Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Science Technology

IPCC Climate Change Report Calls For Urgent Action To Phase Out Fossil Fuels (bbc.com) 478

Posted by BeauHD from the time-is-running-out dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IPCC Climate Change Report Calls For Urgent Action To Phase Out Fossil Fuels More

IPCC Climate Change Report Calls For Urgent Action To Phase Out Fossil Fuels

Comments Filter:

  • 3 degrees C (Score:4, Funny)

    by Rei ( 128717 ) on Monday October 08, 2018 @05:30AM (#57443924) Homepage

    says global temperatures are heading towards 3 degrees C

    (Opens window and sticks hand outside)

    Yeah, sounds about right.

    • 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).

  • the planet doesn't "care"... (Score:5, Informative)

    by lkcl ( 517947 ) <lkcl@lkcl.net> on Monday October 08, 2018 @05:37AM (#57443938) Homepage

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Ultimately correct, but don't you want to keep living?
      If not, please reduce your carbon emissions to 0, immediately...

  • all of these warnings do nothing to incite change (Score:5, Informative)

    by Kwirl ( 877607 ) <kwirlkarphys@gmail.com> on Monday October 08, 2018 @05:47AM (#57443952)
    the world is run by corporations, not people. corporations are run by shareholders. a large part of the stock game is run by algorithms calculating and trading stocks for maximum efficiency. that algorithm does not care about the weather or the long term suitability of our planet.

    • Re:all of these warnings do nothing to incite chan (Score:5, Interesting)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Monday October 08, 2018 @06:55AM (#57444156) Homepage Journal

      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)

        by Mashiki ( 184564 )

        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

        • 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)?

    • "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?

      • 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.

        • 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.

    • 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.

    • the world is run by corporations, not people. corporations are run by shareholders.

      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)

    by MrKaos ( 858439 ) on Monday October 08, 2018 @05:56AM (#57443962) Journal

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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

      • 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, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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)

      by e3m4n ( 947977 )

      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

      • 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

    • 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,

      Interesting. How much does it cost them to produce a MW continuously for 8766 hours?

    • Re:Low externality baseload Solar (Score:4, Insightful)

      by blindseer ( 891256 ) <blindseer@noSPAm.earthlink.net> on Monday October 08, 2018 @09:14AM (#57444872)

      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

  • States could step in. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Monday October 08, 2018 @06:07AM (#57443992)

    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)

      by swb ( 14022 ) on Monday October 08, 2018 @06:42AM (#57444098)

      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)

        by atrex ( 4811433 )
        IIRC California's emissions standards exemption was the result of critical levels of air pollution in it's cities. The city air was so polluted that they had to do something to get it under control, and they managed to wring an exemption from the federal congress so that they could enforce their own standards. Of course, the current administration is now trying to do away with that exemption lock, stock, and barrel along with freezing the emissions standards at their currently levels.

        I think the states

  • Ironic (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08, 2018 @06:09AM (#57444000)

    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."

  • If only 10C rise could happen quicker. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08, 2018 @06:09AM (#57444002)

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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)

      by ledow ( 319597 ) on Monday October 08, 2018 @06:32AM (#57444062) Homepage

      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.

      • 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.

        • 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.

          • 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.

            • 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)

          by ledow ( 319597 )

          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

          • 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)

        by LubosD ( 909058 ) on Monday October 08, 2018 @07:17AM (#57444250)

        To my knowledge only one country in the world is coal-free on any regular basis (Germany?)

        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)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        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.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by atrex ( 4811433 )
        Ok, so how about we stop subsidizing fossil fuel production and new fossil fuel sites and then let the market take it's course? Renewable energy sources would already be cost competitive if there wasn't such a giant imbalance in government subsidies.

      • Re:WRONG. Do it with Cost and Money, not just fact (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Raenex ( 947668 ) on Monday October 08, 2018 @08:48AM (#57444706)

        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.

      • 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)

      by guruevi ( 827432 )

      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)

    by Applehu Akbar ( 2968043 ) on Monday October 08, 2018 @06:12AM (#57444008)

    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)

    by Framboise ( 521772 ) on Monday October 08, 2018 @06:26AM (#57444048)

    "ACT NOW IDIOTS" is indeed the most appropriate language for the stupids.

     

  • stop flying (Score:3)

    by bigtreeman ( 565428 ) <treecolin@gDALImail.com minus painter> on Monday October 08, 2018 @06:36AM (#57444072)

    Stop flying around the world for stupid fucking holidays

  • The current generation of leaders is going to leave an absolute garbage dump of a planet to the next generation--the Millennials.

    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).

  • mr burns nuclear will help you change coal to nuke

  • How about we just make some shade (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Pinky's Brain ( 1158667 ) on Monday October 08, 2018 @07:07AM (#57444220)

    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.

  • Well, this is it, the Big Common Threat. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by GameboyRMH ( 1153867 ) <gameboyrmh@@@gmail...com> on Monday October 08, 2018 @08:14AM (#57444482) Journal

    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.

Close