IPCC Climate Change Report Calls For Urgent Action To Phase Out Fossil Fuels (bbc.com) 478
The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued a report that says global temperatures are heading towards 3 degrees C, and that the original goal of keeping the rise under 1.5 degrees C will require "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society." While the window of opportunity is not yet closed, the prospect looks unlikely and hugely expensive. BBC reports: The critical 33-page Summary for Policymakers certainly bears the hallmarks of difficult negotiations between climate researchers determined to stick to what their studies have shown and political representatives more concerned with economies and living standards. Despite the inevitable compromises, there are some key messages that come through loud and and clear. "The first is that limiting warming to 1.5C brings a lot of benefits compared with limiting it to 2 degrees. It really reduces the impacts of climate change in very important ways," said Prof Jim Skea, who is a co-chair of the IPCC. "The second is the unprecedented nature of the changes that are required if we are to limit warming to 1.5C -- changes to energy systems, changes to the way we manage land, changes to the way we move around with transportation."
"Scientists might want to write in capital letters, 'ACT NOW IDIOTS,' but they need to say that with facts and numbers," said Kaisa Kosonen, from Greenpeace, who was an observer at the negotiations. "And they have." The researchers have used these facts and numbers to paint a picture of the world with a dangerous fever, caused by humans. We used to think if we could keep warming below 2 degrees this century then the changes we would experience would be manageable. Not any more. This new study says that going past 1.5C is dicing with the planet's liveability. And the 1.5C temperature "guard rail" could be exceeded in just 12 years in 2030. We can stay below it but it will require urgent, large-scale changes from governments and individuals, plus we will have to invest a massive pile of cash every year, around 2.5% of global GDP, for two decades. Even then, we will still need machines, trees and plants to capture carbon from the air that we can then store deep underground. Forever! In order to get to 1.5C, the report says the following will be necessary: Global emissions of CO2 need to decline by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030; Renewables are estimated to provide up to 85% of global electricity by 2050; Coal is expected to reduce to close to zero; Up to 7 million sq km of land will be needed for energy crops (a bit less than the size of Australia); and Global net zero emissions by 2050. As if this wasn't demanding enough, the report says that to limit warming to 1.5C, it will involve "annual average investment needs in the energy system of around $2.4 trillion" between 2016 and 2035.
If the planet reaches 2C of warming, coral reefs would be almost entirely wiped out and global sea-levels will rise around 10 centimeters more. "There are also significant impacts on ocean temperatures and acidity, and the ability to grow crops like rice, maize and wheat," reports The Guardian.
Further reading: Major Climate Report Describes a Strong Risk of Crisis as Early as 2040.
"Scientists might want to write in capital letters, 'ACT NOW IDIOTS,' but they need to say that with facts and numbers," said Kaisa Kosonen, from Greenpeace, who was an observer at the negotiations. "And they have." The researchers have used these facts and numbers to paint a picture of the world with a dangerous fever, caused by humans. We used to think if we could keep warming below 2 degrees this century then the changes we would experience would be manageable. Not any more. This new study says that going past 1.5C is dicing with the planet's liveability. And the 1.5C temperature "guard rail" could be exceeded in just 12 years in 2030. We can stay below it but it will require urgent, large-scale changes from governments and individuals, plus we will have to invest a massive pile of cash every year, around 2.5% of global GDP, for two decades. Even then, we will still need machines, trees and plants to capture carbon from the air that we can then store deep underground. Forever! In order to get to 1.5C, the report says the following will be necessary: Global emissions of CO2 need to decline by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030; Renewables are estimated to provide up to 85% of global electricity by 2050; Coal is expected to reduce to close to zero; Up to 7 million sq km of land will be needed for energy crops (a bit less than the size of Australia); and Global net zero emissions by 2050. As if this wasn't demanding enough, the report says that to limit warming to 1.5C, it will involve "annual average investment needs in the energy system of around $2.4 trillion" between 2016 and 2035.
If the planet reaches 2C of warming, coral reefs would be almost entirely wiped out and global sea-levels will rise around 10 centimeters more. "There are also significant impacts on ocean temperatures and acidity, and the ability to grow crops like rice, maize and wheat," reports The Guardian.
Further reading: Major Climate Report Describes a Strong Risk of Crisis as Early as 2040.
3 degrees C (Score:4, Funny)
(Opens window and sticks hand outside)
Yeah, sounds about right.
Re: (Score:3)
I guess they're right about the global warming thing because the thermometer outside my Canadian igloo is indicating 8C this morning (for the metric-impaired readers, that's 281.15 Kelvin).
Re:3 degrees C (Score:4, Insightful)
This hasn't been about oil in a long time. Biggest offender by far is coal. Coal is cheap, efficient and reliable. As long as you don't give a fuck about what happens to some people on the other side of the planet, it's great.
