Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity' • Hacker News Board

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#741

Post by titzer » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 4:38 PM UTC

cnity wrote: post #323

jimworm wrote: post #257

For all the carbon capture that the Devonian/Carboniferous period did over 100 million years, humanity undid a large part of it in 150 or so years. And now to preserve human civilisation in some form, the most direct way is probably to rebuild that carbon sink within a much shorter time. Much shorter than 150 years, not 100 million. Current carbon emissions are over 10 billion tonnes per year, so the capture speed wi…

In theory, a sink large enough to bring the Earth back to carbon neutral would be possible if the Sahara were reforested[0]: > The team's calculations suggest the forested deserts could draw down around 8bn tonnes of carbon a year, about the same as emitted from fossil fuels and deforestation today. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/nov/04/forests-d... Edit: > if insoluble carbonates could be synthesised fr…

Thank you, I was just about to jump in and point out the obvious. Tech has blinded us to all solutions...except more tech.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#742

Post by gruez » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 4:38 PM UTC

f6v wrote: post #546

pmorici wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t Musk the climate change guy you are looking for. He’s done more to advance the cause of sustainable energy than perhaps anyone.

A "climate change guy" would be someone who gets everyone to use a train or a bus, not a premium sedan.

Getting people to fight climate change by making their lifestyles worse is going to be a tough sell.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#743

Post by justin66 » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 4:39 PM UTC

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #23

> Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity' What almost alarms me more than the thought of a climate apocalypse is that I don't think this (a UN report) is going to have any effect on the opinions of 40% of the public who see climate change as some kind of job destroying conspiracy. Nothing short of Florida disappearing under the sea is going to make any difference, perhaps we (as a species) don't deserv…

> Nothing short of Florida disappearing under the sea is going to make any difference

You think that would be enough? Don't underestimate how many people would be willing to shrug off mass death and destruction of others if their tribe asked them to ignore it.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#744

Post by dont__panic » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 4:39 PM UTC

jimworm wrote: post #257

For all the carbon capture that the Devonian/Carboniferous period did over 100 million years, humanity undid a large part of it in 150 or so years. And now to preserve human civilisation in some form, the most direct way is probably to rebuild that carbon sink within a much shorter time. Much shorter than 150 years, not 100 million. Current carbon emissions are over 10 billion tonnes per year, so the capture speed wi…

There are 7 billion people on the planet. Couldn't we just... have everyone plant a few trees? Trees weigh something like a quarter of a ton+ when fully grown, and pull directly from the atmosphere. Even if we remove the 50% of people who live in cities without yards, if every rural human planted 5 trees a year we'd end up sequestering a lot of that carbon, right? I know it's not permanent but if you just keep planting trees you can easily buy yourself 20 years with the open space we have.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#745

Post by gruez » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 4:39 PM UTC

rebuilder wrote: post #697

habosa wrote: post #621

Just. Tax. It. We have warmed the earth because we love comfort and money. We will never stop loving those things. So instead let's use the same systems to fix this (or at least slow things down). As an individual my largest carbon impact is air travel. I like to go places, it's one of the main things I work to afford. Every single plane ticket I take should have a tax which is used to offset or capture the carbon em…

The problem is, just taxing CO2 emissions doesn't let you control who gets hit by the price increases. It could very well lead to increases in food and transportation costs that would be disproportionately burdensome to the poorest part of the population. Raising the cost of those items is politically very unpopular since it tends to cause unrest. So I think what we'll get instead is some complex system of first taxi…

>So I think what we'll get instead is some complex system of first taxing everything and then subsidizing some forms of consumption (again, food and transportation),

or just tax everything, then giving it back to everyone via a flat dividend?

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#746

Post by titzer » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 4:42 PM UTC

jimworm wrote: post #411

cnity wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In theory, a sink large enough to bring the Earth back to carbon neutral would be possible if the Sahara were reforested[0]: > The team's calculations suggest the forested deserts could draw down around 8bn tonnes of carbon a year, about the same as emitted from fossil fuels and deforestation today. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/nov/04/forests-d... Edit: > if insoluble carbonates could be synthesised fr…

Trees with their own conversion capacity are indeed a good interim solution, but in the long term this form of carbon storage isn't as permanent as rocks, especially given how prone trees are to dying and decaying in the biosphere of today. The Devonian didn't have that problem. For example, parts of the Amazon have become greenhouse gas emitters even when human-caused deforestation is discounted. There's also the ve…

Overall, we are actually very terrible at understanding global consequences. Earth as a dynamic system is just too big and interdependent. Yet Earth's biosphere has recovered from cataclysm after cataclysm. Usually at the expense of 90%+ extinction. A big reason the carboniferous period happened is because fungi had not yet developed the capacity to digest cellulose. We're in a different regime now, and there is no telling what will happen. But one thing I think is pretty clear: we aren't going to tech our way out of this and make up some magic carbon sink. So the Earth is probably headed for a really hot period with lots of carbon in the cycle, until it stumbles on a new way to sink it. Either that, or it will head towards a semi-permanent desert planet.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#747

