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

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

resilience.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 356 posts

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

#211

Post by NickC25 »

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…

They might have signaled one thing via press releases, PR campaigns, token donations to activists or whatever.......but let's be completely clear - their lobbying dollars and large campaign donations haven't gone to politicians promoting green energy nor to politicians who want to transition away from oil.

On a longer time scale, let's see where the bulk of their lobbying budgets go (to a particular party or sect within a given party), or the initiatives their lobbyist friends have been tasked with passing or defeating.

My guess is that when push comes to shove, the oil companies are not friendly to green energy.

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

#212

Post by darkmighty »

the_gastropod wrote: post #140
misiti3780 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have a solution to this problem, it's build more nuclear plants and electrify everything with nuclear and renewables. Unfortunately, we are shutting these plants down instead of building more of them.

It's unfortunate that this is such a common belief. There is no silver bullet for solving these problems. Yes, nuclear energy has a part to play. But it's a relatively small part, and absolutely not "a solution" in itself. MIT has a really neat policy simulator called En-ROADS [1] where you can tinker with applying various policies at various levels, and estimate their impacts. Check it out, and see just how minimal…

The carbon pricing slider is very powerful in that simulation! (also surprised me the effects of deforestation and afforestation)

It really seems like the straightforward solution to me, even more than carbon credits which seem to have some issues (I believe you can get paid for 'not emitting' in some cases, which of course can lead to almost-fraudulent behavior) -- taxing emissions is much more concrete and verifiable.

Also deforestation and afforestation are shown incredibly powerful. It really seems to me one of the most important aspects, since it means we also get "for free" the security of our forests and habitats that are collapsing (and even expansion of wild habitats hopefully!).

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

#213

Post by ZeroGravitas »

hkt wrote: post #27
andyjsong wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carbon sequestration is promising, but still years away. We need to start looking at stop gap solutions that buy us more time.

Carbon sequestration is trivial: we rewild destroyed ecosystems. We don't need to die waiting for Elon. I await my downvotes.

Just "Reduce conversion of natural ecosystems" is the second biggest GHG impact, after solar and just above wind (though at a slightly higher cost), according to the IPCC:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/figures/summary...

Reforesting, afforesting and ecosystem restoration are nearly as impactful, but listed seperately.

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

#214

Post by BSVogler »

anonymous_2022 wrote: post #196

I never understood why this 1.5-2C global temperature is such a big issue when dinosaurs were living with average 15-20C Earth temperature and much higher CO2 levels (you can just google "world temperature history" or "co2 levels history". There were much more plants, diverse wildlife, etc. Having warm Earth is much better than having an Ice age, right? Also higher CO2 levels mean more ingridients for new trees/plant…

The current warm period is happening across the world for the first time. The rate of change is unprecedented and it happens globally. No, heating if a planet is not good, when this also comes with stronger weather extremes, areas where it is impossible to survive and ecological stress that evolution can not deal with.

I can get really tiring in explaining the basics in one of humanities biggest problem over and over again.

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

#215

Post by s5300 »

candiddevmike wrote: post #8
slashdev wrote: post #3

I’m not sure what’s the point of focusing on 1.5C anymore. I think the writing on the wall is pretty clear that we’re going to double that at least. Barring any miracle in carbon sequestration technology anyway. I hope we get a miracle.

Our kids, who will shoulder far more of the effects of this than us, didn't get to choose this. This is their inheritance, generations of neglect for the environment and rampant profiteering culminating in a climate catastrophe.

Hopefully the kids will realize the only retribution they’re going to get involves sending everybody that caused this into a wood chipper that shoots out directly into a fire.

They’ll probably never find the attention span to do so. But I can hope.

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

#216

Post by r3trohack3r »

whimsicalism wrote: post #144
r3trohack3r wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure it is arrogant. Arrogant would be saying we have some divine right or special capacity that places us at the center of this. I think we’ve gotten incredibly lucky in the last 600 years or so and have stumbled our way into a viable exit strategy for life on our planet. We don’t necessarily deserve this role. I think I’m well aligned that keeping life alive for the next few thousand years is absolutely nec…

Oh, I certainly disagree with people who put the environment above humans. But usually I just discount such people - they "are not serious people." > my friends adopt a “humans were a mistake” mindset over the past decade. This is an edgy take that I see increasingly adopted by young people in cities. Generally I try to recenter around "okay, if humans are a mistake, who would you like to kill first?" People find it…

Agreed, I suspect we are closer to being on the same page than it originally seemed.

I’ve seen it fairly broad and wide, not just city kids but there is a concentration there.

It’s most apparent to me in the debates downstream of the “whole earth” movement. The eco movements of the previous few decades seemed to be fairly unified because tech wasn’t at a place where we could reasonably attempt to fix some of the problems humans had manifested.

Now that this tech is starting to shake out as viable, we are seeing a hard split in the eco movement.

One faction is advocating for humans to “just stop.”

The other is advocating for humans to try and solve the problems.

You see this in the de-extinction movement where eco-advocates are trying to bring back extinct keystone species that humans drove to extinction, in an attempt to restore the ecosystems we disrupted. You see serious eco-advocates shake out of the woodwork fighting the de-extinction movement on anti-human grounds.

To be fair, there are valid arguments against the de-extinction movement; but these aren’t the arguments I see most frequently.

You see the same arguments shake out for carbon capture, green energy, rocketry, colonizing other planets, etc.

I think the core of this split is that there were two currents of thought in the eco-movement that were so similar folks didn’t realize they disagreed until recently when “bringing extinct species back” became viable. One current of thought was that what humans did was bad. The other was that humans were bad.

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

#217

Post by legitster »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #174
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…

If we're not at peak oil, we're close to it.

I mean, even if we were at peak oil that would still give us a still a ton of carbon left to extract.

I would honestly give up on the concept of peak oil thought. If for no other reason than the fracking revolution may have alone doubled the available fossil fuels.

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

#218

Post by [deleted] »

whimsicalism wrote: post #60
ericmay wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Best reading recommendation would be to look at climate change projections from NOAA or similar organizations for where you live or want to live, assume those will be true within some +-, and then base your decisions off of that. There doesn't seem to be a substantial downside to getting it wrong if bad scenarios don't occur but if they do occur you'll want to have gotten it right. > People will always say "just use…

Right, but, to a large extent, Americans love the burbs and you are not going to be able to get them to vote for their demise, no matter how many benefits you can see .

[deleted]

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

#219

Post by runarberg »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #174
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…

If we're not at peak oil, we're close to it.

This has been true for the past 30 years.

I’m beginning to suspect peak oil was never an actual prediction, and more of a statement—or rather a lie—that we would naturally wean of fossil fuels in a couple of years as production would slow. I’m beginning to think peak oil was always a ruse so that the fossil fuel industry could delay climate actions for another couple of decades (and doom us all in a climate disaster while they were at it).

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

#220

Post by ZeroGravitas »

nick__m wrote: post #122
CuteDinosaur wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not the only solution though. There are several choices we can make, but only we choose not to. Simplifying everything to just nuclear power is nonsense.

What are those other solution ? Nuclear, in my opinion, is the only solution that doesn't require the developed world to lower it's standard of living.

This lists about 40 or so, doesn't seem like nuclear makes the top ten.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/figures/summary...

Post reply on HN