Which is why many developing countries are building it up en masse. So the real question is "how many East Asians and Africans are you willing to enslave and/or massacre to get the coal power generation down?"
Because the answer probably is "not nearly enough" if you're a person with even a shred of humanism.
the planet doesn't "care"... (Score:5, Informative)
y'know... the planet doesn't care if humans are on it or not. if we're all dead (cooked, starved, killed in food riots), the planet will be peaceful and recover from our cancerous pathological behaviour, soon enough. Agent Smith: "you humans are like a plague. a disease. and we? we... are the cure..."
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Ultimately correct, but don't you want to keep living?
If not, please reduce your carbon emissions to 0, immediately...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: the planet doesn't "care"... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's great; I fully support the efforts of anyone who decides to take themselves out of the gene pool. More room for my offspring.
Re: (Score:2)
the population problem seems to be self correcting
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/... [mirror.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: the planet doesn't "care"... (Score:2)
That totally sounds likea beer commercial.
all of these warnings do nothing to incite change (Score:5, Informative)
Re:all of these warnings do nothing to incite chan (Score:5, Interesting)
That's a very US-centric view. In the EU, for example, we have considerably more control over corporations. See our environmental and privacy protections, for example. We also tend to have more limits on the funding of political parties and the amount they can spend, which really helps keep things from getting as bad as the US.
Having said that, even in the US the corporations don't have total control. Look at emission limits on cars, surely if big oil and car manufacturers were running things those wouldn't exist.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, and you also suppress speech, political parties, and imprison people for saying mean words, and ignore criminality committed by particular racial/ethnic groups. It's sure working out well. But let's be realistic, because those limits on the funding of political parties work out about as well as nothing. See the most recent bit where several left wing parties, in various EU countries which held power loosened fundraising rules in order to get more money from corporate donors, then re-tightened the r
Re: (Score:3)
Funny thing about imprisoning people. Do you know which country has both the highest incarceration rate and the largest prison population (the latter actually higher than in the Soviet GULAGs)?
Re:all of these warnings do nothing to incite chan (Score:4, Insightful)
It's easy to have low gulag prisoner rates when most people simply die in the gulag(dead bodies don't count, and it keeps the ledgers clean). That's coming from someone who's grandfather spent 20 years in one for refusing to give his cows to "the state" oh and they demanded he provide the same next year.
Re:all of these warnings do nothing to incite chan (Score:5, Insightful)
Hardly, and depending on context "the EU" isn't even one single entity. But none the less, there are things that the EU does better than the US, and vice versa. Discussing them and learning from each other is a good thing, no?
Re: (Score:2)
The EU has more control over the rights of people, and government of signatory states then the Federal government of the US, or Canada has on the control of states or provinces. Pretending that the EU by design isn't meant to force signatories into a "single state" is the reason why there has been such a big backlash against it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently you aren't very good at reading. I'm not being a snob at all.
Yes, yes you are. When you make out you are better than someone or they are somehow worthless because of some ill defined 'what they are' metric that you decide. Even using a term like eurosnob invalidates the entire point you are trying to make and if you can't see that then you are a fucking idiot to boot.
Re: (Score:3)
Because you looked at one year's data and ignored a decades long trend to make your point, that's why.
Re: (Score:2)
Here are the official stats: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/... [europa.eu]
As you can see, there is a consistent downward trend. In the last couple of years things have stalled a little as parts of Europe start high levels of growth after the financial crash. So really it was artificially low post 2010, and this is something of a correction. But still, the overall trend is down.
We are on track to meet our Paris commitments as long as we keep working at it. We need to go even further than Paris of course.
Re: (Score:3)
Let's just remind ourselves that you are going apeshit
Hey Hey, lets not blow this out of portion. Seems to me he is just going a little batshit, but not at the apeshit level. Lets not ratchet this up THAT level if we can help it. :)
Re: (Score:3)
Soon to be two years data. Why is the EU increasing their carbon output?
That's probably Britain burning all our bridges.
Re: (Score:2)
"that algorithm does not care about the weather or the long term suitability of our planet"
Are you sure about that? Exactly how much of a profit do you think the algorithm calculates anyone making if everyone is dead? I'm sorry, this is just intellectual laziness on display here. We get it - you don't like corporations - but can you at least try to stop that from leading you into spouting nonsense?
Re:all of these warnings do nothing to incite chan (Score:4, Interesting)
Sadly the possibility of everyone being dead years from now is not considered by these algorithms. HFT bots don't consider what's going to happen beyond the next few seconds. Most companies don't look beyond the next few quarters - usually not beyond 1 quarter. Some industries like insurance look further ahead and are already taking global warming into account, but most don't.
Humanity is strapped to a machine that is indifferent to human suffering or ecological collapse and is dragging us toward catastrophe for our species and most of the life in the known universe.
