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

51–60 of 356 posts

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

#51

Post by [deleted] »

slashdev wrote: post #38
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…

I’m guessing you’re getting downvoted for not expanding on: > Life has been here for 4Bn years and we have about 500m left until our carbon cycles grind to a halt and all life on earth starts it’s final, and ultimate, extinction event.

[deleted]

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

#52

Post by hinkley »

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.

We will live long enough for some of these hens to come home to roost.

Kids judge their parents on their inability to change when it matters, and when you’re old and infirm and “kids” are taking care of you, you’re gonna be in for a bad time.

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

#53

Post by whimsicalism »

throwaway22032 wrote: post #47
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 n…

> 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.

Bet you it actually wouldn't, the impact of urban sprawl is absolutely massive and continuous as compared to a one-time cost.

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

#54

Post by solarengineer »

r3trohack3r wrote: post #18
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.

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…

This particular extinction is indeed man made. Oil companies knew of their impact and role in the seventies and close to not just suppress their knowledge but in fact funded disinformation campaigns. See https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-a...

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

#55

Post by hinkley »

CuteDinosaur wrote: post #46
misiti3780 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Some of those choices are on the consumption side and many of us are awful.

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

#56

Post by wyre »

pfisch wrote: post #30
nxm wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m willing to do my part once private jets get banned

"Critics of coercive measures targeting private planes point out that a ban would only reduce carbon emissions by 0.2%, based on study of the direct cost of private jets alone." https://flybitlux.com/what-is-the-carbon-footprint-of-a-priv... Just admit you're not really intending to "do your part" at all. You just intend to whataboutism everyone else for the forseeable future.

I’m going to take anything a private charter jet company says about the carbon footprint of private jets with a very large grain of salt.

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

#57

Post by maerF0x0 »

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…

IMO What we're consistently failing to see is that necessity is the mother of invention. Mankind has summoned seemingly unfathomable ingenuity and effort in response to dire need. It seems it will be Gen Alpha/Beta who will have their "ww2 moment" but in response to existential threat from Environmental and second order societal collapse.

Likely changes will include mass adoption of nuclear (potentially including Fusion or Thorium based), Carbon (and other gas) sequestration, Biodomes (to deal with a toxic environment), etc.

It clearly wont be the end of mankind, just mankind as we currently experience it.

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

#58

Post by r3trohack3r »

slashdev wrote: post #38
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…

I’m guessing you’re getting downvoted for not expanding on: > Life has been here for 4Bn years and we have about 500m left until our carbon cycles grind to a halt and all life on earth starts it’s final, and ultimate, extinction event.

Thanks, I’ve taken this as a “known.”

I’ll update the comment.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future

As far as I understand, the habitable zone in our system is not stable. It’s shifting. Between 500m and 800m years from now it’ll have moved sufficiently where our carbon cycles start grinding to a halt.

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

#60

Post by whimsicalism »

ericmay wrote: post #33
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…

Best reading recommendation would be to look at climate change projections from NOAA or similar organizations for where you live or want to live, assume those will be true within some +-, and then base your decisions off of that. There doesn't seem to be a substantial downside to getting it wrong if bad scenarios don't occur but if they do occur you'll want to have gotten it right. > People will always say "just use…

Right, but, to a large extent, Americans love the burbs and you are not going to be able to get them to vote for their demise, no matter how many benefits you can see .
Post reply on HN