Live data from Hacker News

The world is losing the war against climate change

economist.com

241–250 of 325 posts

Re: The world is losing the war against climate change

#241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think any amount of innovation can have close to the impact of de-tabooing nuclear energy for the next few decades.

You can make a photovoltaic panels fab with the money that goes into a nuclear power plant, and complete it faster. The one thing that would probably have the largest impact would be guaranteeing some demand for PV fabs. (As much as I hate governments guaranteeing demand in general.)

>You can make a photovoltaic panels fab with the money that goes into a nuclear power plant, and complete it faster.

We already have dirt cheap PV thanks to China. Panels are not the problem. Storage and transmission is. Until ultra-cheap grid-scale batteries are a reality, solar will only ever be viable in certain areas at certain times.

Re: The world is losing the war against climate change

#242
post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO phasing out automobiles as the primary form of transit is a herculean battle the environmental groups probably don't feel like they have a prayer of winning. I bike & bus to work, but speaking on a grand scale cars prey on our weakness for comfort & convenience, and the cities we live in are designed to accommodate cars, not bicycles. I do get frustrated with some enviro groups though, currently the ones who want…

> cars prey on our weakness for comfort & convenience, and the cities we live in are designed to accommodate cars, not bicycles. I agree. Cars break a feedback loop between how far you travel and how tired you are. Bikes merely modify this feedback loop. As long as the feedback loop exists, energy use is constrained regardless of price. But this is also what makes cars so addictive. Car dependency seems to have peake…

Yeah, I'm hopeful that we will reverse the dependency, but I think it needs to be more organic/grassroots than the Sierra Club can drive. We need to come to a collective understanding that we want more alternative forms of travel, for safety or economy or health or just to escape traffic jams.

Re: The world is losing the war against climate change

#243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been looking into carbon capture recently because it's going to be vital to slowing down the warming (and buying us another 50 years for the transition). What surprised me is that I can cover double my two-car-owning European family's carbon footprint via planting trees in the UK at an annual cost of around $400. It'll cost half that to do the same in a developing country. We need a global carbon tax and we need…

Can you post information about this, especially the math? According to US stats I've seen it requires an acre of growing forest to offset 100 US gallons of gas per year.[0] We have a long commute (which I'm working on cutting) so we need about 8 acres to offset fully. [0] https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calc... Edit: added missing units.

I'm honestly surprised that site's still up.

Re: The world is losing the war against climate change

#244
post #151

The war is unwinnable. Global warming can only be reversed if we stop all Co2 and methane emissions, and then start net carbon capture to reduce current co2 levels. Its just not going to happen. No one ever says that out loud. There is noise about reducing carbon emissions - in reality this is a lot of argument about reducing carbon emissions in wealthy countries. We can't even do that. Meanwhile even my greeny-lefty…

I think we need a few things to win the war: 1) A few more technological solutions to make the switch to carbon free energy painless (think grid scale batteries, hopefully fusion power someday). In reality people won't want to give up some of the great benefits of a carbon-intensive lifestyle such as travel and convenience. 2) A political movement to make the case that the switch will be not-so-bad. 3) A social movement to focus on what people actually need in life (health, friends, family), not material wealth. And to consider their place in the world on century time scales.

Thanks all ;).

Re: The world is losing the war against climate change

#246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been looking into carbon capture recently because it's going to be vital to slowing down the warming (and buying us another 50 years for the transition). What surprised me is that I can cover double my two-car-owning European family's carbon footprint via planting trees in the UK at an annual cost of around $400. It'll cost half that to do the same in a developing country. We need a global carbon tax and we need…

It's disappointing to me that planting trees is the best we can come up with. One would hope that we could work on a 10x, technological solution.

This is the ultimate NIH. Discarding the solution because it was invented by nature and not the human race!

Re: The world is losing the war against climate change

#247
post #151

The war is unwinnable. Global warming can only be reversed if we stop all Co2 and methane emissions, and then start net carbon capture to reduce current co2 levels. Its just not going to happen. No one ever says that out loud. There is noise about reducing carbon emissions - in reality this is a lot of argument about reducing carbon emissions in wealthy countries. We can't even do that. Meanwhile even my greeny-lefty…

Would it help make this more concrete for people if we were to install markers along the coastlines of various cities that say “The ocean will be touching this sign on $date”

What do you do for the people whose location wouldn't be underwater even if all of the ice melted?