Re: (Score:2)
Humanity is strapped to a machine that is indifferent to human suffering or ecological collapse and is dragging us toward catastrophe for our species and most of the life in the known universe.
A few years back I was at a meeting with an insurance company mahatma.
The figures are stunning, and if an insurance company is going to survive, they have to take the effects of AGW into account.
Or even if they don't believe in it - they have to take into account whatever is mimicking Sea Level Rise.
Re: (Score:2)
You're correct that typically trading algorithms do not explicitly factor in climate change. Liquidity provision algorithms or short term statistical arbitrage algorithms are largely indifferent. However if there is a large enough financial penalty for impacting the environment or climate change, then this data feeds into fundamentals models, and would be traded on. Trend models would then pick up on this as should discretionary traders.
Re: (Score:3)
No. I'd be happy with a proper accounting of the costs, rather than not accounting for it at all for over a hundred years and letting the problems be paid for by other people.
Isn't it the libertarian credo that the market should be able to decide? So let's make it an even market and have the polluter pay. Get rid of all subsidy, be it direct or indirect.
Re: (Score:3)
And shareholders are people. So you're saying that:
the world is not run by people
AND
the world is run by people
For what it's worth, if you have a 401k, it is very likely that YOU are a shareholder. It's utterly certain that I am a shareholder, in about a dozen companies, not counting 401k, IRA, and similar items that own shares....
Low externality baseload Solar (Score:5, Interesting)
Solar Reserve [solarreserve.com] have some great low externality base load solar power stations. The heat is stored in molten salt and is available when the sun goes down. Base load solar plant like this can be scaled up, I have no affiliation with them however I find their technology interesting.
Coupled with domestic, industrial and commercial P.V there is enough energy in the sun to build power infrastructure. Combined with the terawatts of power available with wind and geothermal does anyone think the oil and coal industry want this technology to be developed and advanced?
I reason that any form of massive dynamic grid will need a lot of intelligence to make the power available where it is needed, which means interesting technological avenues to explore, a massive explosion of information technology and, fortunes to be made as the economy changes. If we can overcome the economic inertia.
None of the criticisms of these technologies ever ask what it would take to build such infrastructures and all of the technologies look like they scale well. We know we can't continue the way we are going because we will die. This is not just about the planet - Save the Humans, the planet will be just fine.
The only rational conclusion is that the world is being run by complete anti-social psychopaths who actually want such an outcome, otherwise it would be done already. The excuses are less and less believable every day.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The only rational conclusion is that the world is being run by complete anti-social psychopaths
Sorry, but that is just a populist opinion. The other possible rational conclusion is that things are not as simple as they appear to you. Which do you think is more likely?
And in this case I can tell you why it is not that easy. Change costs money and shifts prosperity. Big changes do this on a large scale. Now, everyone wants what is best for this world, but everyone is also looking out for number one. That is not something to blame people for. It is inherent to human nature, driven by millions of years o
Re: (Score:2)
The only rational conclusion is that the world is being run by complete anti-social psychopaths
Sorry, but that is just a populist opinion. The other possible rational conclusion is that things are not as simple as they appear to you. Which do you think is more likely?
Option three - The world is populated by psychopaths.
Re: (Score:3)
And in this case I can tell you why it is not that easy. Change costs money and shifts prosperity. Big changes do this on a large scale.
Indeed it does. But the question is will the change caused by global warming/climate change cost you even more than doing something about it. Many people seem to think it won't but if what the climate scientists say is correct (and they get more things correct about it than wrong) the answer is no.
What is missing from most people's mindset is that a sort of roulette is being played out. As weather patterns shift, some areas that are now verdant will become jungles or perhaps deserts. As temperate zones move north some areas that are fringe civilization will become breadbaskets.
So good luck everyone. There will be big winners, and there will be big losers.
Now what I have seen is that if you press the deniers really hard, you'll find out they actually like the idea of warmth. Here in the soggy Nor
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As of today, the only clean air scalable tech that can replace coal and gas plants is nuclear.
But unfortunately, many have decided they'd rather fight against nuclear than reduce our emissions. Thanks to those folks, we've already lost the battle.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean thanks to the Americans who don't even realize they are the biggest problem and all the American trolls trying to pass the blame off to China.
China produces [wikipedia.org] more CO2 than America, by a large margin, and it's only going to increase.
Re: (Score:3)
most of the oil industry has already diversified into other energy production. So they're going to make money no matter what kind of electricity you're buying. But demand keeps trying to outpace supply. We cant have any sort of limits on fossil fuel consumption as long as stupid shit like crypto mining exists. It wastes energy for the pure purpose of wasting energy. In a single day, it consumes more power globally than a small island the size of Puerto Rico could reasonably consume in a year. The massive h
Re: (Score:3)
We need to revisit hydrogen as a means of energy transportation because some renewable energy sources are highly geographically limited.
