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

321–330 of 349 posts

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

#321

Post by GekkePrutser »

tejohnso wrote: post #246
GekkePrutser wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, it promotes inaction because the goal is so impossible you might as well not even try. Better to set a goal we can still actually achieve and take the consequences of that level for granted.

A goal we can actually achieve results in the collapse of civilization. But that doesn't sell well. Not many want to take that for granted. Any better consequence than that requires very significant changes from BAU and so lots of short term pain. Especially for the wealthy. And so we're back to impossible.

> A goal we can actually achieve results in the collapse of civilization.

I don't think so, that's a bit dramatic. Some areas will be destroyed. Some will be much less livable. Some will be ok. Some will be better off, think Siberia or Canada. Especially in the northern hemisphere that has more land in the higher latitudes.

Besides the destruction of viable cities especially on coasts a big problem is the mass migration that this will cause. It's a huge problem for sure. But civilisation-ending? I don't think so.

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

#322

Post by GekkePrutser »

marcosdumay wrote: post #244
GekkePrutser wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By the time we're in a position to 'pay back' the emitted CO2 we have to be well beyond CO2 neutral energy. Otherwise it's easier to just offset our existing fossil uses instead of reclamation. We'll have to have a huge surplus of say 10x our energy use right now because reclaiming at any decent speed will cost huge amounts of energy. At that point most of the climate change will have already happened and we'll have…

> By the time we're in a position to 'pay back' the emitted CO2 we have to be well beyond CO2 neutral energy. That certainty is not warranted. Solar does seem much easier to generate than to store. It's uncertain how mobile usage will evolve on the short term. We have a lot of capital dependent on fossil fuels that won't be deprecated immediately. And finally, it's not clear if we can't do carbon capture at a loss be…

> Solar does seem much easier to generate than to store. It's uncertain how mobile usage will evolve on the short term.

A lot of mobility tech is speeding up rapidly. Countries are banning fossil fuel cars a lot sooner. And even if we store solar power at a loss, we're still storing it. It's still displacing fossil.

> We have a lot of capital dependent on fossil fuels that won't be deprecated immediately.

Really, this is the kind of excuse that keeps us from moving on. If we can't even deprecate some fossil fuel investments that have been made in the full knowledge of the problem, we really have no chance of fixing this. There is absolutely no reason such concerns should carry any weight. The sacrifices we need to make to solve this are way beyond that.

> And finally, it's not clear if we can't do carbon capture at a loss before renewables win the market for generation. > Or, in conclusion, we should make a new global climate conference, with targets for capture. There is no reason for waiting the energy market to fully convert before doing it.

I really don't think it's viable at any scale. To make a dent in the CO2 levels, we not only need a tremendous amount of energy to perform the reclamation. We also have to mine the earth for the raw materials for all this machinery. Ship it to a place that's suitable. Construct and maintain it all, and its energy generation equipment. All things that are not climate neutral and also have negative impacts on the environment in many other ways (mining of the materials etc). And all the resources we commit to it can't be used to displace fossil fuel technologies.

Not emitting the CO2 we're going to capture evades all these issues.

I just don't see this being viable at the scale we need it to really make a dent. I view it mainly as a procrastination excuse, and a way to monetise the problem for some tech entrepreneurs. It makes the immediate problem less urgent if you think you can fix it later.

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

#323

Post by biotinker »

pier25 wrote: post #293
biotinker wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of the amount of CO2 released each year by humans (~30gt), only about half persists in the atmosphere. The other half is re-absorbed by the biosphere. This is based on estimated total biosphere emissions, estimated human emissions, and annual CO2 PPM increases. I did some math on that and wrote it up here if anyone wants to dig deeper: https://biotinker.dev/posts/climate1.html In the case of the zero-emission miracle…

I'm sorry but I think you're missing a lot in your assumptions. For example, there are only rough estimates on how much methane is trapped in the permafrost. The first estimate I saw by Natalia Shakhova et al was 1400gt over a decade ago (so about 45 years of human emissions at the current rate). I found this recent MIT article which mentions 1500gt [1]. Let's not forget methane has a 25x more heat trapping capacity…