Post by wolverine876 » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 4:42 PM UTC

jsonne wrote: post #360

If there is anything covid has taught me its that collective action isn't something we can rely on and is a lot more wishful thinking about the state of humanity rather than a sober look at the reality. Governments need to tax CO2 emissions on the business side and pour the money into carbon capture technology in the private space through investment and perhaps some sort of bounty program (you get $x for each ton you…

> collective action isn't something we can rely on and is a lot more wishful thinking about the state of humanity rather than a sober look at the reality

I understand that is a popular worry these days (and I understand why some might feel that way, given how troubling recent history is) but I think the news from history is much better than that - it's actually very good: In just the last half-century: Civil rights, women's rights, the overthrow of non-democratic regimes worldwide (E. Europe, S. Africa, S. Korea, etc. etc.), etc. In fact, the current reactionary (for lack of a better word) movement - the one that obstructs progress on Covid and climate change, among other things - is collective action to a significant extent.

It's interesting to me that as the tools for collective action have improved by orders of magnitude (i.e., the Internet and its applications), those tools are instead used to spread a message to depress action. More interesting is that the message only spreads on one side of the political world - the reactionaries aren't telling each other how useless and impossible their goals are.

Whatever the reason, it's very convenient for the status quo, for the people in power, that the public disavows their own ability to challenge them.

> The greatest hope I see for the future of humanity is the incentive for a brilliant mind/leader to become the next Bezos/Musk

From my perspective, what a depressing and self-demeaning outlook. We don't need some 'great person' to do it for us; we can do it. We can do it, right now, which means to first stop telling each other that we can't. Nothing can stop us, literally, except us not trying.

For centuries, the American story has been that we can accomplish anything together, that any person can make a difference. It's the faith behind Silicon Valley startups too. We've revolutionized politics, government, freedom, prosperity, technology ...

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#748

Post by titzer » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 4:43 PM UTC

Cycl0ps wrote: post #326

jimworm wrote: post #257

For all the carbon capture that the Devonian/Carboniferous period did over 100 million years, humanity undid a large part of it in 150 or so years. And now to preserve human civilisation in some form, the most direct way is probably to rebuild that carbon sink within a much shorter time. Much shorter than 150 years, not 100 million. Current carbon emissions are over 10 billion tonnes per year, so the capture speed wi…

I've thought about it myself and the best answer that comes to mind is clear-cutting entire forests, tossing that biomass down a mineshaft, and replanting to start the process over again. All this talk of planting trees removes atmospheric carbon, but until it's out of the system entirely we're one forest fire away from wiping out decades of carbon removal.

Do not clear-cut forests. You will obliterate the biome that is the understory. It's like giving yourself a haircut and removing your scalp down to the skull.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#749

Post by bpodgursky » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 4:44 PM UTC

ptkd wrote: post #740

merpnderp wrote: post #720

If anyone actually believed it was "code red for humanity" they'd be pushing nuclear power. There is zero chance of moving off carbon energy sources without causing catastrophic mayhem, unless we use massive amounts of nuclear. For instance, the last 4 years my state has averaged 37% production of total possible installed wind generation capacity. This is a very windy state which is in the top 2 for installed wind ca…

I see this take a lot, and it’s kind of misinformed. The primary drawbacks of nuclear are: 1) incredible slow to build. A typical plant takes ~20 years from decision to productionized 2) extremely expensive, with a massively frontloaded cost. By contrast, solar and wind are fast to install and now cheaper. > wind power can be zero at some parts of the day There are a few solutions to this actually. First, having a mo…

If it was actually code red, we would waive literally all safety regulations and environmental policy reviews, and break ground on new plants tomorrow. And cost would be no object.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#750

Post by brylie » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 4:47 PM UTC

dogma1138 wrote: post #45

brylie wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has any means of geoengineering been demonstrated as feasable? Given our track record, it would probably be best for us to scale back our consumption while promoting re-forestation. Nature can likely heal itself far better than our wildest geoengineering ambitions.

Yes, but it doesn’t mean carbon capture. The Netherlands cannot exist without geoengineering and more and more places are going to have to be building dikes and sea walls as flooding becomes a problem. Desalination would become more and more prevalent as we are dealing with droughts and we will likely have to engineer forests to be more resilient to forest fires by creating more and more clearings and other barriers…

Those examples are more conventionally considered "engineering" or "forest management." They are smaller-scale projects typically involving regional adaptation to adverse weather/climate.

Geoengineering is a bit different, typically on a larger scale:

> Climate engineering or commonly geoengineering, is the deliberate and large-scale intervention in the Earth's climate system.[1] The main categories of climate engineering are solar geoengineering and carbon dioxide removal.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering