SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Ars Technica brings us another report on Climate change.
Given what we know about the sensitivity of the climate to added greenhouse gases, it's possible to calculate how much more carbon dioxide we can admit while still having a reasonable chance of staying within the two degree Celsius envelope. What's striking about these calculations is how many large changes we'll have to make in order to get there. According to Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University's Earth Institute, the per-capita emissions would have to drop from five tons annually (where they are now) to 1.6 tons by 2050.
To accomplish this, Sachs says that all nations will have to undergo a process he calls "deep decarbonization," which is part of the title of a report he's helped organize and deliver to the UN today. Pathways to Deep Decarbonization, prepared by researchers in 15 different countries, looks into what's needed to achieve sufficient cuts in our carbon emissions. The report finds that current government pledges aren't sufficient, and the technology we need to succeed may exist, but most of it hasn't been proven to scale sufficiently.
Achieving this, the report's authors argue, will have to come with a normal pace of economic growth: "There is no prospect of winning the fight against climate change if countries fail on poverty eradication or if countries do not succeed in raising the living standards of their people." Although this may add to the challenge of lowering carbon emissions, the report concludes that "Robust economic growth and rising prosperity are consistent with the objective of deep decarbonization."
The report identifies what Sachs called "three pillars" of emissions reductions: low-carbon electricity, massive efficiency gains, and a greater electrification of transit and infrastructure. (Sachs also added that land use changes could also have a major impact.)
Ok, folks you can't just put your head in the sand and pass this off as Science fiction. Do you honestly believe that the governments around the world will actually do something about this, or shall we just hope for a nice asteroid so we don't have to deal with long term planning?
(Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday July 10 2014, @11:21PM
I'm going to go with asteroid myself. There's a pretty noticeable increased chance of last-minute-before-death nooky. Asteroid is my informed decision.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Friday July 11 2014, @01:12AM
Plus a 5km high megatsunami is something I wouldn't mind seeing right before I die.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Friday July 11 2014, @03:00AM
I was going to go with asteroid as well. The human race is too stupid on average to continue. Time for a reset.
(Score: 2) by AnonTechie on Friday July 11 2014, @08:12PM
The human race is too stupid on average to continue.
This paper seems to agrees with you :
In 1999 a pair of researchers published a paper called "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments (PDF)." David Dunning and Justin Kruger (both at Cornell University's Department of Psychology at the time) conducted a series of four studies showing that, in certain cases, people who are very bad at something think they are actually pretty good. They showed that to assess your own expertise at something, you need to have a certain amount of expertise already.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.64.2655&rep=rep1&type=pdf [psu.edu] [PDF]
The Human Race Will Come To An End. What's Next?
Given evolution's trajectory, we will almost certainly transform into augmented versions of our current selves. The big question now is, can we survive long enough to become the next humans?
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-01/the-human-race-will-come-to-an-end [popsci.com]
Albert Einstein - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."