Fast battery charging means that we should not be commercializing hydrogen yet, given its poor system efficiency today. Unfortunately the automakers have decided that they have to wring some profits out of their hydrogen research now. There's plenty of low-hanging fruit before we need to mess with hydrogen, and it can get better in the interim. Guess it doesn't matter what I think, though. Hydrogen cars are here (where "here" is defined as California, for now) already and they will probably continue to be a
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. How much does it cost them to produce a MW continuously for 8766 hours?
Re:Low externality baseload Solar (Score:4, Insightful)
Solar Reserve have some great low externality base load solar power stations.
It won't work. It can't work. I say this because it uses the same materials for the salt and piping as molten salt nuclear reactors and I've been told the salt will simply eat through the pipes and all you will have is an expensive mess.
Let's assume this solar salt thermal storage technology does work, then molten salt nuclear reactors will work. Research in one molten salt technology is directly applicable to the other. If these solar thermal plants gain any traction and prove the technology on molten salts then molten salt nuclear reactors will soon follow.
There's a big difference though between these molten salt technologies, nuclear power doesn't need sunny skies to provide power. The claims of being able to provide power through the night is not what I'm talking about, I mean that the nuclear reactor can run where it cannot ever see the sun. This can be above the Arctic Circle. This can be underground. This can be under the sea. On the moon. On Mars. These solar power collectors need land, and lots of it, for collecting the sun while nuclear does not. I've heard people claim these collectors can be on rooftops or the land underneath can be used for other purposes. I won't dispute this. I only say that the same applies to nuclear power, it can be put underneath anything. It can be under an airport, a military base, or a bunch of solar collectors. Land use is effectively zero for both but the power output per area is very low for solar but nearly unlimited for nuclear.
The only rational conclusion is that the world is being run by complete anti-social psychopaths who actually want such an outcome, otherwise it would be done already. The excuses are less and less believable every day.
That's not the only rational conclusion. Another is that the politicians that keep talking of our impending doom unless we do something don't believe their own words. If the powers that be in government believed that if CO2 output from human activity was not reduced dramatically now then they'd be pulling out all the stops on low CO2 energy regardless of the form it took.
Here's an example, the US Navy wanted some new nuclear powered warships. The Navy already has nuclear powered submarines and aircraft carriers but the use of nuclear powered destroyers and cruisers ended in the 1990s. The Navy wanted new nuclear powered cruisers because they offer advantages beyond simply not burning oil and contributing to the CO2 in the air, such as increased range and the ability to keep fighting without have to take on fuel from a much less battle capable oiler. Congress denied this as a matter of costs. Another example the US Coast Guard wants... that's not right, NEEDS new ice breakers to service scientific missions in Antarctica and to keep shipping lanes open for communities in Alaska, communities including military bases and their families. Congress won't replace the aging and continually in disrepair oil fired ice breakers with nuclear powered versions. Military bases domestically and around the world need reliable power that is not subject to the whims of foreign supplies of oil. Past administrations put up fragile solar collectors and windmills that interfere with radar used to detect incoming missiles and aircraft.
If these people were serious about solving the problems of reducing CO2 output, providing for energy independence, and assuring the military is effective in defending our national interests, then they'd be building nuclear powered ships and putting nuclear power plants on military bases, airports, seaports, and other vital facilities.
Perhaps I'm merely arguing the powers that be are a different kind of sociopath, they don't want to solve the problems but merely appear to be working towards those ends. This means a series of half-assed "solutions" that on the surface appear to be a means to make things better but in the
Re: (Score:3)
States could step in. (Score:5, Interesting)
While the US federal government has a distinct lack of political will change pollution, it is still possible for states to take action that will have a wide effect.
For example, a state could require an environmental tax on all products (including imports) that are equivalent to the cost the remove the pollution expelled in the production (or use) of the product. They could then use that money to fun CO2 capture systems. Naturally, you would want to ramp this up over a few years as to reduce the economic impact. While the demands of a single state would have a small impact, it would provide the political cover for other states to join in.
This would soon bankrupt coal power plants and quickly point power companies toward ramping up environmentally friendly power sources lest competition take their profits. So if some state politicians can just grow a pair and do this then we'll be on our way to environmental recovery.
Good progress is made by the brave, not the cowards who only think of themselves.
Re:States could step in. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the states are handcuffed by Congress' ability to regulate interstate commerce. States can't charge tariffs on imports from other states.
I honestly don't know how California was ever able to get away with its own emissions standards in the 1970s when up against the Big 3 automakers other than the obvious smog problems in LA making it clear something had to be done.
States have pretty good options for regulating pollution outputs but they're also often up against the economic realities of the cost of energy as a major factor in their local business economics, and the fact that a lot of power plants are owned by national companies. Force closed a big coal plant without anything to replace its baseload? Sure, but now you've tripled the cost of electricity and it won't be long before local businesses close or relocate because they aren't profitable at the new rates.
