Global Climate Plans Can Now Keep Heating Below 2C, Study Shows (theguardian.com) 60
For the first time the world is in a position to limit global heating to under 2C, according to the first in-depth analysis of the net zero pledges made by nations at the UN Cop26 climate summit in December. From a report: Before these pledges it was more than likely that at the peak of the climate crisis there would be a temperature rise above 2C, bringing more severe impacts for billions of people. Now it is more likely that the peak temperature rise will be about 1.9C. However, the researchers said this depended on all nations implementing their pledges on time and in full, and warned that the policies to do so were not in place. The pledges also include those that developing countries have said will not happen without more financial and technical support. Achieving the pledges needed for the 2C limit was a "historic milestone," and good news, the scientists said. However, they said the bad news was that the cuts in global emissions currently planned by 2030 were way off track to keep the peak below 1.5C. That is the global goal, but currently there is less than a 10% chance of hitting that target.
Wishful thinking (Score:5, Informative)
There's no way that EVERY country that made a commitment is going to be able to perfectly keep it. Biden just allowed E15 again... so the US is already not holding fast in the face of price pressure.
Re:Wishful thinking (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. The pledges mostly are just PR gimmicks.
The only way change will happen globally is if zero-carbon energy sources are cheaper than fossil fuels. While this happening in a few areas; those are not enough.
Re: (Score:2)
If a few key players decide to make it a priority then others will have to follow. For example, the EU introduced RoHS rules and now most components are RoHS compliant no matter where they are made or sold. The EU market is too big and lucrative to ignore it.
Another example; when EU countries started setting end-of-sales dates for fossil fuel vehicles it started a domino effect where more and more countries joined in. It also made automakers invest in EVs and bring more models to market.
If we can get the EU
Re: (Score:3)
There's no way the computer models used in this prediction are accurate enough to predict within .1 degrees.
Re: (Score:3)
They are not. Even the people that make them know that, that's why there's a list of qualifications and margins long enough not to warrant including in every summary.
Re: (Score:2)
Also that
Re: (Score:2)
it's a metric and not uniform so it's an average. Models are pretty good at that.
What are you talking about? This is just nonsense you made up.
Also that .1 degree is a truly *massive* amount of energy, so it's a very very rough level...which again, models are very good at.
What are you talking about? No one denied that it's a lot of energy, why did you bring it up? The point is the models aren't that accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? No one denied that it's a lot of energy, why did you bring it up? The point is the models aren't that accurate.
It doesn't matter if they're 10% off when they're indicating total catastrophe.
The headline makes it sound as if 2 degrees is perfectly OK, that we can relax now. That's not true at all, 2 degrees is still a massive change in climate and will raise sea levels and cost many trillions.
https://www.globalcitizen.org/... [globalcitizen.org]
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter if they're 10% off
They aren't 10% off.
when they're indicating total catastrophe.
It's not indicating total catastrophe.
Re: (Score:2)
And you know this how? I smell a troll.
carbon neutral but not militarily neutral (Score:2, Interesting)
If various world powers can invade over theoretical Nazis, theoretical WMDs, actual supporters of a new global theocracy (namely a worldwide caliphate
). Then we should also be able to invade over lack of greenness and carbon neutrality.
Re: (Score:2)
And that E15 is only expected to knock $0.10/gal off the price of fuel. I see it as a handout to fuel ethanol producers. Fuel ethanol is barely energy positive, and it is grown continuously so it destroys farmland for food production by depleting soil. The silage is generally burned, so no carbon is sequestered. It's a total ecological shit show on every level.
What's the over/under on the actual heat increase? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Net Zero = Carbon Offsets (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Net Zero = Carbon Offsets (Score:4, Insightful)
i.e. in DC a moderate solar panel array (4-5kw) can literally pay you multiple thousands income in addition to the lower electric bill itself. SREC markets provide green offsets AND an income source for those who invest in them.
Eventually it's not useful, but for getting the inertia moving it has more ups than downs.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, it has the effect of increasing investment in those offset technologies.
Yes and no. In some cases they are good (e.g. carbon offset programs going to solar / wind power). In some cases they can be bad (e.g. forest protection credits).
The problem is that governments have written the legislations for the application of credits with some major loopholes. An example of such would be a farmer selling carbon credits by forgoing the right to land-clear. Sounds good, right until you realise they are being applied to trees and land which were never going to be cleared in the first place
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed nothing is perfect and politicians will be bought and paid for to add 'downs'.
"Pledges" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's not 100% wind powered. It's part wind, part gas, depending on when the wind is blowing.
Re: (Score:2)
So if you pay someone for wind electricity the gas people give it to you for free?
Re: (Score:2)
So if you pay someone for wind electricity the gas people give it to you for free?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a few lines up.
"my house is 100% wind powered, by choosing whom I pay power for"
Re: (Score:2)
Got it.
Re: (Score:1)
reality is messy (Score:3, Insightful)
I love when people are convinced efforts like this are absolutely critical to hit in full or totally useless.
