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

Shell admits 1.5C climate goal means immediate end to fossil fuel growth

resilience.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 356 posts

Re: Shell admits 1.5C climate goal means immediate end to fossil fuel growth

#41

Post by BossingAround »

hkt wrote: post #27
andyjsong wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carbon sequestration is promising, but still years away. We need to start looking at stop gap solutions that buy us more time.

Carbon sequestration is trivial: we rewild destroyed ecosystems. We don't need to die waiting for Elon. I await my downvotes.

If we planted trees on every square meter outside of current cities (and let them grow without disturbing them), would that make a dent in carbon sequestration?

Serious question. Planting trees and re-growing ecosystems seems like a simple, straightforward solution, but I feel like it's a red herring.

Re: Shell admits 1.5C climate goal means immediate end to fossil fuel growth

#42

Post by input_sh »

candiddevmike wrote: post #8
slashdev wrote: post #3

I’m not sure what’s the point of focusing on 1.5C anymore. I think the writing on the wall is pretty clear that we’re going to double that at least. Barring any miracle in carbon sequestration technology anyway. I hope we get a miracle.

Our kids, who will shoulder far more of the effects of this than us, didn't get to choose this. This is their inheritance, generations of neglect for the environment and rampant profiteering culminating in a climate catastrophe.

I'd add that all our models include some form of carbon removal, which is still within the realm of fiction in any meaningful capacity.

So not only do our children inherit the mess, but our most optimistic scenarios all include our children being the ones to invent some sort of miracle tech.

Meanwhile we're mostly sitting on our asses and not even a global pandemic could convince us to make any sort of meaningful change.

Re: Shell admits 1.5C climate goal means immediate end to fossil fuel growth

#43

Post by mcdonje »

andyjsong wrote: post #10
slashdev wrote: post #3

I’m not sure what’s the point of focusing on 1.5C anymore. I think the writing on the wall is pretty clear that we’re going to double that at least. Barring any miracle in carbon sequestration technology anyway. I hope we get a miracle.

Carbon sequestration is promising, but still years away. We need to start looking at stop gap solutions that buy us more time.

We can reforest vast swaths of land right now. For instance, most of the US east of the Mississippi.

That can happen with tax code changes and land trusts.

We don't need to wait for new tech to scale up. We need to prioritize the planet.

Re: Shell admits 1.5C climate goal means immediate end to fossil fuel growth

#44

Post by whimsicalism »

mech987987 wrote: post #37
r3trohack3r wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is where I’m at too. At least as far as I understand it today (leaving this comment in the hope that folks can help me expand my understanding) Life on earth is not stable. We are in the final death throes of this planet. Roughly 75% of life on earth is behind us. Life has been here for 4Bn years and we have about 500m left[1] until our carbon cycles grind to a halt due to the earth moving outside of the habitab…

Where did you read that the carbon cycle is coming to an end?

Paragraph 3 of here [0] probably

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_Earth

Re: Shell admits 1.5C climate goal means immediate end to fossil fuel growth

#45

Post by hannob »

slashdev wrote: post #3

I’m not sure what’s the point of focusing on 1.5C anymore. I think the writing on the wall is pretty clear that we’re going to double that at least. Barring any miracle in carbon sequestration technology anyway. I hope we get a miracle.

If we can't reach 1.5°C then we should try to reach 1.6°C. If we can't reach that then 1.7°C. Ultimately: It doesn't matter whether we can reach 1.5°C, because everything we try helps making things better.

And any carbon sequestation technology will only help significantly after drastic emission cuts, not as a replacement for it.: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00953-x

Re: Shell admits 1.5C climate goal means immediate end to fossil fuel growth

#46

Post by CuteDinosaur »

misiti3780 wrote: post #31
candiddevmike wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our kids, who will shoulder far more of the effects of this than us, didn't get to choose this. This is their inheritance, generations of neglect for the environment and rampant profiteering culminating in a climate catastrophe.

We have a solution to this problem, it's build more nuclear plants and electrify everything with nuclear and renewables. Unfortunately, we are shutting these plants down instead of building more of them.

It is not the only solution though. There are several choices we can make, but only we choose not to. Simplifying everything to just nuclear power is nonsense.

Re: Shell admits 1.5C climate goal means immediate end to fossil fuel growth

#47

Post by throwaway22032 »

jdshupe wrote: post #12

Does anyone have recommendations for good reading on this subject? What this means for combustion engines as a whole? I am trying to imagine where the push for clean energy will lead. I am fully on team green but I think the switch happened too late. I feel like there is a future where you have a large percent of the population (at least in the US) where EVs are too expensive to afford the monthly payment/up front pa…

Public transport is impossible in most US cities. By impossible, I mean so uneconomical that it cannot happen at scale. The geography is not there.

Even in the UK, a tiny island, public transport works well in large cities like London and Manchester, sort of okay but a faff in the suburbs of those cities and smaller cities, marginally as something for tourists in small towns, and for the rest of the country there's nothing.

Almost everywhere in the US has less density than a small town in the UK. In most suburbs just getting to the end of your road is going to be 10 minutes walk. It would mean half of the country abandoning their homes and rebuilding, which I imagine would end up higher carbon than just using the ICE cars.

Re: Shell admits 1.5C climate goal means immediate end to fossil fuel growth

#48

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

seiferteric wrote: post #36
seiferteric wrote: post #2

"growth"? lol, more like usage.

Am I wrong? Why down vote? because it makes you feel bad? Where is the evidence we can continue doing what we are doing and not hit or exceed 1.5C?

FWIW, I think the substance of your comment is correct, but it might be the dismissive tone that attracted downvotes.

Re: Shell admits 1.5C climate goal means immediate end to fossil fuel growth

#49

Post by whimsicalism »

jdshupe wrote: post #12

Does anyone have recommendations for good reading on this subject? What this means for combustion engines as a whole? I am trying to imagine where the push for clean energy will lead. I am fully on team green but I think the switch happened too late. I feel like there is a future where you have a large percent of the population (at least in the US) where EVs are too expensive to afford the monthly payment/up front pa…

Guess people will have to move to more dense areas if they want to survive financially then.

Re: Shell admits 1.5C climate goal means immediate end to fossil fuel growth

#50

Post by davidw »

hkt wrote: post #27
andyjsong wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carbon sequestration is promising, but still years away. We need to start looking at stop gap solutions that buy us more time.

Carbon sequestration is trivial: we rewild destroyed ecosystems. We don't need to die waiting for Elon. I await my downvotes.

The city where I live is considering a tree ordinance, driven by some local NIMBYs. I did some rough numbers based on things I found around the internet and:

One year of carbon sequestration from a mature tree == 1 or 2 days of commuting to the city 20 miles away that many people who are priced out of this town drive back and forth from.

Trees are great, and most places should plant more street trees. But if you preserve trees at the cost of building dense cities that are more environmentally friendly, you're doing it wrong. Dense cities also allow for more trees in actual wild lands outside of them, rather than sprawl.

In the US, transportation and heating are our biggest individual contributions to climate change.

Post reply on HN