Shell admits 1.5C climate goal means immediate end to fossil fuel growth • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by diydsp » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 4:51 PM UTC

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.

"There are 53 nuclear reactors currently under construction around the world. Only two are in the United States" [0x3F800000]

"The annual number of permanent nuclear reactor shutdowns fluctuated between 2005 and 2022. In the latter year, there were 4 shutdowns worldwide, of which three were in the United Kingdom (UK) and one in the United States (U.S.) "[0x40000000]

[0x3F800000] https://spectrum.ieee.org/slow-steady-progress-for-two-us-nu...

[0x40000000] https://www.statista.com/statistics/238656/number-of-nuclear...

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

#122

Post by nick__m » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 4:51 PM UTC

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.

What are those other solution ? Nuclear, in my opinion, is the only solution that doesn't require the developed world to lower it's standard of living.

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

#123

Post by generalizations » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 4:51 PM UTC

dimitrios1 wrote: post #102

whimsicalism wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

I live in the burbs, and everything I need is a bicycle ride away. I currently work remotely, although that's about to change because we, like most companies, seem hellbent on making people drive in traffic and be generally less happy. During the pandemic I put maybe 4-5k miles on my vehicle. I would fill up gas once a month. Long story short stop making this about 'burbs vs cities vs rural. It's not going to work, y…

It's going to be about suburbs vs rural for as long as the suggested solutions only work in urban environments. If you don't like it being that way, then suggest a solution that works for people who don't live and work in a dense environment.

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

#124

Post by yamtaddle » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 4:51 PM UTC

whimsicalism wrote: post #44

mech987987 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

TL;DR the sun is expected to continue brightening, and that's likely to cause the end the carbonate-silicate cycle in a few hundred million years, which will mean the end of photosynthesis soon (for geological values of "soon") after that starts to grind to a halt. The end of photosynthesis means the end of large, complex life-forms on earth, permanently, forever, never to return.

This means that the practical end of the Earth, as far as humans are concerned, is on track not for a few billion years from now when the Sun expands—the commonly imagined end of "Earth gets charred/absorbed by the Sun"—but a few hundred million years from now. Maybe sooner for a variety of reasons, but that's likely to be the final lights-out—the upper bound—for everything but some microbes and a few lobsters around deep-sea vents or whatever. Barring some serious intervention by intelligent, technologically-advanced life, anyway.

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

#125

Post by ZeroGravitas » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 4:51 PM UTC

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…

Combustion engines are an inferior tech, so they'll get replaced everywhere they can be.

I also think we could have been a decade ahead on this transition, if not more, but I think you'll still also be suprised at how quickly EVs totally replace ICE cars, even if you live in some poorly run area of the globe.

EVs already have lower TCO and leasing companies are keen to loan you the upfront difference and let you pay it back month by month instead of spending it on gas and use the more reliable EV as collateral, reducing financing risk and cost.

They'll continue to do that as the upfront price drops below ICE too.

It would be nice if the US moved to a healthier, more walkable lifestyle, but if they do insist on continuing that form of slow suicide, it'll only make the transition faster. EVs make more monetary sense the longer you drive, due to lower fuel costs.

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

#126

Post by digging » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 4:52 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #50

hkt wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pres…

That... seems obvious. Why do you assume the person you're responding to is proposing we increase sprawl? Increase density, increase public transit, and rewild outlying areas. It all goes together.

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

#127

Post by amrocha » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 4:52 PM UTC

slashdev wrote: post #82

hannob wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

How about we aim for an achievable goal instead. What’s the point of setting ourselves up for failure? That’s part of effective goal setting. Anything else is fantasy and counterproductive.

There's nothing unachievable about 1.5C

It would require sacrifices and global cooperation, but any real solution to climate change will require that

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

#128

Post by oezi » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 4:52 PM UTC

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.

Why focus on a technology of the past when it all just takes continuous investment of a couple percent of GDP into renewables?

Nuclear takes so long to build it doesn't help at all.

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

#129

Post by bluefirebrand » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 4:53 PM UTC

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.

It makes more sense when you view it as a prisoner's dilemma.

I already have a relatively low carbon footprint compared to many. I don't commute to work, I don't have a boat or a camper or a snowmobile or a quad or drive a big truck. I don't fly more than a couple of times a year. I don't even have a gas lawnmower. I also don't have kids, which is arguably one of the biggest extra carbon consumers a person can introduce into the world.

I'm not going to cut my carbon usage down to pre-industrial levels while other people could cut their carbon usage down to my level with a lot less impact to their quality of life.

At some point people who are extremely cutting their own carbon usage are just subsidizing the lazy usage of others.

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

#130

Post by whimsicalism » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 4:53 PM UTC

dimitrios1 wrote: post #102

whimsicalism wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

I live in the burbs, and everything I need is a bicycle ride away. I currently work remotely, although that's about to change because we, like most companies, seem hellbent on making people drive in traffic and be generally less happy. During the pandemic I put maybe 4-5k miles on my vehicle. I would fill up gas once a month. Long story short stop making this about 'burbs vs cities vs rural. It's not going to work, y…

> Long story short stop making this about 'burbs vs cities vs rural. It's not going to work, you aren't going to guilt enough people into doing the right thing

Right, the exact point I was making.

That said, your suburbia apologia is a bit silly - naturalism fallacy aside, the suburban experience isn't even close to that of primordial human tribes.

And it matters little if you bike to your stores, the goods you're buying at your store are not brought there on bikes, just the emissions from the concrete needed to pave over that amount of land is ridiculous, etc. etc.

Unlocking suburban "sustainability" would require next generation sequestration tech or full electrification + renewables.