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

261–270 of 356 posts

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

#261

Post by fallingknife »

NickC25 wrote: post #211
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 wit…

The power of the oil industry comes not through their lobbying, but mainly from the fact that $5.00 gas will get politicians voted out of office, and they all know it.

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

#262

Post by p1mrx »

nick__m wrote: post #159
diydsp wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"There are 53 nuclear reactors currently under construction around the world. Only two are in the United States" [0x3F800000] "The annual number of permanent nuclear reactor shutdowns fluctuated between 2005 and 2022. In the latter year, there were 4 shutdowns worldwide, of which three were in the United Kingdom (UK) and one in the United States (U.S.) "[0x40000000] [0x3F800000] https://spectrum.ieee.org/slow-steady-…

I really like your reference numbering scheme!

The numbering scheme is [1], [2], ... in float32.

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

#263

Post by philipkglass »

runarberg wrote: post #219
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The "peak oil" concept originates in a 1956 paper by Marion King Hubbert titled "Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels."

You can read it here: https://web.archive.org/web/20080527233843/http://www.hubber...

Here's the central thesis: "When we consider that it has taken 500 million years of geological history to accumulate the present supplies of fossil fuels, it should be clear that, although the same geological processes are still operative, the amount of new fossil fuels that is likely to be produced during the next few thousands of years will be inconsequential. Therefore, as an essential part of our analysis, we can assume with complete assurance that the industrial exploitation of the fossil fuels will consist in the progressive exhaustion of an initially fixed supply to which there will be no significant additions during the period of our interest."

The paper outlines the historical growth of fossil fuel exploitation and posits how it will reach a peak and then decline. The last third of it notes that nuclear fuels, having an energy content several orders of magnitude greater than that of fossil fuels, can supply abundant energy for at least 5000 years into the future. The age of fossil fuels is a short lived transitional phase in the development of industrial civilization.

"Peak oil" later accumulated a vast penumbra of connotations beyond Hubbert's rather technical and dry outlook. The peak oil movement, if it can be called such, has in recent decades predicted the imminent collapse of industrial civilization due to oil shortages. Neither Hubbert's original prediction nor the more recent peak oil collapse predictions have been driven by climate change denial. At best (worst?) I remember peak oilers who believed that we needed to increase coal exploitation because otherwise we'd be facing gigadeaths from energy shortages in a decade or two.

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

#264

Post by qqqwerty »

arcticbull wrote: post #166
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.

Except nuclear is the safest, cleanest form of energy we have and it's also zero-carbon and renewable. We know it would solve the problem and we really don't know what else would so why not?

I am all for nuclear as part of the energy mix, but the amount of FUD being spread by pro-nuclear bros really makes it hard to get on board.

> we really don't know what else would

We absolutely can meet our needs with other clean energy sources. And unlike nuclear most of these technologies are cost competitive with fossil fuels currently, and the ones that are not are continuing to come down in costs as manufacturing scales up.

> We know it would solve the problem

No we don't. There are a number of places where nuclear is highly unlikely to be deployed due to geopolitical concerns or due to a lack of advanced enough economy. Those places are going to have to rely on other options whether they want to or not.

Again, I am all for nuclear as part of the mix. There are absolutely places where it will make the most sense (extreme latitudes for example). And I generally agree that increasing deployment could bring costs down*. But the amount of FUD spread by the pro-nuclear crowd really makes it hard to get onboard. I think you are doing more harm then good.

* Nuclear is unlikely to see the same cost reductions as renewables though, due to the difference in the drivers of the costs for each type of technology.

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

#265

Post by tiborsaas »

antisthenes wrote: post #154
hannob wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we can't reach 1.5°C then we should try to reach 1.6°C. If we can't reach that then 1.7°C. Ultimately: It doesn't matter whether we can reach 1.5°C, because everything we try helps making things better. And any carbon sequestation technology will only help significantly after drastic emission cuts, not as a replacement for it.: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00953-x

Goals should be realistic. Aiming for 1.5C, then missing it and then continuously failing on 1.6C, 1.7C, 1.8C etc. is akin to a fat person missing their goal of 200lbs, and then telling themselves in front of the mirror every extra 10lb - "I'm going to stop eating junk food today! No, really, this is the day!" It's a cognitive failure to adequately process signals that the real physical world is sending to you. Or me…

The problem with a "relaxed" or "realistic" goal is that it will make us lazy. If we set a goal of 1.5C which we probably won't meet then at least we are able to tell people what would happen when we reach that goal. Maybe then when someone adds 0.5C to the new target would take things more seriously.

