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

UN says “No credible pathway” and “woefully inadequate” to stop global 1.5C

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 349 posts

Re: UN says “No credible pathway” and “woefully inadequate” to stop global 1.5C

#221

Post by toomuchtodo »

timr wrote: post #201
toomuchtodo wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no chance of meaningfully reducing CO2 emissions, because outside of Nuclear (and hydro/geothermal but only if you have the geography for it) there is no alternative to replacing fossil fuels. At some point the public will realize the lie of solar/wind as a replacement. We lost 50 years of greatly reduced emissions had nuclear power continued to be rolled out at the same rate as it did in the 60s/70s. 25%…

> 25% of electricity in the US was produced with renewables this year, more than both coal and nuclear [1]. That number includes hydro, and doesn't communicate the distribution of the generation, which is concentrated in the plains. Wind and solar are only ~16% of total, with the bulk being wind: > For the six-month period to June 30, electrical generation by wind increased by 24.67% and provided 11.55% of total elec…

This is acknowledged.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11981 ("Electricity Transmission Provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022")

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/transmission-ira-inflation-... ("Transmission development key to Inflation Reduction Act’s climate potential")

Re: UN says “No credible pathway” and “woefully inadequate” to stop global 1.5C

#222

Post by w0de0 »

timr wrote: post #137
Yizahi wrote: post #45

1.5*C ? What kind of fictional reality are living in? We are way past 2.4*C projection and are actually on track for 2.9*C or so. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/09/cop26-se...

Let's be perfectly clear: the projection you are citing is on the extreme end of a spectrum. Other projections differ. Per the (non-headline) part of the article: > The estimate stands in sharp contrast to optimistic forecasts published last week that suggested heating could be held to 1.9C or 1.8C, thanks to commitments announced at the talks, now in their second week and scheduled to end this weekend. > Those estim…

It’s sad, but we will simply never get past the point of rearranging the furniture while we argue about the accuracy of estimates of the iceberg’s size.

Why is this the font of your passion, rather than the desperate situation of our planet?

Re: UN says “No credible pathway” and “woefully inadequate” to stop global 1.5C

#223

Post by throwaway5752 »

renewiltord wrote: post #199
throwaway5752 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear is just a scapegoat. If it was easy or cheap, the free market would have done its magic. All manufacturing would already be done in a country with unlimited free and clean energy, even if other countries had issues with it. Plant costs, operation, safety, waste management, and non-proliferation are real hard problems. It's just lazy and wishful thinking that there's a deus ex machina if some people would just…

Nuclear tech is dual use so it is strongly controlled. That's what makes it impossible for, say, Sudan to become some energy+manufacturing powerhouse in the way you're talking. If you try to start a civil nuclear program and America finds out, America will kill your program. And America will find out.

China or Russia would be entirely powered by nuclear and would be the world's leading industrial nations if it were as easy as proponents suggest. China is the world's leading industrial nation, but their national energy production from nuclear is a quarter of the US's (5% vs 19%). India has a quarter of global reserves of thorium and doesn't have a single commercial thorium reactor.

Re: UN says “No credible pathway” and “woefully inadequate” to stop global 1.5C

#224

Post by yamtaddle »

globular-toast wrote: post #87

I used to be really depressed about this sort of thing. It caused me to severely limit my lifestyle out of a desire to "do the right thing". I didn't own a car. Very low consumption and minimal waste (no takeaway food, coffee etc., very frugal, didn't use things like paper towels and napkins). I cycled and walked everywhere. Didn't go on holidays abroad or even very far away. Then I looked around and noticed that eve…

This is exactly why voluntary individual action tends to be really ineffective at stuff like this, absent massive cultural support (e.g. consistent, widespread shaming and shunning those who defect). It's one of the main reasons government is, in fact, useful—it can be impossible to get out of these kinds of holes even when a large majority want to, without someone to make everybody play by the rules.

The core problem is exactly what you noticed: that you can be personally paying, in relative terms, a large cost, while having no meaningful effect, and while others are choosing not to pay that cost and doing much better than you. When the world where you defect is functionally indistinguishable from the one in which you stick with it aside from that you'd be happier in the former, it's hard to justify continuing.

Re: UN says “No credible pathway” and “woefully inadequate” to stop global 1.5C

#225

Post by marcosdumay »

checkyoursudo wrote: post #203
vlod wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're curious on how to do this on linux: - -u then enter unicode char: 00B0 and then press list of unicode codes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unicode_characters#Lat...

This must be desktop-environment dependent? I have to do for °. (That 0 is a zero.)

It's keyboard dependent, but the same for all DEs.

On mine it's copose-/.

Re: UN says “No credible pathway” and “woefully inadequate” to stop global 1.5C

#226

Post by timr »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #221
timr wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 25% of electricity in the US was produced with renewables this year, more than both coal and nuclear [1]. That number includes hydro, and doesn't communicate the distribution of the generation, which is concentrated in the plains. Wind and solar are only ~16% of total, with the bulk being wind: > For the six-month period to June 30, electrical generation by wind increased by 24.67% and provided 11.55% of total elec…

This is acknowledged. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11981 ("Electricity Transmission Provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022") https://www.utilitydive.com/news/transmission-ira-inflation-... ("Transmission development key to Inflation Reduction Act’s climate potential")

Yes, I pulled the numbers from the link you cited. I'm just saying that the nuance here matters a lot, and isn't captured by the headline number.

Barring some dramatic change in technology, we'll probably max out wind generation in the western US in the next decade or two, and it isn't a good solution for the most densely populated parts of the US. Solar isn't growing nearly as quickly (and of course, has the base load problem).

Re: UN says “No credible pathway” and “woefully inadequate” to stop global 1.5C

#227

Post by googlryas »

w0de0 wrote: post #222
timr wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's be perfectly clear: the projection you are citing is on the extreme end of a spectrum. Other projections differ. Per the (non-headline) part of the article: > The estimate stands in sharp contrast to optimistic forecasts published last week that suggested heating could be held to 1.9C or 1.8C, thanks to commitments announced at the talks, now in their second week and scheduled to end this weekend. > Those estim…

It’s sad, but we will simply never get past the point of rearranging the furniture while we argue about the accuracy of estimates of the iceberg’s size. Why is this the font of your passion, rather than the desperate situation of our planet?

Why do you care about climate change when the world is going to end in nuclear war before we even hit +1.2C?

Don't question my projections, if you do, you're just rearranging deck chairs on the titanic.

Re: UN says “No credible pathway” and “woefully inadequate” to stop global 1.5C

#228

Post by canadiantim »

Yizahi wrote: post #45

1.5*C ? What kind of fictional reality are living in? We are way past 2.4*C projection and are actually on track for 2.9*C or so. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/09/cop26-se...

Thank god the world is warming. This means a greener world, with more food for everyone. We are just coming out of an ice age; it would be muuuch more worrying if global temperatures were getting colder. Cold periods climatically tend to be associated with famine and war.

Re: UN says “No credible pathway” and “woefully inadequate” to stop global 1.5C

#229

Post by JetSetWilly »

doublerabbit wrote: post #83
macspoofing wrote: post #70

There is no chance of removing existing CO2 from Air to make any sort of difference. There is no chance of meaningfully reducing CO2 emissions, because outside of Nuclear (and hydro/geothermal but only if you have the geography for it) there is no alternative to replacing fossil fuels. At some point the public will realize the lie of solar/wind as a replacement. We lost 50 years of greatly reduced emissions had nucle…

> there is no alternative to replacing fossil fuels. At some point the public will realize the lie of solar/wind as a replacement. What lie exactly? Scotland had produced enough to power itself twice on Wind alone. [1] How is nuclear a better alternative than Wind or Hydro when - Nuclear is extremely dangerous with toxic waste needing special storage facilities. Criminal & Environmental contamination risks. - Disaste…

> What lie exactly? Scotland had produced enough to power itself twice on Wind alone.

Doesn't say much for a variety of reasons:

- Even in Scotland, there's loads of days where there's "no wind" - on those days electricity has to be generated by gas or other means. So practically speaking as wind cannot be guaranteed it is impossible for Scotland to not generate carbon, via wind alone.

- As usual for breathless wind articles, completely fails to account for heating - which in Scotland makes up the bulk of domestic energy consumption and most homes are heated by gas combi boilers.

- Also as usual, neglects transport - another huge proportion of energy consumption

- Scotland is a best case scenario - it is very windy relative to other countries. It doesn't have a huge population. And as part of the UK national grid it makes sense to build a lot of wind capacity within Scotland. But then looking at statistics for Scotland in isolation doesn't really make sense - it should be done at a UK national grid level rather than trying to gerrymander things.

Wind is fine for reducing gas consumption when it happens to be windy. But if you really want to tackle climate change, you need to tackle having a need for gas consumption at all, and wind won't do it.

Re: UN says “No credible pathway” and “woefully inadequate” to stop global 1.5C

#230

Post by [deleted] »

w0de0 wrote: post #222
timr wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's be perfectly clear: the projection you are citing is on the extreme end of a spectrum. Other projections differ. Per the (non-headline) part of the article: > The estimate stands in sharp contrast to optimistic forecasts published last week that suggested heating could be held to 1.9C or 1.8C, thanks to commitments announced at the talks, now in their second week and scheduled to end this weekend. > Those estim…

It’s sad, but we will simply never get past the point of rearranging the furniture while we argue about the accuracy of estimates of the iceberg’s size. Why is this the font of your passion, rather than the desperate situation of our planet?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN