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

Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

unenvironment.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 205 posts

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#111

Post by altacc »

rossdavidh wrote: post #56
altacc wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trees seem to be the solution of the day but, cynically, it seems to be a smokescreen in that some people are promoting this as the solution to climate change. No amount of tree planting is going to solve long term climate change, so it should be seen as one action amongst many. The focus on tree planting shifts the focus away from the action needed to reduce carbon emissions. It's a bit like building an extension to…

"No amount of tree planting..." is a strong statement. Not "we won't do enough", but "No amount..." will work? I find that hard to imagine. Is there a reason you say this?

Two reasons: trees are part of a carbon cycle, most of the carbon returns to the atmosphere eventually, and we don't have an infinite sized planet to keep planting forests at the same rate which we're producing CO2.

New growth forests are good at capturing carbon short term, but established forests aren't as good as the rate of growth is slower and there is more tree decay & decomposition of organic matter releasing C=2. In some places, and more common due to climate change, a forest fire will sweep through a forest and undo all that carbon capture.

If we use trees for fuel it is closing most of the cycle for that carbon, less ancillary fuel use for harvesting, producton & transport, but that doesn't solve the production from other sources. If we use wood for building & materials then the carbon capture is longer, but that's a small fraction of the CO2 capture needed.

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#112

Post by mikedilger »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #54

I think it should be somewhat obvious that it will be impossible for us to avoid the absolute worst of global warming. Humans simply don't have the capability to act in the coordinated, political way that is necessary. Somehow holding out hope that we'll all come to our senses and things will change is like holding out hope that we'll never have any wars again. It is just not compatible with human nature. I'd love it…

I agree that this is a tragedy of the commons situation. But there is a tiny bit of hope. After all, we did fix the ozone hole, even while someone in China kept releasing massive amounts of CFCs. So at least when the problem is limited and the solution doesn't require overwhelming sacrifice we can and do sometimes work together. This problem is much less tractable though.

It's hard for people to work out what information is true, what information is denial, and what information is hyperbole. Unfortunately the warnings we are getting via the media are inconsistent, alarmist, and don't put things into useful human terms that you can use to make decisions by. There needs to be a concerted effort to do better on the messaging front. I don't have any hope that the news media will do better while Western society puts little value on honor and doing the right thing, and puts high value on making as much money as possible.

Given the inconsistent messaging, people cannot rationally work out the answer to the following question: Which is worse? Giving up meat, my SUV, and air travel... or dealing with a +1.5C temperature shift? Most people think the former is worse, and quite rationally keep living as they have been at carbon footprints well in excess of 10 mton-co2e/year. Alarmist messaging doesn't fix that situation because people aren't dumb and can tell what is alarmist and what is a statement of solid facts. In fact, I've yet to hear a statement of solid facts that lays out the case why I should give up my (meat + SUV + air travel) that isn't highly speculative. Personally I am giving up these things and planting trees, but only because I bothered to deeply research the situation. The messaging is still really bad.. especially in the US where people apparently have no will to listen to each other anymore.

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#113

Post by TheCoelacanth »

elihu wrote: post #57
astrodust wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trees. You're talking about trees.

Well, trees can store a lot of carbon while they're alive. When they die, they release a lot of that back into the atmosphere as they decompose. So, trees are medium-term carbon storage. I expect we'll eventually need to figure out some way to store carbon long-term (for example, put it back in the ground in a way that it'll stay there).

Trees are medium-term carbon storage. Forests are long-term carbon storage (the trees that die get replaced by new trees).

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#114

Post by gizmo686 »

whatshisface wrote: post #64
marcosdumay wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to add to the two very insightful replies you've already got, yes, nuclear power could have been a great contributor on the fight against Global Warming, 30 years ago. And yes, it is a shame that "environmentalist" movements made so much noise that they ensured we took the most harmful possible path. Those movements should be shamed, and very loudly so because they still didn't give up on fighting improvements a…

> So, today pushing for nuclear does more harm than good. You made the case for why you don't think nuclear can do any good (because it's too late), but what's the case for harm?

Every dollar invested into nuclear is a dollar not invested into solar/wind/etc.

Building new nuclear just usn't the most effective use of limited capital to reduce emmisions at this point.

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#115

Post by gscott »

trixie_ wrote: post #42
arkh wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nuclear waste is stored on the beach What?