You're right about methane; that's much more difficult to find data on, though, especially with regard to how much would be released and at what point. But if those tipping points get hit, then nothing CO2 related will save us. Feedback loops here dying down I'll classify under the "hope they're included in the miracle that gave us zero carbon emissions" :)

I'm not convinced on your second point; I'll need to see more data. I read the paper you linked, it doesn't give hard numbers, so it's difficult to compare the net loss of carbon flux in the amazon, to gain of carbon flux in other areas that are getting net-reforested, such as the eastern United States. Examples of local areas flipping from sink to source, and others becoming larger sinks, don't paint a clear picture of the directionality of the whole system.

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

#324

Post by toomuchtodo »

GekkePrutser wrote: post #205
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%…

By the time we're in a position to 'pay back' the emitted CO2 we have to be well beyond CO2 neutral energy. Otherwise it's easier to just offset our existing fossil uses instead of reclamation. We'll have to have a huge surplus of say 10x our energy use right now because reclaiming at any decent speed will cost huge amounts of energy. At that point most of the climate change will have already happened and we'll have…

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/27/carbon-e...

> Global carbon emissions from energy will peak in 2025 thanks to massively increased government spending on clean fuels in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, according to analysis by the world’s leading energy organisation.

> The International Energy Agency (IEA) said that government spending on clean energy in response to the crisis would mark a “historic turning point” in the transition away from fossil fuels, in its annual report on global energy.

> The invasion of Ukraine has prompted an energy crisis around the world, with global gas prices initially surging. The crisis has caused steep inflation that has made households poorer around the world.

> Governments have been scrambling to find other sources of energy. Some analysts have questioned whether fears over energy security could lead to the use of fossil fuels for longer, slowing the world’s race to net zero carbon emissions. Some countries – including the US and the UK under previous prime minister Liz Truss – have pledged to encourage fossil fuel extraction to try to ease prices.

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

#325

Post by tejohnso »

GekkePrutser wrote: post #321
tejohnso wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A goal we can actually achieve results in the collapse of civilization. But that doesn't sell well. Not many want to take that for granted. Any better consequence than that requires very significant changes from BAU and so lots of short term pain. Especially for the wealthy. And so we're back to impossible.

> A goal we can actually achieve results in the collapse of civilization. I don't think so, that's a bit dramatic. Some areas will be destroyed. Some will be much less livable. Some will be ok. Some will be better off, think Siberia or Canada. Especially in the northern hemisphere that has more land in the higher latitudes. Besides the destruction of viable cities especially on coasts a big problem is the mass migrat…

> that's a bit dramatic

I suppose so. But no more dramatic than the collapse of many previous civilizations. It's not an unheard of occurrence. Especially when faced with sudden loss of habitat.

> Some areas will be destroyed...destruction of viable cities...mass migration...

So you think that's all going to happen, and then what...somehow the climate system is going to return to a habitable, stable state? We're in the midst of abrupt and irreversible climate change, with tipping points triggering further tipping points.

And even if somehow the climate system stabilizes, we'd already be well on the way to collapse of civilization, and we'd have to deal with all of this social upheaval and habitat destruction in a sane, non-destructive manner. I think that history, climate projections, and known human behaviour are all pushing the odds toward civilization collapse, and possibly another extinction in the genus Homo.

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

#326

Post by Schroedingersat »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #145
Schroedingersat wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The rationale for this is that only by raising the living standard of the third world can the world’s population be stabilized without a major die-off I don't see how pumping billions of tonnes of heavy metal tainted sulfuric acid into the ground water of Namibia and Niger for Uranium royalties that are lower than the cost of cleanup and then putting them into debt they can't service for power stations that can onl…

Now do the pollution associated with lithium mining.

Then ban polluting lithium mining methods along with ISL uranium mining anywhere near an aquifer, open tailings ponds, anything to do with coal, and anything else with uncaptured externalities. Please and thankyou.

