Greenhouse Gas Emissions Are Still Rising, UN Report Says 263
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR: Greenhouse gas emissions have risen steadily for the past decade despite the current and future threat posed by climate change, according to a new United Nations report. The annual report compares how clean the world's economies are to how clean they need to be to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change -- a disparity known as the "emissions gap." However, this year's report describes more of a chasm than a gap. Global emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases have continued to steadily increase over the past decade. In 2018, the report notes that global fossil fuel CO2 emissions from electricity generation and industry grew by 2%.
"There is no sign of [greenhouse gas] emissions peaking in the next few years," the authors write. Every year that emissions continue to increase "means that deeper and faster cuts will be required" to keep Earth from warming more than 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. [...] The United States is currently not on track to meet its greenhouse gas reduction commitments under the Paris Agreement, which the United States ratified and is technically still part of until its withdrawal takes effect in November 2020. According to the new report, six other major economies are also lagging behind their commitments, including Canada, Japan, Australia, Brazil, the Republic of Korea and South Africa. What's interesting is that China's per capita emissions are now "in the same range" as the European Union, thanks to the country's large investments in renewable energy such as solar and wind.
Some of the recommendations for how the world's top economies could cut emissions include: banning new coal-fired power plants, requiring all new vehicles to be CO2-free by 2030, expanding mass transit and/or requiring all new buildings to be entirely electric.
"There is no sign of [greenhouse gas] emissions peaking in the next few years," the authors write. Every year that emissions continue to increase "means that deeper and faster cuts will be required" to keep Earth from warming more than 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. [...] The United States is currently not on track to meet its greenhouse gas reduction commitments under the Paris Agreement, which the United States ratified and is technically still part of until its withdrawal takes effect in November 2020. According to the new report, six other major economies are also lagging behind their commitments, including Canada, Japan, Australia, Brazil, the Republic of Korea and South Africa. What's interesting is that China's per capita emissions are now "in the same range" as the European Union, thanks to the country's large investments in renewable energy such as solar and wind.
Some of the recommendations for how the world's top economies could cut emissions include: banning new coal-fired power plants, requiring all new vehicles to be CO2-free by 2030, expanding mass transit and/or requiring all new buildings to be entirely electric.
Obvious we won't meet 1.5C target (Score:5, Interesting)
The question is just how much farther past 3C we're going to go, and which unanticipated feedback loops will drive it over 4C without us being able to stop them.
Re: (Score:3)
From the present and ongoing inability to do anything effective, _despite_ the problem being known for something like 30 years now, I conclude we will rush right past 4C, no unanticipated effects needed.
Re: (Score:2)
I see people who are sitting in their cars idling in parking lots all the time, regardless of weather. In Oklahoma, people don't even turn off the car engine when they're in front of the gas pump and have the hose connected and they're filling the gas tank. The vehicle at that point is _not_ going anywhere, yet it's still on. That's just one type of purposeless burning of fossil fuel.
Then there are the leaf blowers. I saw someone using a leaf blower on leaves that were on a grassy lawn in a park. Those leav
Re: Obvious we won't meet 1.5C target (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Obvious we won't meet 1.5C target (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm saying of all the inefficient and stupid things we do that falls reaaaally low on the list. Using that as a example weakens the greater message.
It's a lot more than you would think. [slashdot.org]
Re:Obvious we won't meet 1.5C target (Score:4, Informative)
Then there are the leaf blowers.
This this this. Leaf blowers. There is always some asshole who wants to use one on a Sunday morning at 7am. They blow the leaves onto their neigbors yard who then blows them back. Now a petrol power leaf vacuum, that's ok, but leaf blowers are a useless invention by comparison.
I see people who are sitting in their cars idling in parking lots all the time, regardless of weather.
This, this, so fucking this. A pet peeve of mine. Idle idiots sitting in their cars, idling, AC on on a perfectly fine day posting on FB, so it's not just in the US.
1.2ml to start a 1.5 cc engine and after seven seconds of idling it is more fuel efficient to shut off the engine according to Society of Automotive Engineers [sae.org]
Engineering Explained has a great youtube vid that explains it. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It's too early to give up yet. People said we couldn't get this far.
I wish I could find the link now but there was a comment on Slashdot maybe a decade ago about how electricity was going to become something only intermittently available, when the sun was out or the wind was blowing. Everyone would have to live a basically agrarian lifestyle, giving up all modern technology.
