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

261–270 of 395 posts

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

#261

Post by brabel »

OgsyedIE wrote: post #14

Supposing all anthropogenic emissions went to zero today, we'd still keep warming almost as far as three degrees with all of the disasters and famines that entails, because there's a lag time between existing emissions and their effects. We need massive bounty programs that pay out irrespective of nationality for every possible kind of improvement and gain to carbon capture technology if we want to prevent 90% of all…

Global warming is much faster in the higher latitudes. It has not significantly impacted the region you mentioned much at all. Most impact has been due to intensification of natural cycles like the Indian Monsoons, the Atlantic hurricane season and El Niño, which are not really limited to that particular area of the Globe. The idea that the problem with global warming is that parts of the world will just become too hot to live seems to be mostly misguided.

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

#262

Post by clickety_clack »

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…

The means to do it would be things like uranium steel mills and concrete plants (via hydrogen production) or any of the huge number of industrial uses of heat. The amount of coal and oil burnt to produce industrial heat is mind-boggling.

People are meat eaters. If I was to run a campaign to keep the green movement unpopular, I’d promote enforced veganism as one of its core ideas.

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

#263

Post by kennywinker »

monneyboi wrote: post #257

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.

Great point. For example, we should encourage collaboration between people building hyperscale data centers, and people not building hyperscale data centers to find some middle ground that is good for the planet.

Collaboration implies we are all on the same side. Reality suggests some people have made it their business to be on the wrong side.

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

#264

Post by tyre »

Dumblydorr wrote: post #197
epistasis wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it isn't, the idea that strict vegan diets would have stoped climate change is just nonsense. Run the numbers. "Strict vegan diets" is the attitude of US activists telling the developing world that they need to change their behavior before the US activist is willing to accept driving less or adopting dense urban infill housing. "Making money" is the incentive system of society. Technology has now aligned society's…

It’s one piece of many. They never said it was the only piece. You’re straw-manning this comment. And vegan diets would make a big dent, look up agricultural sector emissions, look up beef emissions and methane from their burps. It’s a major factor after transport and electricity.

Yes, but there is zero shot at doing this versus energy and transportation.

The major limiter of veganism is cultural. People love eating meat. It’s a major source of protein and calories, especially in developing countries. Americans are not going vegan, so it’s kind of silly, in my opinion, to focus on it as a solution.

Compare to building nuclear energy or solar / wind + batteries. China, the US, Europe, and India are all well-positioned to do this. The limitation is political will, which is more difficult than it should be, but definitely easier than convincing a critical mass of Americans to go vegan.

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

#265

Post by rrr_oh_man »

epistasis wrote: post #194
LastTrain wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A) I’m not a millennial. B) I have kids. C) I used that as one of several sacrifices that can be made to reduce carbon footprint. I would say it is more valid than “being vegan” since that alone may or may not help. Everyone is very ready to wag their finger about the sacrifices they are willing to make but excuse or ignore the ones they are not.

A) I didn't say you're a millenial. B) Having kids is not an excuse for saying "don't have kids for the sake of the environment!" it's an awful, anti-environmental thing to say no matter what. C) Not having kids is not climate action, it doesn't stop climate change, it's at best a half-measure. Most of all, when people say "don't have kids for the environment" it actually really hurts environmental action. Pretending…

> It is not sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice.

Wholeheartedly agree

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

#266

Post by TFNA »

zdragnar wrote: post #212
vincnetas wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why does it matter why they eat vegan? they just demonstrate that its feasable.

Because the incentive is what drives change. You're not going to convince America or Western Europe to live strict vegan lifestyles if they are adverse to it. Further, as the poor people grow wealthier, they begin to eat more meat unless they have a religious reason (I.e. an incentive) to do so. Converting to a vegan diet alone won't stop human driven climate change. Therefore, the prospect of climate change won't be…

It's not even just America or Western Europe. As soon as I saw the OP about switching to total veganism, my first thought was about e.g. the Arabian Peninsula where meat is central to every meal, and indeed going without meat is seen as the behavior of adherents of foreign religions. Anyone familiar with that part of the world knows that any fad of societal veganism would take decades to arise, longer than the time we have to tackle climate change.

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

#267

Post by rfgplk »

Tadpole9181 wrote: post #238
adrr wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear power is expensive. One of the most expensive ways to produce electricity when you capitalize expense of the construction of the plant into the electricty cost. Path forward is wind/solar + storage which is cheapest next to hydropower. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity

The Wiki page above didn't really go into it much, but how much of the cost of nuclear power is self-inflicted? I.e. regulatory costs and actually paying the cost of externalities up-front. And if we were more consistent at building such facilities and producing said fuel, would there be cost reductions from scale?

~99% of the cost is due to red-tape regulations. It's so obscene that they require certified backup genererators for the backup generators and 3-4 layers of fail safes. Then you need to wait YEARS to get all the permits and licenses. Oh and if you get preapproval for a componant (say the generators) but too much time has passed from installation until you actually are ready to go, you need to go through the process again, hence the constant delays. An actual nuclear power plant is actually stupidly cheap to run if you cut all the red tape. Stupidly. Like $50k of fuel produces $50 million of electricity good.

Edit because I forgot to mention this, if coal or ccgt were regulated like nuclear is, not a single one would be profitable. And even if you take into account every single death due to radiation poisoning (from any source) nuclear would still be the safest power source in the world. Literally worker deaths from installing wind power plants exceed it.

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

#268

Post by tyre »

benfortuna wrote: post #17
jkahrs595 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t forget eating meat, the easiest thing to stop doing (people needs cars and trucks for work, they don’t need cheeseburgers). People can’t be bothered to make any changes, it’s always someone else’s problem. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/sep/27/meat-gas...

Even cutting back on meat can have an impact. Halving quantities in cooking etc. really is hardly noticeable.

Yeah I think this is a much better path. If you mix chicken with jackfruit 50/50 in tacos, for example, it’s barely noticeable.

We’re not going to convince Americans to give up meat, but if we can reduce consumption when they do eat it, we can make incremental change.

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

#269

Post by shuwix »

mym1990 wrote: post #149

Modern economies are addicted to growth, and asset prices are pinned to showing continued growth more than ever. As soon as any global power proposes to take a beat and re-evaluate the trajectory of innovation, they will be left behind. Global leadership is also effectively non-existent and aside from trade, no one seems to be able to really make inroads on big ticket issues. In a time where we need more collaboratio…

Perfect example of "left behind" is EU, shooting itself in leg for many years with dubious results in terms of ecology ... and negligible in global scale.
Post reply on HN