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

#281

Post by legitster » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 6:46 PM UTC

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.

Uh, there was literally a White House speech in 2022 on the subject. "You should be using these record-breaking profits to increase production and refining" - words from the president himself. This ended up kicking off a months long negotiation to convince oil and gas companies to increase domestic production.

For the Canadian industry I think you are underrating how much of a hand the government of Alberta themselves are playing in this. This has been an economic development project for them and things like the Keystone pipeline have been spearheaded by the government to get access to the global market as a way of attracting investment from the oil and gas industry.

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

#282

Post by blooalien » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 6:52 PM UTC

wkat4242 wrote: post #233

runarberg wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 )

It is a "human extinction type problem" (and likely most if not all life on Earth) … not necessarily directly killed by the climate itself, but by the way that stressed out stupid "people in power" react to the stresses brought on by that changing climate. We have entirely too many literally insane people in positions of power commanding weaponry that could conceivably wipe out all of humanity (and much if not all of the other life on this planet), and we're doing very little to rein them in or control them. Feels like a very real danger to me.

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

#283

Post by intrasight » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 6:56 PM UTC

908B64B197 wrote: post #270

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 What? The west is working hard at lowering it's emissions, but all that work is getting undone because China's emissions aren't slowing down. Coal is incredibly cheap when there's no carbon tax or emission standards. One of the many reasons it's cheaper to manufacture in China and why North Americans and Europeans can't compete [0]. Comparing the…

For sure China is a huge problem with their use of coal. But they do have a plan, and a command economy that let's them execute on that plan.

I am fully in favor of the kind of "fair trade" that would force countries to eat their environmental externalities. In the case of China, it's a double-win since it would put huge pressure on them to change and also more than fund all of our environmental initiatives. But without a global carbon tax/credit system, this just ain't gonna happen.

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

#284

Post by blooalien » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 6:58 PM UTC

phpnode wrote: post #112

slashdev wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

we did aim for an achievable goal, and steamed straight past it with our fingers in our ears.

Yep. And those of us who listened to the experts and took steps to understand the issue and act upon our findings were largely ridiculed and harassed endlessly as "tree hugging hippies" or "paranoid tin-foil hatted doomers" and shunned by pretty much everyone else around us until many of us (like myself) have simply given up. Why the hell should I care about literally anything if that caring only utterly destroys any chance at a remotely enjoyable life? I don't want to live the rest of my life learning to hate every single human I meet simply because they're human (monster). I'd rather just accept we're all doomed because most of us are ignorant, greedy, hateful, and stupid, and depressing though that may be, it's less depressing than speaking about things I know to be true and instantly being shunned for it by almost everyone. The alternative (one I've seriously considered) is for me to sneak off to the woods somewhere and build a cabin and defend it to the death.

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

#285

Post by Tiktaalik » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 7:00 PM UTC

legitster wrote: post #281

Tiktaalik wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Uh, there was literally a White House speech in 2022 on the subject. "You should be using these record-breaking profits to increase production and refining" - words from the president himself. This ended up kicking off a months long negotiation to convince oil and gas companies to increase domestic production. For the Canadian industry I think you are underrating how much of a hand the government of Alberta themselve…

So sounds like we're agreeing. The oil and gas industry has very been enthusiastic about growth and more production.

I don't think this is new. O&G was pushing just as hard for pipelines in the last government too.

Not just Alberta but of course the Feds themselves bought a pipeline in order to get it built and push back against accusations from the opposition that they were against the O&G industry.

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

#286

Post by philipkglass » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 7:08 PM UTC

atomicUpdate wrote: post #192

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…

Do you believe we'll ever stop using fossil fuels in the "near" term? Just about every single product nowadays has some piece of plastic in it, including new EVs, which require fossil fuels to manufacture. There are plenty of lubricants to run the machinery in the factories that manufacture those products, including the renewable energy sources, which (again) require fossil fuels to manufacture. Getting people to swi…

Plastics, lubricants, and any other hydrocarbon derived products can be synthesized starting from carbon dioxide, water, and electricity. For example, the most common plastic monomers (ethylene and propylene) are readily synthesized from methanol via the so-called "methanol to olefins" process. Methanol itself has been synthesized commercially since the 1920s [1]. The methanol-to-olefins process is already commercialized in China [2], albeit with methanol derived from coal rather than from clean feedstocks.

The vast majority of fossil fuels are used as fuel, not for producing materials/chemicals. Only 16% of oil goes to petrochemical production: https://www.statista.com/statistics/307194/top-oil-consuming...

The other 84% is just burned for energy. "Entirely" removing fossil fuels won't happen for a very long time if ever, but that's not a barrier to slashing CO2 emissions from fossil combustion.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol#History

[2] https://www.chemengonline.com/methanol-to-olefins-plant-star...

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

#287

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 7:15 PM UTC

BSVogler wrote: post #214

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 current warm period is happening across the world for the first time. The rate of change is unprecedented and it happens globally. No, heating if a planet is not good, when this also comes with stronger weather extremes, areas where it is impossible to survive and ecological stress that evolution can not deal with. I can get really tiring in explaining the basics in one of humanities biggest problem over and over…

[deleted]

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

#288

Post by TechBro8615 » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 7:16 PM UTC

brtkdotse wrote: post #87

TechBro8615 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many of those can be repurposed to refine or carry natural gas?

Natural gas is a fossil fuel.

TIL. I don't know why I assumed otherwise. Perhaps I was thinking of "RNGs" (renewable natural gases), but it seems rather propagandish to even group those (repurposed biofuels) together with natural gases extracted from the earth.

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

#289

Post by blooalien » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 7:19 PM UTC

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 "ultra-rich" and their "pocket puppet" politicians and corporate entities (who cause the "Lion's share" of the problem are the ones who most (and most immediately) need to "lower their standard of living" to combat this particular problem. They ain't gonna do it. Period. Anyone who thinks they will is just as insane as they are… Thus, we're pretty much screwed no matter what the rest of us do. Those who can improve the situation will absolutely not do it. It would cut into their "infinite profits from a finite planet" fantasy.

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

#290

Post by criddell » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 7:23 PM UTC

whimsicalism wrote: post #277

criddell wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For that to happen, living in a dense urban area needs to be much less expensive than living out in the middle of nowhere. The average income in Mississippi is around $25k / year. I'm not sure what the distribution curve looks like, but I'd guess 2/3 of the population make at least $20k / year. Cities should be designed so that a person can live a good life on $20k / year in a city.

Yes, I agree. In many places, this is the case - but not in the US.

I'm trying to think of places where city living is significantly less expensive than living in more rural areas and about the only thing I can come up with are places where land is scarce and therefore expensive. For example, Hawaii.