You could argue that so far it's been the low hanging fruit, but I'd say there is still a lot we can do. Serious efforts to plant huge
50 cent army marches on (Score:3, Informative)
>What's interesting is that China's per capita emissions are now "in the same range" as the European Union, thanks to the country's large investments in renewable energy such as solar and wind.
The pro-Chinese spin is strong in this one. Here's what story actually says:
>Meanwhile, China's greenhouse emissions have continued to grow, although they appear to be on track to peak before 2030, which is the target date that Beijing set for itself. The new U.N. report points out that per capita emissions in China are now "in the same range" as the European Union.
Those of you who don't know: Paris agreement encourages countries like China to grow their emissions as much as they can until 2030, because that's going to be the base level from which they count emission reductions after that.
That is of course if China suddenly makes a dramatic change in its policy after 2030 and actually starts to meet its international obligations when its not aggressively forced to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
the actual take on this is that if they hadn't made the large investments in renewables then their per capita usage would be through the roof like USA's per capita usage.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not feel good bullshit. They're a desperate hail mary to get everyone on board. Because the problem is global and solution has to be global. And the only way to get nations like China on board is to basically set the agreement to function in a way which will give such nations a tremendous competitive advantage over competition.
It's basically a question of priorities. Do you prioritise slowing down global warming over everything else? You do Paris Accords. Do you think that there are other relevant p
Re: (Score:3)
Do you prioritise slowing down global warming over everything else? You do Paris Accords. Do you think that there are other relevant priorities, such as maintaining a competitive economy? Then you don't.
That's a false dichotomy, but it's at least a prevalent one. What the global warming crowd needs to recognize is that climate change and the economy are intrinsically linked. If you want to implement emission restrictions, it has to make economic sense. Further, compromising the economy in order to implement these restrictions will merely result in an economic environment where people are more likely to ignore any such restrictions.
Recognize that the two are linked, and develop any solutions from that pr
Re:50 cent army marches on (Score:5, Insightful)
Recognition is hard because a core constituency in modern Green movement is anti-scientific. That same crowd that is voted in that just issued a condemnation of nuclear energy as extremely polluting in European Parliament.
To be able to get this crowd behind you, you must appeal to their emotions and their biases. Many of which are extremely counterproductive to addressing challenges of global warming.
Re: (Score:2)
The environmentalists are anti-scientific!
Now let's go back to ignoring the finding of all climate scientist because somebody else was wrong.
I'm not sure what the point is. Yeah some environmentalists are wrong about nuclear power and some are complete nutjobs that want us to live in the caves. But at this point nuclear is too expensive and slow to ramp up, so instead of doing the next best available thing... we should do nothing?
Re: (Score:3)
The previous post accused environmentalists of being anti-scientific on the basis of some people being against nuclear power.
I've seen this argument on /. before - if nuclear isn't feasible for cost and/or regulatory reasons, clearly these "climate people" don't really care about climate change. Therefore, we shouldn't look into other methods of reducing greenhouse emissions. This is how science is ignored, because someone's pet solution isn't getting the traction they think it deserves. Or, you know, it's
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a false dichotomy, but it's at least a prevalent one. What the global warming crowd needs to recognize is that climate change and the economy are intrinsically linked. If you want to implement emission restrictions, it has to make economic sense.
There is some truth to this. But its not the relevant factor here. Say we magically can make solar panels or windmills cheaply enough to make them economically viable without subsidies. We still couldn't solve the CO2 problem because we don't have the materials or land to make or deploy enough of those panels or windmills to replace even 10% of the energy we get from fossil fuels. Only being serious about nuclear and specifically newer nuclear designs can make a dent in what we get from fossil fuels cur
Re:50 cent army marches on (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong on all accords.
Wind and solar is cheaper already.
Texas coast and deserts could power the world with wind (at he coast) and solar (in the deserts) multiple times over.
Germany already produces 48% of its power with renewables, some countries are even higher.
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong on all accords.Wind and solar is cheaper already.
Texas coast and deserts could power the world with wind (at he coast) and solar (in the deserts) multiple times over.Germany already produces 48% of its power with renewables, some countries are even higher.
