Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Global warming will exceed 1.5-degree limit, UN says

pbs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 395 posts

Re: Global warming will exceed 1.5-degree limit, UN says

#251

Post by immmmmm »

pingou wrote: post #100
charles_f wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming that we keep the same system and that no sacrificing can be made. Technology is seen as the only solution because of the primary assumption that we need to keep growth and late stage capitalism. Degrowth, relocalisation, lower consumption are all solutions that would work better than technology (there are very serious people out there who demonstrated that technology won't replace the energy we need,…

Jancovici said a lot of stupid things also, although it seems that he recently acknowledged that renewables could make an impact (and not just "l'épaisseur du trait" as he always said). I'm not sure what you mean by "degrowth, relocalisation, lower consumption are all solutions that would work better than technology". People in general do no want to consume less, or buy more expensive stuff created locally, so I thin…

He does says (said) a lot of stupid things, but also has a good analysis in some domains. He’s very influenced by meadows/ world3/ club de Rome and while it’s a toy model it certainly a good thing to have a global view.

Re: Global warming will exceed 1.5-degree limit, UN says

#252

Post by epistasis »

card_zero wrote: post #222
epistasis wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Having kids is also the worst single thing you can do for the environment. No, just no. You can't show that. You don't understand environmentalism. You're just a Malthusian. It's an assertion that human existence is incompatible with the environment, and that's a completely unacceptable proposition, because it defines "environmentalism" as "extinction." Reducing the population by half will, at best, reduce emission…

Is it possible that cutting emissions in half would stop climate change (after some time)? There is a tolerable level of emissions. I vaguely remember that it's half what we're at.

No, look at the numbers in the IPCC reports. Cutting emissions in half is not enough.

We need to get to zero by 2050 then have interventions to sequester CO2 at a low level.

Re: Global warming will exceed 1.5-degree limit, UN says

#253

Post by stackghost »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #63
tekla wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in India where the vast majority of people either eat no meat or only chicken/fish That is such a misleading comment. ~80% of people in India consume meat. That "or" is doing some incredibly amounts of borderline lying. https://www.dataforindia.com/meat-consumption/

They consume far less meat and the specific types are the uniquely least polluting types Chicken/Fish produce an order of magnitude or in some cases two orders of magnitude less pollution than cows do. Trying to gaslight me on this topic even though I'm right on the part that matters. the "or" stands in for the context of the fact that Chicken/fish are an order of magnitude healthier for the planet, and frankly, for…

Veganism would be more popular if vegans weren't so insufferable.

Re: Global warming will exceed 1.5-degree limit, UN says

#254

Post by epistasis »

breezybottom wrote: post #189
epistasis wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, policy does change things!! You give examples where a community got together, changed policy, affecting all of society. This is precisely the opposite of the disastrous 2020s action, which had no concrete policy demands, which leaned into the culture war. They ceded the ground to the right wing, who does that sort of culture war much better, as they have focused their efforts on it for so long. With culture war,…

The Paris Accords have very specific policy goals. Your criticism is incoherent.

The Paris Accords are the exact opposite of the 2020s movements I criticize, Sunrise and XR.

Re: Global warming will exceed 1.5-degree limit, UN says

#255

Post by jghn »

ThrowawayIP wrote: post #16
multiplegeorges wrote: post #2

Not much of a surprise. Government action has been anemic at best. Industry action (overall) has been net negative. The only hope now is exponential growth of (solar and wind)+batteries making other sources uneconomic. This seems to be slowly happening, so I hope we hit the exponential curve soon and we're there quicker than we expect. This only stops it. Then, to fix it, we'll need a massive Direct Air Capture indus…

The technology-will-save-us mentality is part of the reason we are here. We live in a society that doesn't do anything unless it makes money for some set of decrepit old men. We had the means to avoid this (strict vegan diets, ground based mass transit, dense development & re-wilding, energy transition) but people made money doing the opposite. And more people made money sabotaging solar+battery pricing in the US. So…

I mean, nearly all of my produce, meat, and dairy from a handful of small, local farms. They're all organic, focus on "happy animals", all that. I'll shift to a strict vegan diet once everyone else abandons their giant mega-agriculture lifestyle.

