Live data from Hacker News

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

bbc.co.uk

311–320 of 349 posts

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

#311
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…

If I go on a diet and lose weight, is that also a trick because the average weight of the population goes up? Just because someone else does something else to negate the net effect of something doesn't mean you haven't done the thing. If we hadn't done anything emissions would be even higher. It isn't as if we have to burn a certain quota of coal and gas. This isn't an argument for doing less, it's an argument for do…

> If I go on a diet and lose weight, is that also a trick because the average weight of the population goes up?

The keyword here is "imported emissions". When you reduce your consumption because you're closing a factory to import the same stuff made in worse (environmental, social) conditions elsewhere, the gain is only apparent.

So following your analogy, if what you're after is the global population health, if you lose weight but everyone else gains more than what you lost, than the result is indeed a net loss overall.

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

#312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That quote sounds like a religion to me.

That's pretty uncharitable, and really only makes sense as a criticism if you think the proponents don't really believe this is a critical, concrete issue for society (i.e. if you think they are just being political, or ignorant).

> really only makes sense as a criticism if you think the proponents don't really believe

People who push religion often believe in it though. The question isn't whether one believes it, but whether one is dogmatic about it. The closed mindedness towards new ideas is what makes this sound like religion.

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

#313
post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to go to college. Nobody would spend $5 on a typical case of 24 average water bottles, that was way too much. $3 was more like it. A single reusable water bottle though? Even a cheap plastic one could run you $10, I'm sure you could find one for like $7 but the point stands. Convincing my friends to get a water filter was easy when looking at the money long-term, because they had the money short-term to cover…

> I used to go to college. College students are your example of poor people? I can see why we're having trouble here. Poor people can't afford to go to college, unless they have a full-ride scholarship or massive student loans (which they'll have to pay back later). The cost of water bottles is quite irrelevant here, when college is vastly more expensive than water. > a homeless person with $10 goes to a store Are we…

You've repeatedly made leaps between what I've said and horrible arguments I never made, and you've never, not even once, admitted to a single good point being made by me - if I retort something, it's never "my b", always "no, let me twist your words, maybe pretend your argument was this strawman". And recently, straight up ad-hominem.

In the future, consider arguing differently.

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

#314
post #137
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…

Making a press release saying that you are going to do something in 20 years is not a strong indication that you will actually do that thing. Unless a government is taking substantial short-term action that is consistent with that goal, then we should skeptical of those goals, and not put too much weight on projections based on them.

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

#315
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…

> ...was based on countries’ short-term goals for the next decade What else though? There is no "long-term" for politicians that have to face another election in less than 4 years. "This will happen in 10+ years" is just a thinly-veiled "We aren't going to do it.". If we can't get any short term commitments and hold people accountable for it, nothing substantial will get done.

How I see this unfolding, at the very least, is full-on militarization of the youth (mass protest, boycott, and terrorism) when they see that no one is doing anything substantive to solve the problem. You can already see quasi-violent climate change protests in the EU/UK.

They will organize via TikTok, or whatever social media dujour, and stop life as we know it.

Just keep bickering.

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

#316
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…

"It's common" is not a statistic. At least in the US, coal use for power generation has dropped precipitously over the past 40 years. If whatever coal we do still extract is extracted using wind or solar, that seems like a net win (even if not a net positive, for the reason you mentioned).

But we need a net positive. We must stop pumping CO2 in the atmosphere, and we're merely pumping it a slightly slower rate, and the quantity still goes up.

The US has replaced lots of coal with gas, and that's most of the reduction. But we're not gonna make it this way. Remember: we're heading towards +2.5°C in 2100, but northern continents heat much faster than the average (oceans are cooler and represent 70% of Earth's surface): it could be from +4 and up to +6°C in Canada, Europe, etc. The situation is going to be absolutely catastrophic much sooner than 2100. Arguably we may have catastrophic, repeated crop failures this decade for instance.

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

#317
post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be very easy if we didn't benefit greatly from burning coal

Are you familiar with the term "negative externalities?"

Sure. But the benefit is way bigger than the drawback. At least that is the decision society has made.

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

#318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...was based on countries’ short-term goals for the next decade What else though? There is no "long-term" for politicians that have to face another election in less than 4 years. "This will happen in 10+ years" is just a thinly-veiled "We aren't going to do it.". If we can't get any short term commitments and hold people accountable for it, nothing substantial will get done.

> What else though? There is no "long-term" for politicians that have to face another election in less than 4 years. Politicians used to have long term vision though. See the American founding fathers, Churchill, de Gaulle, etc. Something changed, it wasn't always like that

Look at the New Green Deal proposed by some Democrats in 2019. It was a non-binding resolution. An attempt to give the US congress a long-term vision.

There wasn't an attempt to compromise. Every Republican Representative could have attempted an amendment to temper language they didn't like. There could have been a debate on the merits of the resolution.

It was turned into a hit piece so every time AOC is mentioned in social media some smarmy user pops up and screeches about hamburgers or cow flatulence.

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

#319

Such pathways require global cooperation and will fail unless all major nations are on board. In particular, Russia is making no effort, and has no incentive or motivation to make any effort due to their vast tundra landscape. Step 1 is to get Russia on board by some means, without Russia any of these goals are senseless.

Quoted post unavailable.

China fucked up but now they're the country with the largest investment into solar, by far.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ranked-the-top-10-countries...

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

#320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When the goal was set it was achievable and we didn't do anything, why would it be different the second time around?

Because we're really feeling the consequences now. All over the world.
Post reply on HN