I never know how much of the "solar/wind is growing!!!11" hype to actually believe, but it's probably likely that the economics of it really are starting to make sense and the only way change will really happen is when the economics of it work.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the states
Re: (Score:3)
Ironic (Score:3, Insightful)
So they recommend people to use trains, fly less and use video conferencing. When they all flew to South Korea for their conference..
"All animals are equal, and some animals are more equal than the others."
Re:Ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
If only 10C rise could happen quicker. (Score:3, Interesting)
Speaking as a Canadian, a 10C increase would be quite nice(even tolerable in summer)... If we could hold back the climate refugees ;p
Permian–Triassic extinction event (Score:2, Informative)
No, that would be a Permian–Triassic extinction event, which was 8 degrees higher.
Literally the CO2 in the sea, chokes everything in the sea, it dies, decays,, sulphur fills the air, land animals die, 98% species wipeout. Everyone dead.
WRONG. Do it with Cost and Money, not just facts. (Score:2, Interesting)
Simply put, if you don't put this in terms of monetary impact to those involved (politicians, government) then you're going to get ignored.
There's nothing better than saying: If you do nothing, then your land with factory/plant X is going to be full of water and unusable - this means your businesses in that area (which probably lobby you) won't exist, and it'll cost this much to move them if you do nothing. Over time, this will multiply and become hugely expensive, certainly more expensive than doing some
Re:WRONG. Do it with Cost and Money, not just fact (Score:4, Interesting)
But... is it?
Is it ACTUALLY more expensive to not do anything? Certainly, morally, but in terms of actual solutions and their efficacy and the knock-on effects and the cost of implementations - the data is actually thin on the ground.
The Paris agreement is an example. Even if we all stuck to it, these same research bodies are now saying it's not enough.
If the cost of not-drowing-in-Waterworld is to actually make many modern conveniences so expensive and unobtainable, have we "won"? Is that "better"? Is people aren't being flooded out of the coastal regions, but nobody can afford their electricity bill, or medicines and oils and products and shipping is suddenly twice as expensive?
Everyone's done the "cost analysis" of not doing something. Nobody has (realistically) done the cost analysis of actually doing something that might work - or even really suggested what that is.
It's a huge bugbear to me. The solutions are half-assed casual suggestions ("release less CO2", "stop burning oil"), etc. but the COST of doing so is not just a number on a balance sheet. More old people will die in winter, more things we take for granted won't be practical, and the associated error-bars are HUGE because we just don't know what's going to happen.
I'm perfectly happy to trust in science and saying yes, this is happening, it's bad, it's caused by us. Let's take that as an "assumption" to work from even if you don't personally believe it.
Now what? What do we do that fixes it? We stop burning coal. Okay, what would that affect? To my knowledge only one country in the world is coal-free on any regular basis (Germany?), and that's still one of the countries most reliant on coal overall. It's ALWAYS fossil fuels. Then nuclear. Then biomass (trees!). Then all the other "renewable" sources.
So just a simple statement as "don't burn coal" drastically affects the economy and energy production of every country on the planet. That's going to knock into heating, cooling and industry before anything else. Which is going to kill people (even if only the elderly) and make everything more expensive.
And that's just one item. Taken together, do the effects of "let's just burn everything, ramp up energy and use that resource to find a better solution" actually kill less or more people over the next 100 years? We don't know. Few ever study the "other side" of the coin.
The problem with this kind of thing, which I wholeheartedly believe is conveying a necessary message, is that the message boils down to "DO THIS OR DIE!" and then someone in the crowd says "But... if we do that... do we not die anyway? Just in a different way, while destroying industry and society and causing more damage long-term?" And nobody has even the decency to look sheepish or say "Well, no, actually we looked and it wouldn't hurt at all if we did X instead".
The research into that side might exist, but it's certainly not being advertised and not being made popular and almost certainly not being done as rigorously or as seriously as the scaremongering.
I'd honestly like to know - if we do EVERYTHING - if we all get unanimous worldwide co-operation and overnight we all become vegans who wash their clothes on rocks, solar-power the entire world, never burn so much as a match again, pump all our energy resources into reversing the CO2 increase, recycle every plastic bag in every landfill in the planet, etc. etc. etc. - whatever loony ideas we can come up with - will that *actually* make it better than the alternative? Because I see drastically little evidence that way. I know we all say "it's there, it's what the scientists say"... but as I consider myself a scientist, I can't honestly look and say "I must recommend this path, or indeed ANY path, out of this mess, because it will be better than the thing we think might happen if we don't".
Everyone acknowledges the problem. The solution eludes us. And the cost-benefit analysis of any dream we can imagine is really "Er... dunno... probably not" at best.
Re: (Score:2)
Not doing anything is not a long term option, because the fossil fuels will run out, or become too expensive to exploit.
The question is not if we should move away from fossil fuels, but when.
Re: (Score:2)
Not doing anything is not a long term option, because the fossil fuels will run out, or become too expensive to exploit.
The question is not if we should move away from fossil fuels, but when.
That's easy. Society will move away from fossil fuels when there is a better option.
"Better" means cheaper, more efficient, readily available, suitable for purpose, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
That's easy. Society will move away from fossil fuels when there is a better option.
I wouldn't be so sure. Switching will take huge investments, not just in money but also in energy. If you wait until fossil fuels are more expensive, then switching also becomes more expensive.
It is entirely possible for a society to wait so long that they can no longer afford to switch.
Re: (Score:2)
That's easy. Society will move away from fossil fuels when there is a better option.
I wouldn't be so sure. Switching will take huge investments, not just in money but also in energy.
A better option takes migration issues into account. Few would buy LED light bulbs if they required new fixtures.
To a consumer electricity from a nuclear plant is identical to electricity from a coal plant.
But if other options cost twice as much and performed worse they wouldn't be 'Better'.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree 100%.
So what do you suggest? That we tax fossil fuel use to oblivion or stop it entirely.
Let's assume that we can go *snap* and all the fossil fuels are locked away from us and can't be touched for 100 years.
Now what? What do we do? What's the impact of that? How many people die of starvation or hypothermia while we sort it out? How long will the plans take to implement? What's the most practical replacement (NUCLEAR, don't argue otherwise)? How much do we need to ramp that up (double, maybe
Re: (Score:2)
So what do you suggest? That we tax fossil fuel use to oblivion or stop it entirely.
I suggest that we gradually phase out fossil fuels, starting in 1980. Take 30 years to do first half, and then another 30 years to do the second half. Increasing taxation sounds like a reasonable plan to make the market do the work in an efficient manner.
Let's assume that we can go *snap* and all the fossil fuels are locked away from us and can't be touched for 100 years.
That's the current plan. Keep using fossil fuels until they are too expensive, and then go *snap*. Where's your analysis of that situation ?
Re:WRONG. Do it with Cost and Money, not just fact (Score:5, Informative)
LOL, Germany? You mean the country that shut down its nuclear power plants for "safety" reasons only to have them replaced with coal power plants?
Re: (Score:2)
If the cost of not-drowing-in-Waterworld is to actually make many modern conveniences so expensive and unobtainable
It's not.
In fact it's probably cheaper overall, it's just that there are a lot of powerful people opposed to the re-balancing because they lose out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:WRONG. Do it with Cost and Money, not just fact (Score:4, Interesting)
Everyone acknowledges the problem. The solution eludes us.
Marine cloud brightening [wikipedia.org].
And the cost-benefit analysis of any dream we can imagine is really "Er... dunno... probably not" at best.
Ocean rise is currently the biggest economic impact, since so many people live on the coast. So keeping track of ocean levels is key.
Re: (Score:3)
Everyone acknowledges the problem. The solution eludes us.
The solution does not elude us. I've listened to many experts on energy and they all agree on several key points.
First key point, more nuclear power. Nuclear power is safe, costs are less than wind and solar, reliable, and has lower CO2 emissions than any other energy source we have. The nuclear power plants we have now are getting old and will need to be replaced. We will need to start building nuclear power reactors now so when it's time to retire these old reactors we have something to take their pla
Re: (Score:2)
They've been saying stuff like that for years and it never comes true. We humans are a genious bunch when it comes to survival. What scientist need to do is find an economic solution to the problem. What really is an affordable, acceptable solution? So far all we've heard is either limit reproduction severely (a la China's one child policy - that worked out great) or kill people en masse/let yourself be killed. The other alternatives are mass production of inobtainium and going back to a pre-industrial era
If only there were a dealmaker in the house (Score:3)
If such a person existed, he/she could organize a grand climate Panmunjom.
The right would have to admit that the greenhouse mechanism is plausible and that current data shows warming. There may be disagreement about exactly how much there is and at what point 'weather' becomes 'climate,' but it's out there, and growing.
The left would have to allow us to use all carbon-free technologies in addressing the problem, rather than just the ones that are tiny and cute. In the real world, we still need energy-usinh big cities and heavy industries.
Idiots (Score:3)
"ACT NOW IDIOTS" is indeed the most appropriate language for the stupids.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So you mean the stupids have taken control, so neither the rational nor the emotional discourse are working. Conclusion: we are doomed. My hope is that within Trump's supporters there are still some that will listen by either kinds of arguments, such that the rational discourse finally prevails.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Kavanaugh was elected because he was a highly qualified justice,
Highly qualified to suck corporate cock, anyway.
and the claims against him had zero corroboration
Fail, fail [go.com].
and in fact, the claimants (all of them) consistently changed their stories.
False.