Clearly you didn't even read my post. I was discussing the energy and materials only, not cost. Also, Germany's production capacity is 48%. Its renewable energy production (amount of energy actually produced) is more like 15%. And they import about 10% of their energy from France in the form of nuclear. And if wind is so cheap, why when subsidies are removed does its new construction rates collapse? And finally, why are you so determined to be part of the problem? You are second to only Amimojo in you
Re: (Score:3)
Don't forget every building has a roof and if every roof that can support solar is used in conjunction with battery storage then you don't need much other land. You are thinking in the terms that renewable power generation needs to be done in the old fossil "all eggs in one basket" way and create a huge power station to serve lots of customers. Renewables like solar is best done in a distributed way which then can be linked together into local micro grids
Re: (Score:2)
Germany's renewable electricity production is a third of its total electricity production. The renewable share of the primary energy consumption, which includes all non-electric uses of energy, is 14%. Nuclear's share of that is just 6%. Germany is also a net exporter of electricity. It exports more electricity to its neighbors than it imports. Wind energy construction collapses due to political uncertainty, because the zoning requirements are being changed.
Re:50 cent army marches on (Score:4, Informative)
Not the OP, but it is actually 46% production [energy-charts.de], this year so far.
For reference, the previous years have been:
So it's clear that large changes can be made in relatively short periods where there is the political will.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany produced last year 48% of its electricity, with renewables. ...
This year it seems we are above 50%
Germany is a net exporter of energy, who the funk cares what we import from France? Most of the time France is a net importer from Germany ... that is how it goes in an international grid with a special power exchange ... we all export and import. No idea why americans can not grasp that simple concept.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't really worth reading past that, honestly. Your argument goes to crap when you start by labelling a situation that already exists as "magic."
Re: 50 cent army marches on (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: 50 cent army marches on (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Renewable Energy Will Be Consistently Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels By 2020, Report Claims
The cost of renewable energy is now falling so fast that it should be a consistently cheaper source of electricity generation than traditional fossil fuels within just a few years, according to a new report from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).
The organisation – which has more than 150 member countries – says the cost of generating power from onshore wind has fallen by around 23% since 2010 while the cost of solar photovoltaic (PV) electricity has fallen by 73% in that time. With further price falls expected for these and other green energy options, IRENA says all renewable energy technologies should be competitive on price with fossil fuels by 2020.
Re: (Score:2)
"Wind and solar is cheaper already."
Tell that to the recyclers.
The majority of a panel's mass is landfill.
And they're now finding out the reinforced blades from turbines actually damage the equipment trying to break it down.
And this'll become an even larger problem in the future.
The main problem with Wind and Solar is still storage.
Re: (Score:2)
Wind and solar is cheaper already.
In my own back yard(Ontario) in CAD for profitable operation: Nuclear $0.0885kWh, Hydro-electric 0.0325kWh, Natural Gas 0.0655kWh, Oil 0.1055kWh, W2E 0.1125kWh
Prior to FiT contract cancellations: Solar 0.3885-2.45kWh, Wind 0.35-1.85kWh
No, solar and wind is not cheaper. It's also not cheaper in Germany where people are still paying at a consumer level of 0.25-059kWh for it, because FiT drives up residential costs and has minimal impact on industrial costs as they buy blocks of electrical power at specific
Re: (Score:2)
Say we magically can make solar panels or windmills cheaply enough to make them economically viable without subsidies.
Which country's energy policy are you referring to? In the US those subsidies are in the form of input tax credits to coal and oil companies that they use to offset their carbon emissions.
In isolation, specifically funding wind comes from standard business funding, IIRC and is not a part of US energy policy at all.
In comparison nuclear gets huge amounts of subsidies.
Re: (Score:3)
Say we magically can make solar panels or windmills cheaply enough to make them economically viable without subsidies.
No need to "say" that, we can do it already. Subsidy-free wind is a thing in Europe.
It's the cheapest source of energy by far because every other source is subsidised.
we don't have the materials or land
We have the materials and don't need the land, we can go offshore. The US has enough offshore wind to easily exceed its current electricity needs, only counting the shallower areas that are easier to install in.
Also, if we want to do something about liquid fuels which accounts for about half of our energy usage, we have to use nuclear for that too.
You are thinking of cars like plug-in appliances, and they are not. They have batteries which can be charged when cheap energy is avai
Re: 50 cent army marches on (Score:2)
That is a good post, but it gets to the difficulty of the problem. All actions which increase efficiency - more economic bang per joule - can be seen as pro climate and pro economy, but they always historically lead to growth, which creates new demand for the supply excess created by the improvements. I think what we are really coming up on is a hard cap on both economic and human population growth, and itâ(TM)s hard to know what kind of policies to put in place to deal with that, it really is uncharte
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a false dichotomy, but it's at least a prevalent one. What the global warming crowd needs to recognize is that climate change and the economy are intrinsically linked. If you want to implement emission restrictions, it has to make economic sense. Further, compromising the economy in order to implement these restrictions will merely result in an economic environment where people are more likely to ignore any such restrictions.