Storage and renewables can be achieved in a much more scalable, cheap, and less resource intensive way than nuclear without anything more scarce than chlorine (although rarer elements in manageable quantities make them more robust and even cheaper for now).

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/10/07/first-ess-iron-flow-bat...

https://talkmarkets.com/content/global-markets/catl-to-promo...

https://formenergy.com/form-energy-announces-450m-series-e-f...

https://news.mit.edu/2022/aluminum-sulfur-battery-0824

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Potential-150-GWh-Greenf...

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

#327

Post by Schroedingersat »

aperson_hello wrote: post #242

It really is starting to feel like the fringe of the environmental movement have really been the bad guys all along. Blocking nuclear starting in the 70s, focusing only on recycling in the 80s and 90s (consumption doesn't matter as long as something could be recycled), blocking natural gas/oil in favor of coal in the 90s-2000s, blocking wind farms ("think of the birds!!"), batteries, and solar panels (too many chemic…

Ah yes. All those PR campaigns that are directly and provably from the fossil fuel and plastic industries are definitely from people who have been saying we should stop using fossil fuels, invest in renewables, and reduce consumption for sixty years whilst being completely ignored.

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

#328

Post by Schroedingersat »

googlryas wrote: post #236
mjhay wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or we could just stop burning coal.

That would be very easy if we didn't benefit greatly from burning coal

No. People like David Koch benefit.

The rest have very little say.

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

#329

Post by arbitrary_name »

timr wrote: post #253
chimprich wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most recent IPCC commentary on predictions to underscore that current estimates land in a range, and that the Guardian-cited source is not in the middle of it Could you quote which part you are referring to? If you look at the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, it predicts for Shared Socioeconomic Pathway SSP2-4.5 (the middle of the options presented, "CO2 emissions around current levels until 2050, then falling but not…

2.9C is absolutely an extreme prediction. The figure I linked is from the IPCC SR15 (source was in the comment). Digging through the sixth assessment report, there's this: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/static/4d357606f10734acb3... You can see that 5/8 of the projections fall below 2.5C, and 4/8 fall below 2C. The predictions that rise above 2.5C are the three most extreme categories of the report. There's simply…

Given that the IPCC projections have been consistently conservative, and have been revised upward repeatedly, i personally do not consider 2.9 an extreme value.

>It assumes that we never hit net zero CO2 production, and that GHG emissions continue on their current path through 2050 with only minimal mitigatons

You mean...the path we are basically on, and have been on, since decades despite knowing the consequences? "Not the stated plan" is doing a lot of lifting here.

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

#330

Post by sershe »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #158
user3939382 wrote: post #136

We are too politically polarized to solve problems in this class, which requires political unity because of the scale, cost, and speed requirements. All of our major political forces play games, constantly make moves in bad faith, talk out of both sides of their mouths publicly vs privately, so we are screwed. The reality is that IF climate change science were a big hoax (sadly, it's not) there WOULD be a team using…

I think you're editorializing it in a way that is making it far more politically neutral or "pox on both your houses" than it actually is. It's not about warring world views. It's just about money. The simple reality is: almost all wealth on the planet is tied up with fossil fuels. This being the case, the more wealthy you are, the more "polarized" in a certain direction you will be. Might makes right. Or at least at…

It's much more simple than that - vast majority of the world has become rich or richer by using more energy (almost a tautology), and vast majority of energy is produced from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are still for the most part the simplest, technologically, energy source with the fastest payoff.

To get the world even to European per-capita energy usage levels, current energy production would have to be expanded 3x [1] You just have to convince a few billion and their leaders that they should remain in relative poverty for a few more decades, waiting for solar/wind/nuclear to ramp up to several times the entire current energy production. Heck, the energy production needs to expand just to bring everyone to Chinese levels, and then you would not only need to set a forever-ceiling for the above billions, but also convince a billion or so Americans/Europeans/... to become poor.

If you can't convince people to stay or become poor voluntarily, they are going to need energy. Surprise, some people are eager to sell them this energy. But it's the demand that drives the supply.

[1] https://rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop

Post reply on HN