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

241–250 of 356 posts

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

#241

Post by Tiktaalik »

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…

What political pressure are you alluding to?

For decades now in Canada companies have been endlessly lobbying the government to allow for more expansion of pipelines to enable more production and more growth.

There is nothing new that has changed their approach.

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

#242

Post by slothtrop »

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…

Vaclav Smil - How the World Really Works, and Numbers Don't Lie.

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

#243

Post by Tiktaalik »

andyjsong wrote: post #10
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.

Carbon sequestration is promising, but still years away. We need to start looking at stop gap solutions that buy us more time.

Two of the biggest (non industrial) CO2 emitters are heating and transportation.

One of the lowest hanging fruits would be reducing CO2 emitting car use, using a massive capital expenditure to enable lower emitting public transit and cycling to enable people to drive less.

It's endlessly frustrating that even those polices, where are relatively cheap in the grand scheme of things are apparently too impossible for our political leadership.

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

#245

Post by Nagyman »

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…

The media is reporting what scientists are saying, who thoroughly consider all angles. You don't see it mentioned because it's a hypothesis that was rejected (long ago), with reason.

Hint: The _rate of change_ is critical. Past climate shifts that happened in short order, lead to mass extinction events (like we're participating in now).

If you're truly "really curious" and "not trolling", there's a wealth of information at your fingertips!

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

#246

Post by lelanthran »

input_sh wrote: post #231
nomel wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> The most obvious one would be WFH. We had a global feasibility test, and from the worker's perspective consensus is

WFH was never about the workers perspective, it was enforced and companies had no choice.

That the workers were positive about it is irrelevant to whether companies were productive with it

If you go far back enough in my comment history you'll find me arguing FOR WFH, but I'll still be the first to admit that all companies I personally observed took a huge hit to productivity when WFH was in force.

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

#247

Post by vel0city »

Tiktaalik wrote: post #241
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…

What political pressure are you alluding to? For decades now in Canada companies have been endlessly lobbying the government to allow for more expansion of pipelines to enable more production and more growth. There is nothing new that has changed their approach.

Look at the political strain that develops when gasoline prices increase in the US and Canada. Loads of people start demanding cheaper gas and expect the government to step in and ensure low-ish gas prices.

The gas tax hasn't budged since 1993 despite really needing it, largely because of the backlash politicians would get for making gasoline more expensive.

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

#248

Post by bcrosby95 »

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…

I'm actually not so sure, especially if you use buses. The problem is its inconvenient, and if you have a car you take that instead of a bus, so no one takes the bus, which makes it hard to justify the bus and frequent schedules.

Our small suburban city of 15k actually has free bus service up and down our main stroad. Everyone is probably within a 15 minute walk to it. But it's aimed mostly at school kids, so the hours are very sparse during certain times of the day. E.g. when schools tend to get out it's every 10 minutes, but outside of those hours its every hour or so.

A lot of it is cultural too. My wife lived in Santa Monica, and she would drive for 1 hour to go 2 miles rather than walk or bike, and this behavior was common among her friends.

I live a 10 minute walk to school. My neighbors still drive their kids to school. There's no (good) excuse for that.

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

#249

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#250

Post by kitkat_new »

nick__m wrote: post #122
CuteDinosaur wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The IPCC gives a list with options, cost and potential emission savings: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/figures/summary-for-polic...
Post reply on HN