I find this a sad dilemma. We want to save humanity from the climate catastrophe, but we are more worried about crashing the economy.

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

#266

Post by pfisch »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #129
pfisch wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Critics of coercive measures targeting private planes point out that a ban would only reduce carbon emissions by 0.2%, based on study of the direct cost of private jets alone." https://flybitlux.com/what-is-the-carbon-footprint-of-a-priv... Just admit you're not really intending to "do your part" at all. You just intend to whataboutism everyone else for the forseeable future.

It makes more sense when you view it as a prisoner's dilemma. I already have a relatively low carbon footprint compared to many. I don't commute to work, I don't have a boat or a camper or a snowmobile or a quad or drive a big truck. I don't fly more than a couple of times a year. I don't even have a gas lawnmower. I also don't have kids, which is arguably one of the biggest extra carbon consumers a person can introd…

No serious person is asking for you to personally cut your carbon footprint through individual action. That won't work and is a waste of energy.

We need to be working to make green energy cheaper than fossil fuels, make electric cars cheaper than gas cars, and begin exploring extreme solutions like dumping iron in the ocean as a backup plan. These are government policy level solutions, and the only ones that should be taken seriously.

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

#267

Post by criddell »

whimsicalism wrote: post #49
jdshupe wrote: post #12

Does anyone have recommendations for good reading on this subject? What this means for combustion engines as a whole? I am trying to imagine where the push for clean energy will lead. I am fully on team green but I think the switch happened too late. I feel like there is a future where you have a large percent of the population (at least in the US) where EVs are too expensive to afford the monthly payment/up front pa…

Guess people will have to move to more dense areas if they want to survive financially then.

For that to happen, living in a dense urban area needs to be much less expensive than living out in the middle of nowhere. The average income in Mississippi is around $25k / year. I'm not sure what the distribution curve looks like, but I'd guess 2/3 of the population make at least $20k / year. Cities should be designed so that a person can live a good life on $20k / year in a city.

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

#268

Post by mnky9800n »

slothtrop wrote: post #252
mnky9800n wrote: post #239

climate change isn't a problem of science it is a problem of oppression. It is an unjust decision by the power elites to continue the status quo while hoping some silly valley hoohaw is going to come up with a silver bullet but if not who cares, got mine. It is about stealing from present and future generations. It is about stealing from the poor, people of color who will be displaced by rising sea levels. It is abou…

Emissions rise as a function of demand, mainly from east Asia, particularly China (holding demand constant, emissions would otherwise lower, since combustion technology grows more efficient over time). The homegrown demand rises because we are padding our numbers with immigration to boost GDP (enriching the wealthy, primarily), and newcomers adopt the same carbon footprint as the rest of us, through consumption. They…

a third of the co2 produced comes from electricity. Rich nations could subsidize GDP growth in developing nations by building nuclear and renewables there. These countries will accelerate the demise of humanity if they burn coal instead. They don't have the right to do it. Neither did developed nations but they already did it. We do not have the right to determine the fate of the planet that we share with all other living things.

Teddy Roosevelt said, “We have become great because of the lavish use of our resources. But the time has come to inquire seriously what will happen when our forests are gone, when the coal, the iron, the oil, and the gas are exhausted, when the soils have still further impoverished and washed into the streams, polluting the rivers, denuding the fields and obstructing navigation.”

We must conserve and protect this planet. Even if that means doing so from other humans.

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

#270

Post by 908B64B197 »

intrasight wrote: post #74
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.

A recent piece in The Economist argued that China is doing more to combat global warming than is any other nation, and if America is going to do better then we'll have to become more like China. I agree on both points. And I think that will be the outcome eventually.

> China is doing more to combat global warming than is any other nation

What?

The west is working hard at lowering it's emissions, but all that work is getting undone because China's emissions aren't slowing down. Coal is incredibly cheap when there's no carbon tax or emission standards. One of the many reasons it's cheaper to manufacture in China and why North Americans and Europeans can't compete [0]. Comparing the US[1] and China[2], the US has:

- Decreasing per capita emissions in the US starting in 1973 (-27%)

- A decrease in the countries emission starting in 2007 (-13%)

Meanwhile for the same period China has had

- a 7x increase per capita since 1973 (+532%)

- 48% increase for its global emissions since 2007

So it is possible to drastically reduce our carbon footprint thanks to innovation and smarter power generation.

Time to add tariffs on goods produced by states who made the decision of going all-in on polluting power generation, and potentially apply immigration quotas to citizens of these countries.

[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/26/us-leads-greenhouse-gas-emis...

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states

[2] https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china

Post reply on HN