Recognize that the two are linked, and develop any solutions from that premise. That's how you achieve your goals.
Nobody is denying that, which is why the goal of the Paris Accords and all other climate initiatives is slow and steady reduction and not stopping all carbon emissions emissions immediately, which would be the best case for climate change.
Hence things like the Green New Deal. It's pretty high level and I don't necessarily agree with all proposals but the general approach is solid - help transform the economy to less carbon intensive one through strategic investment. Replace corporate or VAT/sales taxes with
Re: (Score:2)
Re: 50 cent army marches on (Score:2)
Re: 50 cent army marches on (Score:4, Interesting)
None of these has ANYTHING to do with climate change. They all have to do with population growth.
As does climate change. If one assumes that it's possible for humans to have an impact on global climate, then it follows that such impact will be directly proportional to the size of the human population. Absolutely none of the proposed "solutions" actually solve anything - they merely amount to different types of rationing system. You cannot ration your way out of this problem - as years go by the ration allotted to each individual will decrease as the population increases, until the ration is smaller than that which is necessary for survival.
And yet I know many "green" practitioners of the climate change religion who have many children - far more than the "replacement" level of roughly 2 per family. They feel it is their right to raise large families, then cite how population growth is declining. However this is only true in highly developed countries - where the amount of pollution per capita is much higher. Developing nations still have exploding populations at the same time as they begin to demand increased standards of living and the extra environmental footprint that goes with it.
If climate change is tied to our population size, then the only thing that will alter it is a change in our population size. Now this can come about through increase of the death rate or reduction of the birth rate. No one seems willing to voluntarily consider either option. Therefore nature will eventually make the choice for us. This is why I am not worried about this problem at all. There's no point in worrying about things you cannot do anything about.
Re: (Score:2)
So basically we have to commit economic suicide and transfer all our industry to them to combat global warming ... eventually.
Why not just reduce trading with them and start reducing emissions right now. Without customers they won't wastefully grow their emissions. We have more money to reduce emissions. Problem solved.
We don't need to get them on board, we just need to starve the growth they get from trading with us.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they will continue increasing their emissions, and warming is global.
Re: 50 cent army marches on (Score:2)
Re: 50 cent army marches on (Score:2)
If it's so good, why is the US, the only country that has actually cut emissions in the last decade, still not on track to meet their goals while the EU, China and India gets a free ride? The Paris accords are a feel-good BS solution, simply raising a global tax isn't going to help anything.
Re: (Score:2)
>Moving to cleaner energy need not cause any suffering
It is causing a massive amount of suffering right now. Some of it is even in developed countries, with loss of competitiveness and rising prices of everything related to energy.
Stop lying. Just because you're rich enough to mitigate against the suffering, doesn't mean that everyone is.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you make us a list in which developing countries energy prices are rising?
The suffering is from climate change - e.g. lost harvests - not energy prices.
Re: (Score:2)
No. No it isn't.
1: Where it makes financial sense, a policy of mitigation is to be preferred.
2: There are LOTS of "green grifters" out there. Look up "solar roadwas", "water seer", etc. These grifters exist in all strata of society. As such, there's a hugely healthy skepticism about breathless green fanboy claims.
3: The US isn't going to simply turn everything off and destroy it's economy. Nor is it going to participate in ruinous policies based on "feel good bullshit" while other developed nations lie
Re: 50 cent army marches on (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: 50 cent army marches on (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There are large scale renewable projects, you just don't care to look. 64% of new generating capacity in 2019 is wind and solar [eia.gov] the rest is natural gas, mostly replacing retiring coal and natural gas plants.
Why it's not even higher? Because of "skeptics" that keep insisting that coal is the future and it's good for you and anyway what about China
Re: 50 cent army marches on (Score:2)
Do you have the slightest clue? (Score:2)
Did you learn about the accords from Lynnwood?
The whole thing is optional. There are no penalties for not doing what you say. None. Nothing at all.
No one is bound to anything.
What makes you think anyone will take you the slightest bit seriously when you don't even have the faintest idea what you are talking about?
Re: 50 cent army marches on (Score:2)
Re: 50 cent army marches on (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If, today, Country X is NOT subject to an agreement and they're outputting 10 megatons of pollution (about 1/4 of world pollution).
