certainty. Even if a miracle happened and we reached zero emissions today, the climate will keep warming at least for some more decades due to climate lag and feedbacks.

Of the amount of CO2 released each year by humans (~30gt), only about half persists in the atmosphere. The other half is re-absorbed by the biosphere. This is based on estimated total biosphere emissions, estimated human emissions, and annual CO2 PPM increases. I did some math on that and wrote it up here if anyone wants to dig deeper: https://biotinker.dev/posts/climate1.html In the case of the zero-emission miracle…

I'm sorry but I think you're missing a lot in your assumptions.

For example, there are only rough estimates on how much methane is trapped in the permafrost. The first estimate I saw by Natalia Shakhova et al was 1400gt over a decade ago (so about 45 years of human emissions at the current rate). I found this recent MIT article which mentions 1500gt [1]. Let's not forget methane has a 25x more heat trapping capacity than CO2. Do the math on that. Also the permafrost is just one of many feedbacks.

Another point you're not considering is that the capacity of the biosphere to absorb carbon is being reduced. For example, the Amazon used to be considered a carbon sink but it is becoming a carbon source [2].

[1] https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/permafrost

[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01871-6

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

#294

Post by goodpoint »

macspoofing wrote: post #101
eloff wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can build solar or wind plus some energy storage or long distance transmission to even it out for less than the price of nuclear and with income beginning quickly, not after 10 years. By the time nuclear projects started now complete, solar and wind will be mopping the floor with them ROI wise. Far from being a lie, we're in danger of them becoming the only game in town, for better or worse. Nuclear had so much p…

>By the time nuclear projects started now complete, solar and wind will be mopping the floor with them ROI wise. Yes, it will take decades to restart large scale nuclear projects. So we lost more than 50 years. With Solar/Wind it's not a question of cost or ROI. Solar/wind, as an intermittent and diffuse energy source, CANNOT power a modern economy. It needs base-load.

"base load" is a myth.

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

#295

Post by therealdrag0 »

macspoofing wrote: post #101
eloff wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can build solar or wind plus some energy storage or long distance transmission to even it out for less than the price of nuclear and with income beginning quickly, not after 10 years. By the time nuclear projects started now complete, solar and wind will be mopping the floor with them ROI wise. Far from being a lie, we're in danger of them becoming the only game in town, for better or worse. Nuclear had so much p…

>By the time nuclear projects started now complete, solar and wind will be mopping the floor with them ROI wise. Yes, it will take decades to restart large scale nuclear projects. So we lost more than 50 years. With Solar/Wind it's not a question of cost or ROI. Solar/wind, as an intermittent and diffuse energy source, CANNOT power a modern economy. It needs base-load.

Isn’t the base load required a fraction of our current coal/gas usage? Let’s get there first before complaining about solar/wind. (Though I’m also fully in support of more nuclear too)

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

#296

Post by goodpoint »

jansan wrote: post #86
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…

To the German Green party, who indulges itself in blaming everyone but itself for all kinds of problems in the world, there is only one thing that is worse than global warming, and that is nuclear energy.

Nonsense, nuclear is not economically viable.

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

#297

Post by pier25 »

radford-neal wrote: post #25
pier25 wrote: post #5

No surprises here. We've known for years we're going to shoot beyond 2C with very high certainty. Even if a miracle happened and we reached zero emissions today, the climate will keep warming at least for some more decades due to climate lag and feedbacks.

No, this is not known with "very high certainty". The most recent IPCC report (AR6) gives the "very likely" (90% probability) range for "equilibrium climate sensitivity" - the eventual effect on temperature of doubling CO2 - as between 2C and 5C. Current CO2 levels are less than double pre-industrial levels, so the "baked in" warming could well be less than 2C. Also note that reaching the equilibrium temperature take…

The last time the Earth was above 400ppm during the Pliocene era, when sea level was roughly 25 meters higher than today. That in itself is going to be catastrophic once the climate and the planet catch up, but there are far worse consequences and emissions are still growing.

Have you ever read about the Russian wildfires of 2010 which had a massive impact to global food prices which then triggered the Arab spring revolutions? That was a single event in a world below 400ppm but these heat waves are starting to occur with more frequency now and will have serious consequences.

The IPCC is an organization that functions with consensus and their data is awfully outdated. Their assessments generally underreport the consequences of climate change. Here's a paper from 2010 which analyzed this:

https://skepticalscience.com/pics/Freudenburg_2010_ASC.pdf

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

#298

Post by pier25 »

bayesianbot wrote: post #130
pier25 wrote: post #5

No surprises here. We've known for years we're going to shoot beyond 2C with very high certainty. Even if a miracle happened and we reached zero emissions today, the climate will keep warming at least for some more decades due to climate lag and feedbacks.

If we reached actual zero emissions for humans, the ocean absorbing CO2 from air would almost exactly balance the warming climate lag, IIRC. But you're right in a sense that in reality most likely we'd still be emitting CO2, balance it with the natural CO2 sinks and call that net-zero.

Maybe but human emissions are only half of the problem.

See this comment I wrote about the permafrost:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33362648

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

#299

Post by macspoofing »

eloff wrote: post #262
macspoofing wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>By the time nuclear projects started now complete, solar and wind will be mopping the floor with them ROI wise. Yes, it will take decades to restart large scale nuclear projects. So we lost more than 50 years. With Solar/Wind it's not a question of cost or ROI. Solar/wind, as an intermittent and diffuse energy source, CANNOT power a modern economy. It needs base-load.

You can achieve that steady grid by over-building wind+solar, interconnecting larger areas of grid, as that naturally smooths out the variability as the system gets larger and more diverse, and adding storage. Storage is not quite there yet, cost efficiency wise, but it's less of a stretch to believe it can get there, than it is to believe nuclear can be made cost competitive.

>You can achieve that steady grid by over-building wind+solar,

No. You can't. There are times when you get neither wind nor solar. Overprovisioning isn't going to do anything for you there.

Post reply on HN