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

91–100 of 349 posts

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

#91

Post by null0ranje »

skrebbel wrote: post #61
Yizahi wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that the key problem - all current "green" or "zero" tech is simply a trick, with shuffling emissions to other countries, selling-buying quotas, maybe reducing emissions a little in the best case. Until we have a working industrial scale CO2 sequestration factories we are essentially doing nothing, or close to nothing.

How are solar panels or windmills a trick?

I don't think solar panels or windmills are a trick, but I think OP was referring to "net zero" initiatives, which are not much more than accounting scams. Most carbon credits, if even verifiable, don't involve reductions but rather promises to not cut down existing forests for X years. Western countries are trying to do what they do best: buy their way out of a problem that takes actual effort.

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

#92

Post by ericmay »

benj111 wrote: post #80
ericmay wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> focus on pivoting to renewables and developing reliable fusion energy... You know that this would be accomplished through capitalism right? The more we rail against capitalism and free markets (which every successful country from Denmark to Australia uses) the less likely we'll ever be to solve any problems. The market is an unwieldy force that can be generally shaped in a direction by the people (purchasing decisi…

So what you're saying is that we should tax carbon so that it correctly reflects the externalities and let the market sort it out from there? Because currently capitalism has no interest in emissions because they don't cost anything. But that is a failure of capitalism, or at least our current incarnation of it. And it needs fixing to be part of the solution. You could blame government for not fixing the flaw, but th…

> So what you're saying is that we should tax carbon so that it correctly reflects the externalities and let the market sort it out from there?

I think carbon pricing is a great idea from what I've learned about it. Though, I disagree with you that the lack of carbon pricing is the fault of capitalism and I feel like you are kind of making that argument by saying that emissions don't cost anything so how would a market account for something with no price? I place that blame solely on governments for that.

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

#93

Post by klyrs »

zb1plus wrote: post #42
ericmay wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> focus on pivoting to renewables and developing reliable fusion energy... You know that this would be accomplished through capitalism right? The more we rail against capitalism and free markets (which every successful country from Denmark to Australia uses) the less likely we'll ever be to solve any problems. The market is an unwieldy force that can be generally shaped in a direction by the people (purchasing decisi…

I actually think capitalism and free markets are the most viable solution. The problem is "short-sighted" capitalism that focuses on quarterly "hand to mouth" profits as opposed to people seeing the long-term business opportunities that lie in pivoting to renewables. As much as I detest Elon Musk, I think making the eco-friendly option cool and desirable for reasons beyond environmental impact is one of the best ways…

BEVs aren't the eco-friendly option. Density, biking, walking, and mass transit are. Those still aren't "cool." Musk made a feel-good option profitable for himself. And don't even get me started on rocket fuel.

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

#94

Post by macspoofing »

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 is producing enough to power Scotland twice itself on Wind alone.

No they aren't. This is at best misleading, at worst, a blatant lie.

What is happening is that on days with strong winds, they are overproducing wind energy but ONLY at certain times of the day. When they overproduce this energy, they cannot store it for later (because there is no battery technology today, or in the near-to-mid future that is able to store that amount of energy), and they cannot give it away, so they lose it.

This kind of headline is very very common. This is how the public is continually lied to and thinks that wind/solar is just around the corner. It isn't. It's never going to be.

>Nuclear is extremely dangerous with toxic waste needing special storage facilities. Destruction if the plant is to melt-down. (chernobyl)? You need an external power source to power a nuclear plant. Nuclear also requires uninterruptible power.

If you don't like nuclear ... fine, but there is nothing else. So now what?

>Thorium reactors are a dream away, nice but not feasible as of the moment.

Agreed. Also Fusion is a pipe-dream at this point in time. So now what?

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

#95

Post by nathanaldensr »

newswasboring wrote: post #26

> "Into the classrooms, into the boardrooms, into the voting booth, over the dinner table. We cannot let go of climate change." I wonder if this is the right approach. It certainly is the approach we have been following for years. But I think that has just lead to empathy fatigue. Edit: added empathy

That quote sounds like a religion to me.

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

#96

Post by stjohnswarts »

eloff wrote: post #85
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…

You can build solar or wind plus some energy storage or long distance transmission to even it out for less than the price of nuclear and with income beginning quickly, not after 10 years. By the time nuclear projects started now complete, solar and wind will be mopping the floor with them ROI wise. Far from being a lie, we're in danger of them becoming the only game in town, for better or worse. Nuclear had so much p…

As long as you build 5-10x redundancy for solar/wind I don't see it, solar and wind are all over the place between the peak and valley outputs. Unless we find a "battery" storage technology that can smooth it out over say a couple of weeks, I don't think countries are going to go for it as the only grid power source. We have nuclear now, and climate change is a huge deal to solve, possibly end of human civilization huge. Note I didn't say solar and wind wouldn't be part of the mix,but as the sole source, it's not going to happen with a 10X or better leap in battery technology (energy density)

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

#97

Post by jakelazaroff »

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…

> Nuclear is extremely dangerous with toxic waste needing special storage facilities.

I don't think this is true. Nuclear power plants generate relatively little waste and we know how to store it safely.

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

#98

Post by Schroedingersat »

macspoofing wrote: post #53
Tuna-Fish wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not a surprise, since co2 is an oxide, and therefore very stable in the athmosphere. It would take a huge amount of energy to remove it, There is an exothermic reaction that removes CO2 from the atmosphere, the formation of carbonates from weathering of silicate rocks. As this is naturally very slow, there is currently ongoing research into multiple different ways to speed it up.

That doesn't change anything. You need a huge amount of energy to remove CO2 from the atmosphere because CO2 is a tiny constituent part of Air (~400ppm) - that means one has to move a million molecules of air across a collector (whatever that is) to remove 400 molecules of CO2. You can't do that without huge amounts of energy and a huge surface area for your collector ... on any human timescale.

The mass of air that moves past the existing fleet of wind turbines in a year is roughly a fifth of the mass of the atmosphere.

It is a civilisation sized project that will take a lifetime, but it is achievable.

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

#99

Post by anamexis »

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...

Right, which is why the headline says "no credible pathway"

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

#100

Post by RandomLensman »

taylodl wrote: post #64
radford-neal wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this is not known with "very high certainty". The most recent IPCC report (AR6) gives the "very likely" (90% probability) range for "equilibrium climate sensitivity" - the eventual effect on temperature of doubling CO2 - as between 2C and 5C. Current CO2 levels are less than double pre-industrial levels, so the "baked in" warming could well be less than 2C. Also note that reaching the equilibrium temperature take…

Ah, the ol' earth has been as warm or warmer before claim. This is true - absolutely true, but it misses one critical, I daresay crucial , point: earth's climate has never changed this rapidly in the past few million years. It's the rate of temperature change that's the problem, not necessarily the actual temperature itself since, as you've pointed out, earth has had these temperatures before. Given time, the biosphe…

How sure are we about "never" beyond recent geological history? The impact that finished of the dinosaurs must have brought some pretty rapid changes without killing off the entire biosphere. My understanding is that the stressed parts of the biosphere collapsed pretty quickly within a few generations. But I might be wrong.
Post reply on HN