Re: The world is losing the war against climate change

#248
I think Americans have a special responsibility: Not only have they probably contributed more GHG than anyone else,[0] they have the power (and thus responsibility) to do the most about climate change, and they are the chief obstacle (see below). People are dying, and will die in greater numbers. Most people who will die didn't benefit from those GHG (the people in wealthy nations, such as the U.S., benefited), in countries where they can't afford to mitigate the problem. Is it ok to do that, to watch people die, and to be a bystander?

As much as people on HN don't like to politicize issues, sometimes the problem is political and to talk about other causes and solutions is misleading. There is one powerful political entity standing in the world's way, the U.S. Republican Party; the rest of the world is generally united. The solution isn't technical or scientific, but political: Organize against them and vote them out of office if you are American.

[0] I think China may produce more GHG now, but that's just recent history; I would guess that the U.S. is the all-time leader by a good margin.

Re: The world is losing the war against climate change

#249

If you look at global power sector emissions from 1998 to 2018, you'll see that while we have dramatically improved upon the energy intensity (energy/capita) and even are making improvements on carbon intensity (carbon/capita), but the sad reality is this: we are still using around 35% coal power in 2018, the same as we did in 1998. And the power sector is the easiest sector to decarbonize, by the way. If you look at…

I've been looking into carbon capture recently because it's going to be vital to slowing down the warming (and buying us another 50 years for the transition). What surprised me is that I can cover double my two-car-owning European family's carbon footprint via planting trees in the UK at an annual cost of around $400. It'll cost half that to do the same in a developing country. We need a global carbon tax and we need…

The thing that I don't like about carbon offsets is the incentive to cheat. Green consumer buys carbon offset, company selling carbon offset pinky swears to offset carbon, but failing to do what was promised is unlikely to be caught, and is pure profit if they don't do it.

And they don't necessarily have to lie to do it. Take your growing trees example. They arrive at the carbon offset by saying that a tree takes X carbon, so Y trees will offset your carbon. They plant Y trees, and they are done.

However over half of trees planted in communities, will die within 1-2 years. (See https://www.state.sc.us/forest/urbsurv.htm for a source.) Based on conversations with people who planted trees for a living after clearcuts, in a wild forest setting the percentage loss is even higher for a combination of reasons from unreliable water to browsing by forest animals to a monoculture being vulnerable to disease. What incentive is there for the company planting the trees to come back in 5 years and see how many trees are still there? The higher the number, the better for them, checking just costs them money.

Moving on, are trees permanent CO2 storage? No. As forest fires around the world demonstrate, trees are only temporary storage. You don't control what will happen to those trees by mid-century and farther.

And all this assumes that there is no lying. See https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2010/0420/Buying-carbo... for one of many examples where it turned out that there was lying.

So pay for your carbon offsets. It will soothe your conscience. It might even do some (probably temporary) good. But be aware that you're likely telling yourself a white lie if you think that they are real.

Re: The world is losing the war against climate change

#250
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its just an excuse, you are talking about a field with 10% replication rate, and when they tried to start doing more replications it was too expensive to even figure out what generated the data so they had to drop 25% of the studies before even beginning. One guy even calling the literature "augean stables": https://www.nature.com/news/cancer-reproducibility-project-s... Every disease can be arbitrarily split or comb…

I know a lot of smart people who've devoted their lives to solving this problem. It's very easy for you to dismiss it as easy or say that researchers are incompetent when you haven't spent years working on cancer research in a wet lab.

I have worked in a "wet lab" for years, but not cancer research. The first 3 were largely (of course there is always learning going on) a waste because I didn't understand what statistical significance really meant. I can't really blame myself since neither did anyone else in my committee, department, or seemingly the entire area of research. But anyway this meant the whole project was misdesigned from the start (the design was standard).

The next two were spent attempting to save the project by working 18 hour days almost constantly. In the end, despite what they claimed about doing it the usual way because "its so complicated, no one can come up with mathematical/computational models or actual predictions to test, no one can describe this or that in so much detail, etc", the actual truth was that it wasnt "too hard". It was that no one really cared about that. Instead they just wanted to know whether there were statistically significant differences anyway...

From what I've read of the cancer literature it looks exactly the same, probably worse. And guess what, there's been no real progress made for decades on the topic I was studying either.

Post reply on HN