The only idiots were the ones who chose to continue to believe the claims in such case.
Yeah, you're not an idiot, you're just morally bankrupt.
Re: (Score:3)
Brett Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court right now because the Democrats couldn't be bothered to properly handle a criminal accusation. This wasn't a question of his character, although that was certainly part of it, or a matter of his political slant. He was accused of a crime. The Democrats sat on this criminal accusation for weeks, maybe even months or years, rather than hand that off to the proper law enforcement agencies. They could have handed it off to the FBI but they would likely have simply han
stop flying (Score:3)
Stop flying around the world for stupid fucking holidays
Attitude of those in Power--I'll be dead (shrug) (Score:3)
Think I'm exaggerating? Australia just recently gave up [independent.co.uk] on its effort to meet its Paris climate agreement carbon reduction targets.
Lots of folks gonna' be packing up and moving to escape rising seas and suffocating heat (e.g., S. Arizona).
Re: (Score:2)
mr burns nuclear will help you change coal to nuke (Score:2)
mr burns nuclear will help you change coal to nuke
How about we just make some shade (Score:3, Interesting)
Spin a giant fresnel lens (or simply a diffuser) at L1 to shade the earth, like was already suggested in 2004 by Gregory Benford. He said you could use plastic, but I have my doubts that would survive very long. Aluminium oxide maybe? L1 delta v isn't much higher than LEO, so with SpaceX costs this should be doable for 10s of billions in lift cost.
A fraction of the opportunity cost of destroying the global economy and triggering WW3.
Re: (Score:2)
Ocean acidification is still a problem, though. Potentially more serious than global warming.
Well, this is it, the Big Common Threat. (Score:4, Interesting)
This is the massive threat to humanity we've seen in sci-fi movies, usually represented by an invading alien species or some massive natural(ish) disaster, but in real life it was our own pollution that first posed a huge threat to us all.
And now we see how we react as a species to that threat. We didn't temporarily put aside our differences to work toward a common goal as fiction has often speculated. Instead most people kind of brushed the problem off and went back to focusing on the small-scale problems in their own lives, and a few people convinced themselves that the threat was made up and we'd all be fine. When we already had a good idea of how dangerous this threat was, those people elected a raging moron who shared their collectively suicidal beliefs to what was at the time the most powerful political office in the world.
The biggest threat to humanity is ourselves. Working to optimize our societies into what is effectively a perfect breeding ground for psychopaths over the last few hundred years (and especially over the last few decades) has been biting us in the ass the entire time and is about to finally rip out our throats.
I think our only hope is a millennial-driven political revolution - vote out every conservative everywhere across the globe, and put something between social democrats and democratic socialists in power so we can refocus our societies on benefiting as much of humanity as possible and defeat the incredibly short-sighted and largely detrimental business interests driving us to collective ruin.
Re:I think global warming is caused by gays (Score:5, Funny)
I'm goinga build an ark
I'd finish your wall first, Don.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You only need to stay in the middle of the hurricane, there is plenty of room there. The eye of the hurricane is pretty comfy!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You only need to stay in the middle of the hurricane, there is plenty of room there. The eye of the hurricane is pretty comfy!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
That works until the eye moves over land, which never happens right?
Re: Phase Out IPCC Instead (Score:5, Informative)
Cue obligatory XKCD on climate, in another probably vain attempt to educate the dunderheads:
https://xkcd.com/1732/
Re: It's getting hotter (Score:5, Informative)
"My fear is if North Korea nukes us, Trump gonna get us into a war" - Maxine Waters
You realize she never said that [snopes.com], right? She said nothing even close - it's not an honest mistake or a misquote but just pure fabrication. I know it doesn't matter in this post-truth world but there are plenty of other cringe-worthy quotes available, so why go for a fake one?
You're not wrong (Score:4, Funny)
I have a cousin who works as an enviromental consultant - helps small companies reduce their carbon footprint. But every year she takes at least 2 long haul holidays with her bf, usually to the far east. But wait, thats ok according to her - because once they get their they don't hire a car but cycle around! No, I'm not making this shit up. And yes, she's a millenial.
Did you even look at the numbers ? (Score:5, Informative)
4000 miles not 8000 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, 640 kg is a lot. So you think that it's acceptable to fill two bathtubs with jet fuel and setting them on fire for entertainment?
The guy commuting by car is bad too and he needs to use a different transport or live closer to work even if this means living in a smaller space. You can't justify a bad activity by comparing to another bad activity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Has anyone seen the UK TV mini series Utopia?
The episode where the guy is chatting to a mom with a kid at a bus station, and she says she is taking the bus because of the environment. and then he launches into a stone cold monologue regards, so then why did you have the kid?
And does anyone remember how this all used to be about population growth? Films like ZPG, made in 1972?
