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

#341

Post by jdshupe » Wed, Apr 26, 2023, 1:02 PM UTC

dublinben wrote: post #99

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…

You’re right that EVs are not enough to solve this. We also need to significantly reduce the amount of traveling in all cars, electric or not. The good news is that there are fast and cheap solutions that cities can implement nearly overnight. Cities like Paris showed in recent years that “pop-up” bike lanes can be installed very quickly, and significantly increase travel by bicycle. Many cities also have a bus syste…

> We also need to significantly reduce the amount of traveling in all cars, electric or not.

I agree with the idea of this but in saying this you are forgetting about ~20% of the US populace that lives in rural areas.[1] I personally live ~1 hour from the nearest city. The area I live in has no access to high-speed internet to enable remote work, and the cost of driving to the city for a good paying job is still money ahead than taking a low paying job closer by. I also know I am not the only one of my neighbors in this boat.

This goes back to my original point, I think we have made the change too late. Sure we can implement solutions in cities with relative speed but the type of large scale changes that it would take to help areas, like where I'm at, will be too late by the time they are finished.

[1]https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2017/08/rural-america...

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

#342

Post by jdshupe » Wed, Apr 26, 2023, 1:04 PM UTC

glitcher wrote: post #108

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…

The Physics of Climate Change by Lawrence M. Krauss https://www.lawrencemkrauss.com/single-post/the-physics-of-c... Perhaps not exactly what you're looking for in terms of potential solutions, but it's an honest and sobering account of where we're at without any undue sensationalization.

Like you said, not exactly what I was looking for but still a great read regardless. Thank you!

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

#343

Post by slothtrop » Wed, Apr 26, 2023, 1:07 PM UTC

mnky9800n wrote: post #314

slothtrop wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worth reminding that the IPCC stance is not apocalyptic, in contrast to what you seem to suggest. Rich countries are scarcely getting back around to upscaling nuclear themselves, much less subsidizing it in others. One advantage the developing countries have is they don't have the baggage of existing extensive infrastructure for electricity, and some renewables can be deployed in a more decentralized fashion (i.e. so…

This isn't limited to a couple degrees of temperature. We are killing the planet with the current mass extinction event. We don't have the right to do that. But I agree with you which is why I devote my time to research related to climate mitigation topics such as co2 sequestration.

[flagged]

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

#344

Post by jdshupe » Wed, Apr 26, 2023, 1:09 PM UTC

whimsicalism wrote: post #49

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…

Guess people will have to move to more dense areas if they want to survive financially then.

And how do you propose to get produce if all the farmers move away? Saying "people should move to more dense areas" creates a whole other swath of problems to fix.

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

#345

Post by ericmay » Wed, Apr 26, 2023, 1:22 PM UTC

nobody9999 wrote: post #328

ericmay wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure I can take a stab at it. For the vast majority of America in order to participate in life you have to drive a car somewhere to do something. So this could be driving to get a prescription filled, it could be going to school, to work, etc. The way the government "mandates" it is by only building additional car-only infrastructure (highways, etc.) and using zoning policies that dictate that SFH and big-box retaile…

>While the government may not explicitly state that "you must use cars" if you take a look at state transportation department budgets, for example, you'll see that the funding is all for cars. We could split hairs and say it's not a "mandate" but I think it is effectively a mandate and if you asked, most politicians would say something like "Americans love their cars and freedom" which means "we support car-only infr…

Thanks for the post and I don't disagree with your assessment on how the term "mandate" is used. It's just the closest word I could find at the time to describe how I view the current state. I know the governor for example doesn't come on the TV and say thou shalt drive but the budget and actions do show otherwise. I'm not even sure voters are effectively engaged here either. It's like the saying it's easier to destroy things than to create them. It's easier to just do cars because explaining why we shouldn't just do cars requires more discussion.

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

#346

Post by specialist » Wed, Apr 26, 2023, 1:53 PM UTC

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…

The difference is due to US transitioning to shale oil. Current known deposits are effectively infinite.

Look at planned capital investments for fossil fuel energy. Especially power generation. It needs to be zero, yet the industry (and finance) is still full steam ahead.

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

#347

Post by digging » Wed, Apr 26, 2023, 2:37 PM UTC

whimsicalism wrote: post #278

digging wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't the poster who's developed this theory. It's a matter of chemistry. It's possible life could persist, but we don't know of chemical processes that would make it possible, so we shouldn't expect that it can.

> we don't know of chemical processes that would make it possible C4 carbon fixation would already last a lot longer than C3 carbon fixation. Probably some other sources of carbon that can be found.

Er, I don't know of a chemical process that would make it possible. :)

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

#348

Post by dublinben » Wed, Apr 26, 2023, 5:42 PM UTC

jdshupe wrote: post #341

dublinben wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re right that EVs are not enough to solve this. We also need to significantly reduce the amount of traveling in all cars, electric or not. The good news is that there are fast and cheap solutions that cities can implement nearly overnight. Cities like Paris showed in recent years that “pop-up” bike lanes can be installed very quickly, and significantly increase travel by bicycle. Many cities also have a bus syste…

> We also need to significantly reduce the amount of traveling in all cars, electric or not. I agree with the idea of this but in saying this you are forgetting about ~20% of the US populace that lives in rural areas.[1] I personally live ~1 hour from the nearest city. The area I live in has no access to high-speed internet to enable remote work, and the cost of driving to the city for a good paying job is still mone…

Obviously, this isn't a one-size fits all solution. But even per your numbers, the vast majority (80%) of American's don't live in rural areas. The solutions I mentioned are the biggest bang for the buck because they are the most broadly applicable.

Even for those that do live in rural communities, this isn't an intractable situation with no possibility of improving. First of all, many rural communities existed before the invention of the automobile. They began as compact towns centered around the train station. Nearly all of them have lost passenger rail access, but places like Germany, Austria, and Switzerland show that this need not be the case. Traditional community planning would allow many people to accomplish daily tasks within town without a car, even if one was used to travel outside of town.

Second, fewer people should be living an hour away from their job in an urban center, and nobody should be forced to. It must be affordable and convenient for everyone to live close enough to their job so as to enable them to easily get there without a car, but this is not a problem that can be solved overnight.

Third, we must invest in an effort to install fiber optic internet access in these communities, in a 21st century repeat of the Rural Electrification program of the 20th century. Remote work is a vital lifeline to stave off the steady decline of population in rural areas.

Rural communities face several existential threats, climate change is just one of them. Hopefully there can be some synergy among solutions that will make these communities more resilient in every dimension, not just climate.

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

#349

Post by dimitrios1 » Wed, Apr 26, 2023, 9:37 PM UTC

generalizations wrote: post #123

dimitrios1 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My entire point is the suggested solutions aren't solutions. The onus is on those suggesting to suggest something practical and that will actually work, not utopian fantasies.

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

#350

Post by dimitrios1 » Wed, Apr 26, 2023, 9:40 PM UTC

whimsicalism wrote: post #130

dimitrios1 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bu…

My suburbia apology wasn't an apology, suburbia isn't without its faults either, but recognizing that suburbia is closer to the roots than dense urbanism.