Back in reality, it'll be somewhere between the two, and the idea that just because we land in the grey barrens of compromise or imperfection makes the entire plan useless belies a real misunderstanding about the relationship between setting goals and achieving meaningful results.
Re: (Score:3)
True, the all or nothing is marketing, but it's also a mix of psychology that it needs to be conveyed how dire the situation is.
unfortunately, the old adage 'never underestimate the stupidity of people in large groups' also applies in spades.
Re: (Score:1)
For me the dichotomy is the IPCC report saying "holy shit we have just 3 YEARS to stop fossil fuel use" and this saying "Hey, wow, we're doing a reasonable job so we'll be slightly less worse off than we thought"
Scientists have no business doing marketing.
Re: (Score:2)
So they should stop trying to explain things and leave that to oil companies?
Re: (Score:1)
To begin with, they should spread science and not propaganda. They should leave the propaganda to the oil companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you actually ever read any of the IPCC materials, or are you basing the determination they're propaganda off of what politicians tell you about them?
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, I've read a lot of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True fact: in the real world, we have data.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My claim is that scientists have no business doing marketing. I fully support that claim.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ok, do you disagree?
Horseshit. Not even real horseshit. Fictional. (Score:2)
I don't really understand why we keep batting around potential rise avoidance like it's an actual possibility. Fucking move on. Transfer all efforts to mitigation.
Re: (Score:3)
How do you propose we "mitigate" all the world's breadbaskets drying up and blowing away while the Amazon becomes a grassland?
Re: (Score:2)
Considering avoidance is basically impossible, it's going to be afforded. The world will adapt. Many places are already doing so with the idea that sea levels are rising, period.
Be as sustainable as you can be but don't think you are going to save humanity from itself.
Re: Horseshit. Not even real horseshit. Fictional. (Score:2)
We won't be able to mitigate everything. But since prevention is completely off thd table, mitigation is all we have. And we will do something. We're much better at reacting to immediate crises than long term trends.
Re: (Score:2)
Well they are poisonous and cause global warming, so yeah.
Now... (Score:5, Insightful)
...there's just that troublesome challenge of getting countries to KEEP their pledges.
What's the success rate on that, so far, again?
Not to say talk is cheap but heralding this as some sort of breakthrough seems a little premature?
Re: (Score:2)
Not to say talk is cheap but heralding this as some sort of breakthrough seems a little premature?
Given the stubbornness of countries not setting goals or making pledges in the past it very much is a "breakthrough". A breakthrough is a "sudden dramatic development". The use of the word isn't restricted to actually achieving the end goal.
Not calling this a breakthrough would be considering the human race to level headed and on track to solve climate change, rather than the morons we actually are. We acknowledged the problem, that alone is a breakthrough.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. ...shit.
Last time I checked, Paris was FULL of pledges that meant
Or wait, do you mean the 'stubbornness of countries' as a veiled slap at the US for not participating in the Paris circle-jerkery?
Didn't the US happen to coincidentally (mainly through market-forces moving to natural gas) meet the tabled goals ANYWAY despite not making a self-righteously public pledge?
Having a group of 10 people on a meaningless public stage joined by 20 other people on that same meaningless stage isn't a breakthrough e
All this political hot air... (Score:3)
is only making the problem worse.
Re: (Score:2)
What's political about it?
Re: (Score:2)
What's political about it?
When it comes to climate change, pledges made by politicians have been repeatedly broken and often outright ignored, and targets have been missed by miles.
Here in Canada, our Prime Minister makes commitments to decrease emissions while his government prepares to go ahead with major offshore oil extraction in Newfoundland. There's lots of political hot air here, and no courage nor fortitude for making difficult and unpopular decisions and then following through with them. It seems to be that way in most co
Re: (Score:2)
How is that making the problem worse.
The market may solve climate change ... (Score:2)
Strange as it may seem, it could be that the market will solve climate change as renewables are becoming cheaper ...
See this well researched Kurzgezagt video [youtube.com] for details ...
Add to that gasoline at record highs (the war in Ukraine being one factor) and now EVs start to make more sense ...
Re: (Score:2)
Also a fair point to make is that the economy of scale that brought down prices was created by political actions such as from Germany (which still pays for the early installations via electricity prices).
Nuclear power is not optional, it is required. (Score:2)
Any nation that is abandoning nuclear power is not taking global warming seriously. Any nation that doesn't have nuclear power plants already under construction is not taking global warming seriously. We need power from nuclear fission or we will fail in lowering our CO2 emissions.
These morons talking about rooftop solar and offshore windmills are offering a "solution" that will take more materials and labor, which means it costs more, while producing more CO2 than nuclear power. In the process there wil
Ho hum. (Score:2)
Pies in the sky are cheap.
Or .. it was never going over 2C anyways (Score:2)
... so we can pretend we affected the climate?
Doesn't matter if 'climate change' is real or not, if it motivated people/companies/countries to be more efficient and less wasteful in the acquisition and use of natural resources, it's a win. The ends justify the means.