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

231–240 of 356 posts

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

#231

Post by input_sh »

nomel wrote: post #137
input_sh wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cha…

> and not even a global pandemic could convince us to make any sort of meaningful change. How is this related? What change was expected from the pandemic?

The most obvious one would be WFH. We had a global feasibility test, and from the worker's perspective consensus is that it was overall a positive experience. Then damn near every company out there made up some nebulous claims about "lost productivity" citing some internal study, and now nearly everyone is back to commuting at least partially.

We know we can live without the commute, we have actual data on its impact on CO2 thanks to the pandemic, and now we're mostly back to commuting. I don't see how anyone could argue that's not a real, tangible change that could've easily stayed.

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

#232

Post by narrator »

Net Zero 2050[1], the very public and very well publicly elaborated plan by the United Nations and many climate groups and other NGOs to have zero net carbon emissions by 2050, is such a ridiculously extreme set of targets that it kind of looks more like a Peak Oil mitigation plan than an implementable piece of public policy. Peak Oil production was in 2018, and it hasn't gotten back there since.

Basically, I couldn't imagine Net Zero 2050 getting implemented in a democratic society. Personal automobiles and single family homes are ridiculously popular. If the amount of oil production is going to decline precipitously anyway, no matter what anyone says, why not have everyone prepare for it and make plans pretending they are doing it voluntarily. If global leaders talked about Peak Oil, that would promote nations to stop exporting oil and would stoke nationalism and make the problem dramatically worse for oil importing countries. Instead this Climate Change narrative brings countries together in a global regulatory framework.

I think part of the Ukraine war is that Russia, being one of the last big oil exporters, is probably aware of the real situation and wants to use their energy reserves in their own national interest. China wants to partner with Russia to benefit from those interests. The West would rather have the Russian natural resources come under the influence of a leadership team more amenable to distributing those resources in a way more in-line with a global government working to manage the energy transition. Soros said in a recent speech that finishing the Ukraine War will help us move on to tackling Climate Change[2]. Recent Russian estimates show the war continuing on till at least 2027. At that point we'll be much further along the possible oil depletion curve and Russia's economic power will only increase.

I would look for negligible attempts at carbon capture and sequestration, steady "voluntary" OPEC output cuts and a growing reliance on coal as tells that this is a Peak Oil mitigation plan and not about Climate Change. Look at China[3] lately going all-in on coal energy production for example.

[1]https://twitter.com/profnfenton/status/1645186289933623296

[2]https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/climate-crisis-...

[3]https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coal-production-by-countr...

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

#233

Post by wkat4242 »

runarberg wrote: post #187
amrocha wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing unachievable about 1.5C It would require sacrifices and global cooperation, but any real solution to climate change will require that

There is 50% chance that in the next five years we will experience a year where the global average temperature is greater than 1.5° C. We are already in 1.2° C and the El Niño index is negative. There is high probability that 2024 will be the hottest year on record (probably getting really close to 1.5° C). Global carbon emissions are still rising. Climate policies are not being rolled out, new fossil fuel projects a…

I agree we will hit the 1.5 degrees for sure. There's a lot of inertia in climate change anyway. Even if we stop tomorrow it will still continue to rise for years.

But I don't agree we're all going to die. It's not a human extinction type problem. There will still be habitable places and some places will become more habitable (the Russians even had a crazy plan in the 60s to dam the Bering strait and melt the Arctic with nukes to make Siberia more habitable.... :X )

The problem is mostly that a ton of people now live in the areas that will become much less habitable and the resulting mass-migrations will lead to extreme societal disruption and possibly wars. And the areas that will become more habitable have no infrastructure. This is why it's going to be more expensive to deal with the problem later than to prevent it.

I'm not saying it's not an unprecedented disaster. It certainly is. The country I'm from (the Netherlands) might mostly disappear. But it's not an apocalypse. There will still be places where people can live.

In fact climate change is normal in the scope of earth. The situation we are in now has become this way also due to change from the ice age that was before. The bigger problem is that we made this a phenomenon on the scale of decades where it was previously millennia. So society and nature can't adapt quickly enough.

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

#234

Post by aaronbrethorst »

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…

David Roberts, formerly of Vox and now independent, has been a great resource for years. You can find his archive at these two links:

https://www.vox.com/authors/david-roberts

https://www.canarymedia.com/about/people/david

And he now podcasts at the site https://www.volts.wtf

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

#235

Post by rektide »

legitster wrote: post #226
NickC25 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Open secrets lists oil & gas at $123 million/year of lobbying, #8th highest spender

#3 highest spender is insurance, at $158m, #2 electronics at $221m, pharma at #1 $373m.

I too think we have to try to be reasonable, & there's a lot of factors, and it's hard. They are a gigantic lobbying force, quite close to top 3 though.

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

#236

Post by MSFT_Edging »

jmclnx wrote: post #164
intrasight wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> China is doing more to combat global warming than is any other nation If this is happening, and no reason to doubt that, it is easier for a Nation like China to do this than say the US. Why, Xi can say "Build more windmills now in ..." and it will happen. In the US, the 'in' is important, people will fight any development with in 10 miles of where they live. So it takes over 10 years for just the plan to be finaliz…

If we can force people out of their homes for overpasses and football stadiums, we can sure as hell force renewable projects through.

China has one thing right, the idea of actions for a greater good. I forget the actual wording/idiom but we severely lack that in the west. It's all "what about me" and it drags any kind of progress to a halt unless it can be put in someone elses back yard or they can make a profit off of it.

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

#237

Post by lelanthran »

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?

No, he's saying that pandemic-induced outrights lies delivered to the population may have hurt the credibility of politicians who used "science" as the justification.

Administration's could restore some of that credibility by walking back statements that turned out to be wrong.

I say this as someone who lost a parent to COVID.

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

#238

Post by jcmoscon »

sourcecodeplz wrote: post #184
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…

With China building 7 new coal plants everyday and cruise ships emitting more than all ICE cars combined I think the answer is either fusion or we just plant more and more trees.

We should plant more trees for sure! Not because of carbon, but because of covering the soil. Check back to garden of eden documentary. Covering the soil is the solution to end hungry! Why? Watch the documentary.

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

#239

Post by mnky9800n »

climate change isn't a problem of science it is a problem of oppression. It is an unjust decision by the power elites to continue the status quo while hoping some silly valley hoohaw is going to come up with a silver bullet but if not who cares, got mine. It is about stealing from present and future generations. It is about stealing from the poor, people of color who will be displaced by rising sea levels. It is about stealing from the plants and animals we share this planet with that are currently going through a massive extinction event.

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

#240

Post by nightski »

diydsp wrote: post #121
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.

"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-…

Found the windows error code engineer.
Post reply on HN