And we tell them they have 10-15 years, after which the level they're producing at AT THAT TIME will be their baseline measurement for future pollution reductions.
So if, in the next 10 years, they ramp up to 20 megatons? They then have to begin reducing from 20 megatons. Which, if everyone else is reducing during that time, they'd be producing MORE than half the world's pollut
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately international diplomacy is *slightly* smarter than what you indicate. There's a wee bit more to China's emissions targets than "as much as you can until 2030".
https://climateactiontracker.o... [climateactiontracker.org]
Re: lyin luckyo doesn't disappoint (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: lyin luckyo doesn't disappoint (Score:2)
Re: dumber than a rock at it again (Score:2)
Wow, that is the most idiotic response to correct math I've ever seen. What he's saying is right, if China is currently producing as much as the EU with a much weaker economy and they are still growing their economy (while the EU is effectively dismantling theirs) they will be much larger polluters come 2030.
Re: (Score:2)
CO2/capita is important because being a rich asshole contributes to GDP but you're still only one person.
CO2 efficiency is also interesting. It's called carbon intensity, and is part of most Paris accord targets, including China's:
https://climateactiontracker.o... [climateactiontracker.org]
Since you're so smart, see if you can follow along (Score:2)
You are claiming GDP is a useful measure.
You set the US as the gold standard for GDP/CO2.
Can we assume you think it's good for people to be like the USA then?
Let's try a thought experiment.
So China copies the US and does everything that they do. They become an advanced first world country.
Each person has a similar job, similar productivity, similar everything down to the last detail.
They now have 4 times as many people as America.
They now have 4 times as much GDP as America.
They now produce 4 times a
Re: dumber than a rock joins in (Score:2)
Re: dumber than a rock joins in (Score:2)
At this rate, China is on track to produce at least twice as much CO2 per capita than anyone else in the world. But that's okay until 2030 because that's the starting point at which they'll have to reduce, if they participate in this con game, they'd be able to half their emissions by 2050 without doing virtually anything beneficial (eg investing in nuclear)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
But hereÃ(TM)s the weird thingÃ"more than half the time, ChinaÃ(TM)s coal plants are just sitting around collecting dust. If China already has more coal power than it needs, why does it keep building new plants?"
It's a jobs program. China literally has cities sitting around mostly empty that they built in expectation of filling them with the new middle class, but hasn't managed to expand the number of jobs enough to actually produce that many new members of the middle class. The last thing they want is to have even less jobs. They need a large middle class in order to have a large group of the educated people they need in order to go from being copiers to inventors. Copying everything means always playing catch-up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: About China's new coal plants (Score:2)
Real estate prices are through the roof all over in China, because investors there dont trust anything like property. Away from the jobs rents are crazy low though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you had just read the next paragraph, the one after the one you quoted, you would realize it doesn't support your point. Maybe you do realize and are just hoping people don't bother reading it.
As your article says it was a mistake that the government is now undoing. Previous the central government directed energy production but they decided to give that responsibility to local governments to try to reduce the amount of time it took to approve new plants. Local authorities went nuts and built far too many
Re: (Score:2)
Surprise Surprise (Score:2)
Turns out facts are worth something after all.
Even NPR can't fact check. (Score:5, Informative)
The United States is currently not on track to meet its greenhouse gas reduction commitments under the Paris Agreement, which the United States ratified and is technically still part of until its withdrawal takes effect in November 2020.
The United States never ratified the Paris Agreement, to ratify it would have taken a vote of the Senate. The Paris Agreement was never in fact even submitted to the Senate for ratification - Obama simply signed it and never had it ratified.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This should be no surprise (Score:2)
All electric buildings? (Score:2)
"requiring all new buildings to be entirely electric"
Are they talking about electric heating as well??? If so that is a REALLLY bad idea. Power plants are limited in their ability to efficiently convert thermal energy into electrical energy. As long as you have a well designed supply chain your carbon footprint will likely be considerably smaller if you heat with fossil fuels at the usage point (boiler, water heater, furnace) rather than trying to convert them into electricity and then use that electrici
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It also makes sense if you're worried about supply problems with fossil fuel. For instance, natural gas is scarce is Europe, and most of it must be imported from Russia. If there's a major conflict, Russia could decide to halt the supply at a moment's notice.
Re: (Score:2)
Heat flux of geothermal is insufficient in most places.