We ran out of time when the Earth's carrying capacity was exceeded by cheating humans, around 12,000 years ago when we invented agricu
Rationalization ..... (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, your story is a great example of why most people aren't really making an effort to change behaviors over climate change concerns. .... These things are relatively non-negotiable. Most of us only have so much income we can spend on things, and making more requires MORE energy usage. Maybe you start a service business as a side job or second job? Well, now you're traveling around to client sites in your spare time and running errands for needed supplies to do the work. With the high cost of such propositions as switching your vehicles to electric cars, it's out of financial reach for many people still.
At the end of the day, we need to use a lot of energy to accomplish the things in life we want to do. Everything from taking those trips to visit family or friends to the daily work commute needed to earn a paycheck
The biggest changes will only come about as the primary energy sources are converted over from burning fossil fuels. The power generation plants are actually doing this, but it's a very slow process that's (perhaps ironically) slowed down quite a bit by all the legal requirements for things like "environmental impact studies" - foisted upon the utility companies by the likes of Greenpeace. The main solution will probably be nuclear power - which is the toughest one to put online without a lot of resistance from environmental groups.
Honestly, I feel like I've almost over-extended myself already, financially, investing in some of these "Green" solutions. I put as many PV solar panels on my roof as the company could fit, using the most efficient ones per square foot available at the time. I traded in a Jeep and a sports car to get a used Tesla S. And I just took out a loan to do some home repairs that included ripping down the old siding and material behind it and replacing it with better insulated, modern materials. So hopefully, that cuts down on my winter heating bill and energy usage. So I'm going to sleep well at night that I've done my share. But realistically, all of this is a tiny drop in the bucket in the big picture -- even if it's a huge chunk of my total income.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a cousin who works as an enviromental consultant - helps small companies reduce their carbon footprint. But every year she takes at least 2 long haul holidays with her bf, usually to the far east. But wait, thats ok according to her - because once they get their they don't hire a car but cycle around! No, I'm not making this shit up. And yes, she's a millenial.
As long as they post the vacay pics on FB to show the rest of us how sad our lives are by comparison, it's all OK.
Because they care ...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
STFU [skepticalscience.com].
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Is this temperature graph showing the temperature data before or after NOAA's retroactive 'corrections' to the temperature record [fsu.edu]? It's curious that all the corrections make historical temperatures colder and recent temperatures warmer [forbes.com]. Almost as if they needed to fudge the data so that the 'global warming crisis' wouldn't fizzle out in the face of lack of evidence.
Re: What is the correct temperature (Score:3)
Please, please keep educating yourself about this:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/ex... [carbonbrief.org]
The first link you have up there is for the US southeast which is a noisy outlier in temperature trends compared to the global climate. Southeast US trends are not representative of the world.
Those temperature adjustments made by NOAA are tiny compared to the scale of the temperature rise over the past 40 years (see link above). And they result in *less* cooling since 1900 instead of more.
Re: (Score:3)
But that aside I'm going to ask the same question I continue to ask - what is the correct temperature and who gets to decide?
It's a meaningless question. There is no "correct temperature". The real question is what temperatures are compatible with maintaining a complex global civilization? We've built this civilization on a certain temperature regime and changing temperatures are going to cause costly adaptation to the new regime. It's not clear yet just how costly that adaptation will be but chances are it's going to be a lot more than you seem to think.
CO2 cannot be responsible for the presented temperature increase because 1 molecule out of 2500 can't increase ambient temperature by that much,
Not that crap again. When a CO2 (or other GHG molecule) absorbs an infr
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Background noise (Score:5, Insightful)
now simply background noise
Their doom and gloom warnings have always been about the distant future, and they continue to be. This isn't about people proclaiming the end of the world is near, and then the date passes with nothing happening. The claims they have made about the near-time have actually come to pass - actual observed global warming is well within the predictions made by their models. There is no reason to doubt that they will get less accurate with time and refinement.
having been adjusted and interpolated time and again
Of course it's been adjusted and interpolated - how else to you normalize inputs from more than one source? They don't have perfect data; it's all observational science. They don't have lots of earths to experiment on, or the ability to jump back in time with proper instrumentation.
each one passes without the world ending
Provide even a single example of this.
Re: (Score:3)
Worse, better... these are usually compared against the averages. In reality, everything - temperature estimates, predictions, ocean levels - have pretty large error ranges [skepticalscience.com]. For the most part, actual measurements are falling within the error bars of the predictions.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know what point you are trying to make.
Also, no one wipes my ass - I force the servants to lick it clean.
What? WHY ARE YOU STARING AT ME?
Re:Background noise (Score:5, Insightful)
in the larger fight between those who believe in Complete Government Control and those who believe in Individual Freedom.
Is there no one in between those two world views? Why is politics always a fight between extremists with voices of reason being excluded from the contest? Climate change should have nothing to do with politics, except that so money have placed their political fortunes on denying climate change.