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

161–170 of 205 posts

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

#161

Post by 08-15 »

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…

> I will do my best to strive for and support sustainable and minimalist technology.

Start by not using the internet. Thank you in the name of 7bn humans.

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

#162

Post by andbberger »

08-15 wrote: post #160
andbberger wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Greenpeace is a farce for sure, but surely some blame lies with big oil's lobbying efforts?

Are you saying these are two different things?

Touché.

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

#163

Post by DennisP »

08-15 wrote: post #158
g_sch wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a great point - solar/wind and nuclear are, as the grid currently works, not drop-in replacements to each other, but complements. Nuclear provides base load (because it's difficult and slow to ramp a nuclear plant up or down), Wind/solar provides as much daytime load as practical, and meeting any remaining demand (especially peak evening demand) will require a peaking source that can dynamically be ramped up…

Nuclear ramps just fine. French nuclear plants reportedly ramp routinely between about 50-100% capacity, so this isn't just theoretical. Going from full power to less than about 40% tends to run you into a Xenon pit, which causes a two day shutdown, but fortunately nighttime load is roughly half of daytime load, so this point is moot.

Here's a source to back up that claim: https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featureload-following-c...

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

#164

Post by ZeroGravitas »

john_moscow wrote: post #125
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'm not sure how many people are skeptical about the global warming itself, but there are definitely good reasons for skepticism about the proposed political solutions. I have yet to see a quantifiable and accountable proposal in a format "let's allocate $X billion, implement measures A, B and C, so with the probability of Y%, the point where Earth becomes uninhabitable due to global warming will shift by N years int…

> I'm not sure how many people are skeptical about the global warming itself.

Climate change denial denial. Very meta.

https://www.wired.com/story/americans-trust-scientists-until...

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

#165

Post by akvadrako »

john_moscow wrote: post #149
akvadrako wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a problem because new trees will grow in their place. Those trees can capture all the carbon humans have put into the atmosphere so far.

But that means that planting a tree binds a finite "tree lifetime" amount of carbon. So, in order to neutralize the worldwide carbon emissions using trees, we would need to keep planting them as long as we keep releasing CO2. So we would need to consume X square miles of agriculturally suitable land per year to simply keep the net emission at zero. Now, IIRC, the energy density of oil is much higher than the one of l…

I agree it isn’t a complete answer to the question of how to return co2 levels to some level forever, but it has a good cost benefit ratio and could buy 50 years.

The study showed that the available land at a low cost, much less than alarmist propaganda, is enough to reverse all the co2 emissions so far.

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

#166

Post by astrodust »

altacc wrote: post #111
rossdavidh wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Natural forest fires have a fairly minimal impact on old-growth forests and in some cases are even necessary for them to function properly (e.g. some pinecones will only open when burned). The underbrush and younger trees burn off, the older trees are largely unaffected.

What most people don't realize is the trees that exist today are all "new", as in are less than a few hundred years old. The trees that were cut down in the 18th and 19th century are unlike anything you'd see today. Far, far bigger and longer lived, on time-scales that we're really not used to dealing with.

These capture carbon and store it for hundreds of years. When they die they will decay and be recycled back into the forest floor and soil, not necessarily burned off and released as CO2.

Sure, a half-hearted tree-planting effort is not going to solve the problem, but a more ambitious reforestation plan with an emphasis on carbon-sequestering trees instead of those trees intended to be harvested every 20-40 years could make a huge difference.

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

#167

Post by john_moscow »

akvadrako wrote: post #165
john_moscow wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that means that planting a tree binds a finite "tree lifetime" amount of carbon. So, in order to neutralize the worldwide carbon emissions using trees, we would need to keep planting them as long as we keep releasing CO2. So we would need to consume X square miles of agriculturally suitable land per year to simply keep the net emission at zero. Now, IIRC, the energy density of oil is much higher than the one of l…

I agree it isn’t a complete answer to the question of how to return co2 levels to some level forever, but it has a good cost benefit ratio and could buy 50 years. The study showed that the available land at a low cost, much less than alarmist propaganda, is enough to reverse all the co2 emissions so far.

That sounds interesting. As a numbers person, I would appreciate a link to the study and some basic TDLR napkin math.

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

#168

Post by Etheryte »

nsporillo wrote: post #120
Etheryte wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

For context, I'm very neutral on the matter so take the following as just a musing on the topic. I'm not really familiar with the stats here, so do pardon if I'm starkly mistaken, but it would seem intuitive that having a child in countries A and B would have a different impact based on how developed countries A and B are. If a kid from A grows up to own a car, fly around etc, and the kid from B cannot afford to, the footprint difference between these two individuals would be considerable. This is obviously only looking at a single child, how the fact that people in more developed countries tend to have less children plays into this and pushes the balance one or the other way is unclear.

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

#169

Post by hackeraccount »

dantheman wrote: post #79
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…

We can and act that way... Unfortunately, for most people on earth their CO2 consumption will have to go up significantly for them to have an improved quality of life. The large swath of population that doesn't believe in global warming is far less important than the large swath that is anti-nuclear. China, India, etc will need substantial energy to improve their quality of life and their populations are so large rel…

I know it sounds contradictory but poverty is worse for CO2 production then wealth is. The world is in a situation that requires us to grow away from greenhouse gas production. I firmly believe that actions that hurt growth need to be approached with carefully - if X hurts growth but cuts the rate of greenhouse gas emissions it needs to cut them by a large amount - by the same token if Y increases growth and raises greenhouse gas emissions it might make sense if it raises growth by a large amount.

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

#170

Post by tzs »

foobiekr wrote: post #146
irrational wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically, the western world went through their development cycle (aka the industrial revolution) and now the rest of the world wants to catch up. Of course, when we say they shouldn't because of climate change, they say "You had your chance to pollute and develop, now we get to do the same thing." Frankly, I find it difficult to argue with them. The only sensible thing to do is for the Western world to reverse back…

I feel like I just don't understand the claim that the developing world should be allowed to have higher emissions. If we could go back in time and the US had the option at the time of using today's technology, and they chose not to, we would condemn them.

> I feel like I just don't understand the claim that the developing world should be allowed to have higher emissions

Pick some maximum acceptable total level of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Fair would be for each country to be allowed to emit greenhouse gases up to the point that their share of the total in the atmosphere is equal to that total acceptable level divided by the country's population.

Even if you decide to pick a pretty high acceptable total, you'll find that the US is already way over its share, and the developing world countries are all way under their shares. The US has emitted about 8 times as much total as India, for example, and about 4 times as much total as China.

Fair, then, is either for (1) the US to not only cut emissions to zero, but to also implement massive carbon capture to get its cumulative emissions back down to its fair share, so that developing countries can use their fair shares for development, or for (2) the US and other developed countries to kick in to pay for the developing countries to build green infrastructure so that they can develop without making use of cheap non-green energy.

The Paris Agreement includes provisions along the lines of #2.

Post reply on HN