Re: (Score:2)
There are quite a few situations where geothermal makes sense, but it's still somewhat costly. And that cost increases drastically the more dense of a footprint it is forced into, such as an urban/suburban lot like where most homes/businesses are built these days. I also have to wonder about its environmental impact when installed on a mass scale, massive excavation (either lots of shallow trenches or deep bore) and placing thousands of feet of HDPE pipe per home/business into the ground permanently.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you literally saying that for every unit of energy put in that 4 units are generated?
The trick of a heat pump is that it doesn't generate the heat, it just moves it from one place to another, which can be more efficient than generating it, depending on the temperature difference.
in the same range as the EU (Score:2)
'China's per capita emissions are now "in the same range" as the European Union, thanks to a couple suitcases full of cash in a dark parking lot outside Paris'
FTFY
China has more than 2x the population dumbass (Score:2)
...that means they get to pollute more than twice as much as the EU.
Re: China has more than 2x the population dumbass (Score:2)
I take it you haven't seen China's air? Or maybe Europe got a LOT more polluted since I was there last year.
Baksheesh FTW!
Re: China has more than 2x the population dumbass (Score:2)
Apt username!
Destined to self Cure (Score:2)
We're going to get the practical automotive battery to enable practical (cheap enough, refuelable in short enough time, have long enough range, and cheap enough) to make electric cars work. Refueling electric cars is blindingly cheap compared to gasoline. Advantage will be to electric cars.
Read recently that renewable energy is destined to become cheaper than the next-cheapest electrical generating, natural gas, in about 2035.
Those 2 things happen on schedule, then all the world, including the Chinese, a
Far too late (Score:2)
We don't have time to fuck around for decades while new technology and "rational self interest" gradually replaces hydrocarbons. If electric cars had started to replace ICE vehicles in 1960 then you'd have a great point - but not now.
Re: (Score:2)
When fossil fuels run out, people will be FORCED to change as well. What's the name for that ?
Re: (Score:3)
You both are idiots. Fossil fuels aren't going anywhere. Their use increases every year and are projected to increase every year for the next 40 years.
We are sooooo screwed ... (Score:3)
We're going to tear down the maximum 2 degrees we've set for humanity in the next decade. If we're not total dimwits we might be able to stall at +5 degrees centigrade although I doubt it. The ecosystem is toppling as we speak and when the dust settles in 30 years or so the planet will be a notably different place. Let's just all hope we can somehow avoid mad max or bladerunner and settle for something like the world in Cory Doctorows walkaway or Gibsons Bridge triology.
This sucks. Big time. But I guess we'll have to deal with it one way or the other.
Re: (Score:3)
Climate change and rising CO2 are serious issues we need to discuss and resolve, but there is no reason to panic. Ecosystems aren't toppling. Try getting out of your city and regularly visiting natural spaces. The ones I frequent, covering a large chunk in North America, are thriving and you would have
On Mars, too! (Score:2)
Don't worry. The cybertruck is coming! The cybertruck is coming!
Could have been avoided (Score:3)
If you know any greenies who ever lobbied against nuclear power, look them straight in the eye as you tell them this is their fault.
We had our near-zero-CO2 replacement for fossil fuels decades ago, and they killed it.
Re: (Score:2)
Banning new coal-fired power plants ... to be replaced by unicorn farts and rainbows instead? Or by nuclear power plants?
To be replaced by gas, solar, and wind.
Re: (Score:2)
The greenies are against this.
Because you ARE the worst, dumbass (Score:2, Insightful)
The US military is the single largest polluter in the world. For many decades, the US was the largest polluter on the planet. Your per-capita emissions are much higher than India or China who each have several times your population. So, yeah, you have more responsibility than anyone else on the planet - more than the most populous nations combined - to fix it.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. The US's total CO2 production is still much, much higher than any Chinese city.
False comparison? Why?
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like you got hit by the "bury brigade". Hopefully some kind meta-mod will come along and help you out.
Re:GHG is a problem? (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, here's the bottom line presented by random scientist guy.
The other 2 million scientists are obviously wrong.
Here, read up on some real science [skepticalscience.com] instead of rando Internet picture by rando guy.
93 Million Barrels a Day (Score:2)
Can someone explain to me how that is not spewing pollution into the atmosphere?
Any, yeah, I've had people try to say nothing to be seen here.
How many Mega-Tonnes of CO2? A day..
That figure has gone up since 2015.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
https://tinyurl.com/uvgyntk [tinyurl.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends, plenty of plants are H2O, nitrogen and phosphorous limited. Those are easily supplemented in agriculture, which makes CO2 the limit for plants out in the open.