Re: Global warming will exceed 1.5-degree limit, UN says

#256

Post by card_zero »

tito wrote: post #136
cbg0 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly would that make a dent? CO2 sources: - Electricity + heat production ~40–42% - Industry + manufacturing ~20–22% - Road transport ~12–13% - Deforestation & land-use change ~10% - Direct fuel use in buildings ~5–6% - Aviation ~2–3% - Shipping ~2–3% - Rail, pipelines & other transport ~1% - Flaring / other energy & industrial sources ~2–4% I'm guessing the private jets is what you're hinting at? Aviation abo…

The top 10% richest humans emit about half of all emissions. Decile 10 (richest): ~48% Decile 9: ~15% Decile 8: ~10% Decile 7: ~8% Decile 6: ~6% Deciles 1 through 5 combined: ~12%, so about 1 to 3% each I wouldn't necessarily focus on it, but it's something good for your mental model of how to solve the challenge. The reason I say I wouldn't focus on it is I'm coming around to the idea that "carbon footprint" is effe…

That "top 10% richest" means the 10% of the planet, 800,000,000 people, which is the richest 10%. (It could be understood differently, as if it meant those earning more than 90% of the maximum income anybody has.)

Re: Global warming will exceed 1.5-degree limit, UN says

#257

Post by monneyboi »

Why are we framing this as "the fight against climate change"? This framing puts the culprit outside of ourselves, as if it's some external force.

I feel that way of looking at it makes changing impossible. It's our own behaviours and systems that will have to change. There's nothing to fight here, the answer instead lies in collaboration.

Re: Global warming will exceed 1.5-degree limit, UN says

#258

Post by throw-the-towel »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #25
ako wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quality of life will be dramatically lower for many because we did not take action

What if lots of people stop having kids? Then the amount of people who have a lower quality of life can be reduced.

What do you mean, "if"? It's happening worldwide as we speak. It's still not enough.

Re: Global warming will exceed 1.5-degree limit, UN says

#259

Post by shimman »

iamnothere wrote: post #157
locknitpicker wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Making money" is the incentive system of society. Technology has now aligned society's incentive systems to promote climate action. This personal belief is grounded on an assumption that all mankind follows a neoliberal or even libertarian economic model. Back to reality, west Europe is firmly a social democracy where states impose behavior through law, regulation, and policy, which is topped by a federal system t…

Much of Western Europe has increasingly adopted neoliberal policies over the years, I would not call it “firmly” social democratic anymore.

Seriously, we have the US threatening to sanction (and has) politicians and judges that want to regulate US technology companies. The idea that neoliberalism doesn't have a massive influence on the world is straight up delusional.

Did we forget that EU took an austerity approach following 2008 and all that did was immiserate their population enough where they are voting for fascist/nationalist political parties?

Re: Global warming will exceed 1.5-degree limit, UN says

#260

Post by immmmmm »

pingou wrote: post #100
charles_f wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming that we keep the same system and that no sacrificing can be made. Technology is seen as the only solution because of the primary assumption that we need to keep growth and late stage capitalism. Degrowth, relocalisation, lower consumption are all solutions that would work better than technology (there are very serious people out there who demonstrated that technology won't replace the energy we need,…

Jancovici said a lot of stupid things also, although it seems that he recently acknowledged that renewables could make an impact (and not just "l'épaisseur du trait" as he always said). I'm not sure what you mean by "degrowth, relocalisation, lower consumption are all solutions that would work better than technology". People in general do no want to consume less, or buy more expensive stuff created locally, so I thin…

Per IPCC AR6 total power goes from 18TW to 16TW in a good scenario, due to increased efficiency (no Carnot cycle).

Degrowth per IPCC / earth system scientists mean the 10% the richest consuming less power.

It’s much more a wealth distribution problem rather than a technological one. Both IPCC and IPBES agree there.

Can’t wait for the downvotes on that one. That’s the one hill I’ll die on, literally.

Edit: AR6 (WG2+3)

Post reply on HN