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station

It is pretty crazy. The government swears up and down that it is completely safe but yet the concrete bunkers are already wearing away now after just a few years.

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#116

Post by filleokus »

ng12 wrote: post #53

I don't understand why globalism rarely, if ever, factors into the debate. It boggles my mind that if I walk down to the drug store to buy a toothbrush that toothbrush was likely made in a Chinese factory, shipped across the Pacific ocean in a diesel-spewing container ship, and then driven a good thousand miles in an 18-wheeler. It seems like a tremendous waste of energy for something that could be made locally for c…

Container ships are tremendously energy efficient, around 30 gram per tonne-km.

Some back of the envelope math:

- Distance China to US East Coast ≈ 10 000 km

- Weight of 1 toothbrush = 10 gram = 0.0001 tonne

30 g * 10 000 km * 0.0001 tonne = 30 gram of Co2

30 gram of Co2 is the amount of Co2 emissions from ≈ 100 meter of travel with an average car.

Of course there is secondary land transport from the port etc. But even though the sea shipping industry is one of the biggest Co2 emitters (not to speak of other nasty stuff [0]), it's still incredibly energy efficient.

[0]: You saying the ships are "diesel-spewing" is actually doing the ships a favour, it's usually heavy fuel oil.

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#117

Post by nsporillo »

blondie9x wrote: post #74

To all, because governments have mostly failed us on quick action I created a climate pledge. It is open to feedback but I think starting with individual commitments and sustainable lifestyles will help us move society forward as a whole. Governments are not moving quickly enough on climate change with small incremental changes over time. However, people and organizations who champion these efforts can pressure gover…

Call me cynical, but suppose 300 million westerners decided to stick to this pledge. What is stopping those newly freed up resources from being consumed by the remaining 7.4+ billion?

Cratering energy prices makes it more affordable for developing nations to rapidly industrialize which is a one way street towards massive emissions until a sustainable solution is realized.

Climate Policy is a classic example of how the prisoner's dilemma can cause a tragedy of the commons. I personally don't see how it can be solved in a world where there is intense competition.

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#118

Post by mrmanner »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #61
api wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't really answer the point, which was that new solar and wind tend to be cheaper than new nuclear as of 2019.

It doesn't matter how cheap it is. No sun and no wind means no power, which means using coal and other fossil fuels. Increasing use of natural gas has reduced emissions more than switching to renewables.

There's a thought provoking web site out there, Low Tech Magazine. Their basic idea is that electricity 100% of the time isn't as important for everyone and everyting as we think. The need for base capacity is still there of course, but if we allow unnecessary things to shut down when there's less supply we can get away with less.

(Yes, of course we need to have electricity in hospitals and for heating 100% of the time - but if the newspapers are unavailable three days per year, or if some non-essential TV channels turn off when it's really cold - maybe not as bad.)

https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/about.html

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#119

Post by altacc »

malka wrote: post #91
altacc wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with country by country analysis is that people turn it into an excuse not to do anything. "Why should the US/EU do anything if China is just going to keep polluting." Countries should be focusing on what they can do themselves, as well as globally, and be leaders, not laggards.

except that it makes no sense in game theory. The first state to do it will see its economy shrink, and it will be bought by other who do not.

It's somewhat of a fallacy that green is always more expensive than other options, especially if you've already got to adhere to decent standards. Companies are finding that eco-friendly processes and green energy can be the same cost, or even cheaper, that the old processes.

Also, it is possible for a country to become greener without shrinking its economy. There's a lot of economic theory that public investment brings public and private growth. Green infrastructure supporting green industries is already profitable in many places.

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#120

Post by nsporillo »

Etheryte wrote: post #94
blondie9x wrote: post #74

To all, because governments have mostly failed us on quick action I created a climate pledge. It is open to feedback but I think starting with individual commitments and sustainable lifestyles will help us move society forward as a whole. Governments are not moving quickly enough on climate change with small incremental changes over time. However, people and organizations who champion these efforts can pressure gover…

For those wondering about the relative impact of each bullet, [1] is a quick starting point down a rabbit-hole that goes very deep. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wynes_Nicholas_CO2_emissi...

Sure if one is counting just their personal impact, but in reality the developing nations will have no problem replacing you and the children you choose to not have with their own and it'll be a wash. Those resources don't disappear, the market will move them around.

Is the argument to have less kids to save the planet not just population control propaganda?

Post reply on HN