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

#221

Post by MSFT_Edging » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 5:28 PM UTC

yodsanklai wrote: post #162

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.

> Our kids, who will shoulder far more of the effects of this than us, didn't get to choose this Are today's kids more concerned about the environment than we were? It seems they like to consume as much as anybody else

Who teaches the kid that individual consumerism comes before everything else?

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

#222

Post by handsaway » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 5:28 PM UTC

anonymous_2022 wrote: post #196

I never understood why this 1.5-2C global temperature is such a big issue when dinosaurs were living with average 15-20C Earth temperature and much higher CO2 levels (you can just google "world temperature history" or "co2 levels history". There were much more plants, diverse wildlife, etc. Having warm Earth is much better than having an Ice age, right? Also higher CO2 levels mean more ingridients for new trees/plant…

Well here's a start: humans are not dinosaurs.

>Having warm Earth is much better than having an Ice age, right?

This is not the choice we're dealing with? We are not in a situation where we either continue to cause global heating or else face an ice age.

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

#223

Post by MSFT_Edging » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 5:33 PM UTC

conradkay wrote: post #183

amrocha wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can't stop climate change by making it profitable. That's literally what got us into this mess in the first place.

If economic forces are powerful enough to cause climate change it seems reasonable to use another economic force to revert/cancel that out.

The economic forces that caused it were based on resource extraction.

Resource extraction is the core of our economy. Its why the US has vested interests in countries that have natural resources, and why the US is so quick to act when resources are nationalized.

We can either directly use taxpayer money to fund these initiatives and give them priority over things like starting wars and playing world police, or pay private individuals and ask very nicely that they help.

I much rather that national approach as I don't think middle men sapping a fat percentage is a great solution.

Its essentially a protection racket at the end of the day.

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

#224

Post by andyjsong » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 5:33 PM UTC

mcdonje wrote: post #43

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.

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.

Yes, more trees, but still not enough, here is a handy guide on the different solutions and consequences: https://www.roadto10gigatons.com/

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

#225

Post by wkat4242 » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 5:34 PM UTC

runarberg wrote: post #219

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we're not at peak oil, we're close to it.

This has been true for the past 30 years. I’m beginning to suspect peak oil was never an actual prediction, and more of a statement—or rather a lie—that we would naturally wean of fossil fuels in a couple of years as production would slow. I’m beginning to think peak oil was always a ruse so that the fossil fuel industry could delay climate actions for another couple of decades (and doom us all in a climate disaster…

Well, fossil fuels are obviously finite so there will always be a peak. The concept itself is sound.

The question is when and where it will occur. On one side more difficult extractions become viable, on the other side green energy makes the oil economy less viable (though notably most plastics are still fossil based)

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

#226

Post by legitster » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 5:34 PM UTC

NickC25 wrote: post #211

legitster wrote: post #170

For all of the shellacking the fossil fuel industry gets (rightfully so), they have signalled several times that they are willing to transition to lower productions and higher prices and even into green energy. In 2016 oil companies spent the least amount on oil discovery in over 70 years ! It was only after extreme political pressure that oil companies were basically forced into re-expanding capacity again. The mark…

They might have signaled one thing via press releases, PR campaigns, token donations to activists or whatever.......but let's be completely clear - their lobbying dollars and large campaign donations haven't gone to politicians promoting green energy nor to politicians who want to transition away from oil. On a longer time scale, let's see where the bulk of their lobbying budgets go (to a particular party or sect wit…

I mean, let's not overrate the lobbying of the Oil and Gas industry. They don't even crack the top 5 sources of lobbying dollars in the US. They are there right alongside lobbyists for solar and wind and nuclear and etc. (And let's also not set aside that most of the oil extracted in the world is not done by private companies but by government ventures).

And again, their lobbying is a drop in the bucket as to their actual discovery expenditures.

I don't think it's a helpful narrative that oil companies are hell bent on forcing oil down our throats unwillingly. Sure, they will do whatever to make a buck, but they would gladly switch to green energy if they thought it was more profitable. We have even seen this when Exxon (briefly) was the number one spender on solar R&D in the world.

I think people see the lobbying and underrate the extent that it's a two-way street. Politicians NEED low oil prices. Voters WANT low oil prices. And to a certain extent, oil companies have all the cards because of the demand.

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

#227

Post by pinusc » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 5:34 PM UTC

Dig1t wrote: post #204

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.

Our kids will also inherit all of the amazing technologies and scientific advances that were developed as a result of cheap, abundant energy. It is a tradeoff and climate change is a solvable problem. It’s easy and comforting to spout predictions of the apocalypse, but realistically speaking, things will be okay.

Realistically speaking, all signs are pointing to things not being okay. Climate is not a "solvable problem" anymore, we are past the point of no return (several of them). Damage control is all we can do now, and we are not doing it.

If you think things will be okay because historically has been so, let me remind you that a permanent change of this scale is a catastrophe that is unmatched and unprecedented in human history. Maybe nuclear conflict was as scary, but its solution was comparatively much simpler, and it never passed the point of no return.

More than that, things usually do not turn out okay except for the class of people who initially benefited from bringing about the problem. Many peoples have faced horrors that were not and could not be undone, though it's easy to forget that while living in the society built on their ashes. Things always turn out to be okay... for the colonizer, the wealthy, the powerful

Statistically speaking, commenting on this platform firmly places you in a category that will likely survive climate change (at least in the medium term...) and probably profit from it, so excuse me for calling out your reasons for believing that technology will save us.

By the way, it is my understanding that the scientific consensus is that technological solutions are not going to be able to save us (as they are impractical, too far off, and harder to implement than just stopping the use of fossil fuels).

Also if you think that "spouting predictions of the apocalypse" is comforting, you severely misunderstand the psychological issues that (especially the younger generations) are facing in light of terrifying powerlessness against climate change

Ultimately, this is a political problem, and assuring everyone that "things will be okay" only makes it less likely that any action will be taken in time.

Now is the time to panic, and do something about it. If we are able to turn the tide and somehow make things okay... great! The panic was well placed.

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

#228

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 5:35 PM UTC

throwaway22032 wrote: post #76

whimsicalism wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[deleted]

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

#229

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 5:36 PM UTC

runarberg wrote: post #32

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.

We are already at 1.2° C. This is despite the fact that the El Niño index is negative. There is over 50% chance that we will experience a year in the next five years where the average temperature is > 1.5° C above the pre-industrial average. This is dire. I think we need to admit defeat, and declare a climate failure. Our goal going forward should be to do everything that keeps the temperature as possible. So far the…

[deleted]

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

#230

Post by bcrosby95 » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 5:38 PM UTC

dublinben wrote: post #168

throwaway22032 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The 60% of Millennials who don’t own a home, and the 60% of gen-Z who live with their parents would probably leap at the opportunity to own their own 1500 Sq ft row house. We don’t need to convince anyone to move into more sustainable housing, we merely need to allow it.

This is a large part of the problem. When we went house hunting, we wanted to live in a denser area. But we just plain couldn't afford it, so suburbs it was.