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

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

#971

Post by elproxy » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 7:24 AM UTC

jasonlaramburu wrote: post #840

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…

>Those periods of near zero production can last non-trivial amounts of time no realistic battery could provide for There are many options (electrochemical, gravity etc) for grid-scale energy storage of various durations that are commercially-viable today. 0-8 hours tends to be the most needed duration in the US but there are solutions that can store power for days or weeks without losses. Even in a 100% nuclear or ga…

Besides the fact that electricity generation is merely one aspect of GHG emissions (hello agriculture, land use, transportation, etc). The ultimate argument against the "let's not radically change our ways and only retool the engine" view is the following: we have ~120 years of known reserves for the current fission reactors, with a potential 10x multiplier with fast neutron reactors should anybody (other than the russians and the chinese) bother to invest into researching the field. How many more doublings in our economy (and hence energy use) does it take to consume it all ? At a measly (by economists and politicians standards) rate of 2%/year, you get a doubling every 35 years. in 350 years (yeah I know this sounds very far in the light of the current news) we'd have increased our demand by 3 orders of magnitude...

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

#972

Post by kottaram » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 8:43 AM UTC

Humanity has basically evolved with the innovation in technology in the last 50 years. Of course there's gonna be a 2 degree change in climate. I cant believe the author of the article is trying to compare the last 50 years with every other 50 year period in 2000 years lol.

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

#973

Post by cnity » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 8:52 AM UTC

titzer wrote: post #741

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…

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

In a sense, ecological engineering _is_ tech. But trees are the most perfect tool for the job of carbon capture. They don't even require much maintenance!

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

#974

Post by whiddershins » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 10:44 AM UTC

daxfohl wrote: post #765

whiddershins wrote: post #436

The notion that humanity would go extinct from any of this is absolutely unrealistic. What we are talking about is at worst massive economic damage and loss of life, similar to a very serious war. Which is horrible, but really not the threat it is made out to be. Moreover, since these changes happen relatively slowly (compared to bombs and such) much of the loss of life can be mitigated. So we are talking economic da…

I think there's a reasonable chance of that. We'll figure out different crops to grow, we'll move away from deserts, etc. It may be hard, life expectancy may fall steeply, but we'll adapt largely intact, and then we'll eventually run out of fossil fuels anyway. But if you look at what's happening in the Great Barrier Reef. It's dying. The ecosystem is dying from the bottom, and nothing on top can survive either. I th…

You should research this more deeply.

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

#975

Post by wizardofdos » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 10:54 AM UTC

outworlder wrote: post #908

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…

> If anyone actually believed it was "code red for humanity" they'd be pushing nuclear power In theory. I used to say the same thing until recently. Now, I'm not sure. Let's say we decide that yes, nuclear is the way to go, as it provides a lot of energy with barely any pollution (other than mining and construction). The 'waste', while a problem, is inconsequential compared to spewing crap in the atmosphere. Let's al…

No we don't.

We have to reduce comsumption, and not just a bit but by a lot.

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

#976

Post by nosianu » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 11:19 AM UTC

zabatuvajdka wrote: post #393

nosianu wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s just so hard to know what actions have what impact on CO2 production Not really. For some reason the actually quite simple problem is needlessly complicated in the discussions. Stop digging up ANY carbon from below ground where it was safely buried. Any carbon above ground is part of the cycle that includes atmospheric CO2. You need huge effort to change how much of it is in CO2 form at any time while still ha…

I think the broader problem is the human mental condition. One of the largest contributors to global emissions is large scale factory farming but how many people are going to stop eating at McDonalds? Point being: people’s habits need to change across the board, but yet they argue that policy makers have no right dictating what they can/can’t do… If you ask a big business owner to halt production in the name of clima…

> One of the largest contributors to global emissions is large scale factory farming

Unlike digging up carbon from below ground any activity involving only the carbon already above ground does not make the problem nearly as much worse, if at all.

Unless you mean the energy cost for that farming, which is mostly based on using fossil fuels? Which I don't think is a problem specific to animal farming (which of course should be reformed for ethical and health reasons alone) but to almost all farming all over the world. "Plant farming" is not carbon neutral either because it too requires a lot of fossil fuel input. So I don't think mixing problems and targeting only and specifically animal farming, which should be targeted for different reasons, is not helpful because it misdiagnoses the hearth of the problem of current farming techniques relying on ancient deeply buried sun energy instead of only using current sun energy (like the plants themselves do, but our processes don't).

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

#977

Post by nosianu » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 11:25 AM UTC

grumblenum wrote: post #369

nosianu wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s just so hard to know what actions have what impact on CO2 production Not really. For some reason the actually quite simple problem is needlessly complicated in the discussions. Stop digging up ANY carbon from below ground where it was safely buried. Any carbon above ground is part of the cycle that includes atmospheric CO2. You need huge effort to change how much of it is in CO2 form at any time while still ha…

Ah, so we just eliminate low-cost transportation, agriculture, textiles and consumer goods and consequently starve billions of people. A modest proposal for such an ill-specified problem with unfalsifiable causes. I like it.

I did not propose anything. I pointed out what the actual problem is. If you want to refute that, feel free.

Just because the problem is practically unsolvable does not equal it cannot be said out loud. Carbon above ground is going to increase and at most we can lower the speed of extraction, and until we have (sun-based energy) methods at scale to bring carbon back underground we will have to live with ever increasing CO2 levels.

A change in trend to more getting buried than brought up (full stop first is impractical, plus methods will have to be developed and tested step by step) is not even on the horizon of the most optimistic scenarios.

There are lots of people equating making the statement with "you say we should just do nothing" (I did not tell anyone about what they should/can/cannot do?) or with comments like yours, which is strange but very human.

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

#978

Post by nosianu » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 11:26 AM UTC

rich_sasha wrote: post #228

nosianu wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s just so hard to know what actions have what impact on CO2 production Not really. For some reason the actually quite simple problem is needlessly complicated in the discussions. Stop digging up ANY carbon from below ground where it was safely buried. Any carbon above ground is part of the cycle that includes atmospheric CO2. You need huge effort to change how much of it is in CO2 form at any time while still ha…

You're describing the objective function, but ignoring the constraints. Stop digging up coal - fine. Cut off power to people who have no other power sources? Erm... What about emergency diesel generators for hospitals, diesel use for shipping goods (lowest-carbon-emitting means of transport). It's just not that simple.

I did not tell anyone what they should or should not do!

Also see my reply here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28127454

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

#979

Post by mempko » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 11:44 AM UTC

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…

Carbon taxes are pushed by the fossil fuel industry precisely because they are politically untenable. They push for the solution they know isn't going to happen.

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

#980

Post by mempko » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 12:18 PM UTC

whimsicalism wrote: post #253

oliwarner wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we all have a fairly good idea of some things that would help, it's the scale we struggle to comprehend. But even if you could find out the magic threshold for what it would take , if there's anything that lockdown and covid restrictions in the UK have taught me in the past 18 months, it's that we all need to follow the rules or it's pointless. It's so disheartening to see others not pay these taxes, to not r…

> If we're not all in this together, what's the point? The point is that while we are squabbling over the most fair division of the burden, we are screwing future generations. Qatar has 0.03% of the worlds population. We can't let climate renegade states preclude us from taking action, and we can't sit around until we have a world government.

Yes, but what if the biggest empire in the world, the USA, is the renegade state?