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

71–80 of 356 posts

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

#71

Post by pfisch »

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…

500m is a lot of time even evolutionarily. Dinosaurs were around 245m-66m years ago. There very well may be another animal/civilization in the next 500m years that has a decent shot at escaping from earth.

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

#72

Post by politician »

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.

Not making any decisions because we need to thoroughly review every option, even bad ones, so that everyone can feel good about themselves and all sacred cows coddled is precisely the way that we've been sitting on our asses for the past 40 years.

The tech exists to solve the problem. We have 4th generation designs that cannot melt down. We fail to deploy them to the shame of all of the so-called environmentalists.

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

#73

Post by CalRobert »

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…

The geography's fine, it's the zoning that destroyed it. You don't need to have your entire country be oceans of parking with a few buildings sprinkled in the middle.

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

#74

Post by intrasight »

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.

A recent piece in The Economist argued that China is doing more to combat global warming than is any other nation, and if America is going to do better then we'll have to become more like China. I agree on both points. And I think that will be the outcome eventually.

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

#75

Post by runarberg »

nxm wrote: post #24
ahelwer wrote: post #9

One eye-opening fact I recently learned is that fossil fuel infrastructure being built today is expected to have a three-decade lifespan, after completion of its construction. So every time you hear about a new pipeline, drilling project, or refinery being built you know that the people sitting in the rooms authorizing billions of dollars being allocated to the project all believe it will safely be operating and prod…

And where are those being built? Overwhelmingly in Asia and Africa

First of all, you are wrong. There are new fossil fuel projects in North America and Europe as well (though Europe is building significantly less than North America).

Second of all, why does that matter? Increased CO2 in the atmosphere will heat the climate everywhere (albeit not evenly). The fossil fuel market is global, meaning these projects are overwhelmingly built and profited by publicly traded international fossil fuel companies. (just like the rising temperature) The money to be made is distributed everywhere on the globe (albeit more in some areas than others), regardless of where these new projects are located.

No, the climate disaster is a global crisis, and needs to be handled globally. If we were serious about minimizing the harm of climate change (and we should be; but we aren’t) than green infrastructure would be paid for by the wealthy countries even when it is rolled out in the poorer, where the rich countries won’t see any of the benefits (other then you know, saving the world from impeding doom).

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

#76

Post by throwaway22032 »

whimsicalism wrote: post #53
throwaway22032 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Fair enough.

I don't think it really matters to be honest, Americans are not moving into even something like my ~1500sqft terraced house en masse. You may as well ask half the country to learn Russian.

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

#77

Post by whimsicalism »

afavour wrote: post #22
paganel wrote: post #13

[flagged]

To be clear: you’re saying we shouldn’t believe any science at all because a snap reaction to an emerging pandemic turned out to be excessive?

Turned out to be excessive? The countries that were actually successful averted the deaths of millions of their own citizens.

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

#78

Post by seiferteric »

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #48
seiferteric wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

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

#79

Post by throwaway22032 »

CalRobert wrote: post #73
throwaway22032 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The geography's fine, it's the zoning that destroyed it. You don't need to have your entire country be oceans of parking with a few buildings sprinkled in the middle.

I agree, I mean the human geography, not the size of the country, sorry if that was unclear.

A bit like how London couldn't turn into LA now without demolishing half of it. We tried to build a couple of freeways in the 60's and failed.

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

#80

Post by mensetmanusman »

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.

It would have a hugeeee impact, but definitely not everything.

Especially useful would be having excess energy for renewal which thermodynamics says is a must.

Post reply on HN