Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Monday October 08 2018, @10:40AM   Printer-friendly

Major Climate Report Describes a Strong Risk of Crisis as Early as 2040

A landmark report from the United Nations' scientific panel on climate change paints a far more dire picture of the immediate consequences of climate change than previously thought and says that avoiding the damage requires transforming the world economy at a speed and scale that has "no documented historic precedent."

The report, issued on Monday by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of scientists convened by the United Nations to guide world leaders, describes a world of worsening food shortages and wildfires, and a mass die-off of coral reefs as soon as 2040 — a period well within the lifetime of much of the global population.

The report "is quite a shock, and quite concerning," said Bill Hare, an author of previous I.P.C.C. reports and a physicist with Climate Analytics, a nonprofit organization. "We were not aware of this just a few years ago." The report was the first to be commissioned by world leaders under the Paris agreement, the 2015 pact by nations to fight global warming.

The authors found that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at the current rate, the atmosphere will warm up by as much as 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above preindustrial levels by 2040, inundating coastlines and intensifying droughts and poverty. Previous work had focused on estimating the damage if average temperatures were to rise by a larger number, 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), because that was the threshold scientists previously considered for the most severe effects of climate change. The new report, however, shows that many of those effects will come much sooner, at the 2.7-degree mark.

Scientists Call for $2.4 Trillion (per year) Shift From Coal to Renewables

The world must invest $2.4 trillion in clean energy every year through 2035 and cut the use of coal-fired power to almost nothing by 2050 to slow the quickest pace of climate change since the end of the last ice age, according to scientists convened by the United Nations.

[...] To limit warming to 1.5 degrees [Celsius] would require a roughly fivefold increase in average annual investment in low-carbon energy technologies by 2050, compared with 2015. The $2.4 trillion needed annually through 2035 is also an almost sevenfold increase from the $333.5 billion Bloomberg NEF estimated was invested in renewable energy last year.

Also at Reuters and CBS.

See also: IPCC climate change report calls for urgent action to phase out fossil fuels - live


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by richtopia on Monday October 08 2018, @10:58AM (13 children)

    by richtopia (3160) on Monday October 08 2018, @10:58AM (#745910) Homepage Journal

    We are boned.

    Smoke em' if go got em'

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=3, Informative=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by richtopia on Monday October 08 2018, @12:53PM

    by richtopia (3160) on Monday October 08 2018, @12:53PM (#745934) Homepage Journal

    "go" should be "ya"

    Is it quitting time yet? All of these numbers/characters are looking the same again.

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by zocalo on Monday October 08 2018, @02:25PM (11 children)

    by zocalo (302) on Monday October 08 2018, @02:25PM (#745962)
    Yep, not going to happen. Governments either move too slow, are are in the pocket of industry, or just doesn't care. Non-green industry won't do anything that severely impacts their bottom line unless it's mandated by government or seen as necessary to keep their customers. And far too many individuals either think it's some kind of scam, don't know what they are expected to do or would suffer too much from doing it (e.g. if wood is your only readily available fuel, then you're going to burn wood), don't think their individual contributions will make any difference, or have decided that they'll be dead before it's an issue anyway (2030-2040 mean approx. 20% of the population might have aged out), so why bother? That's human nature for you; a synonym for the ultimate tragedy of the commons.
    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08 2018, @02:47PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08 2018, @02:47PM (#745969)

      Therr is plenty of reason to adopt better, more efficient, technologies that have nothing to do with climate change. Or even less efficient tech that reduces dependance on specific problematic energy sources like middle east oil... Or to adopt more robust and safe construction and supply pipelines so that any natural disaster is less dangerous.

      Why do we never hear about these techs and reasons (some mentioned in this thread) from the usual suspects? It can only be that climate change is an excuse for something else for them.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday October 08 2018, @03:50PM (7 children)

      by Thexalon (636) on Monday October 08 2018, @03:50PM (#745991)

      It's not that governments inherently move slowly. Governments can move very very quickly when they think there's something to be gained by doing so.

      The problem is that
      1. There's not much money to be made in the short-term in addressing the problem.
      2. There's a large short-term cost in addressing the problem.
      3. The vast majority of decision-making from people with power is driven by short-term money.

      Put those elements together, and it's abundantly clear nothing will happen until it's too late. As far as governments go, the worst offenders are basically in an international game of chicken, with each government trying to convince the others to solve the problem while doing at best nothing themselves and at worst actively trying to make things worse by trying to burn through all of their known oil reserves before anyone can stop them. As far as the public pressure goes, they simply engage in "greenwashing [wikipedia.org]" to propaganda their way out of the problem.

      And no, these things don't have a political party. For instance, the Obama administration talked a great game about renewable energy, while at the same time carefully looking the other way while a company with help from the local police forces attacked the Standing Rock Sioux and their allies with dogs and water cannons in order to illegally [theatlantic.com] build an oil pipeline.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Monday October 08 2018, @06:33PM (6 children)

        by bob_super (1357) on Monday October 08 2018, @06:33PM (#746060)
        • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08 2018, @06:58PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08 2018, @06:58PM (#746071)

          I looked at the second one. The problem is that their idea isnt to create a better world (if it was they would be looking at nuclear power, concrete replacements, adaptability/robustness in construction etc). Their only idea is to give more money and power to people who like to tell everyone what to do, many of them apparently psychopaths.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 09 2018, @11:37AM (4 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 09 2018, @11:37AM (#746382) Journal
          On the second link, the last time someone (c0lo) put up that silly comic, I wrote [soylentnews.org] this:

          "Creating the better world" is part of the hoax. For example, Germany and Denmark created a better world by doubling the cost of their electricity while doing nothing to reduce their carbon footprint. Similarly, the US significantly increased global food prices when they subsidized corn-based ethanol production for that better world. Plenty of countries have dumped plenty of money into overpriced, dead-end technology projects (such as burning agricultural waste for low value electricity and heat rather than tilling it into the ground for high value human food). This pretense of improving the world is insulting.

          • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday October 10 2018, @08:09AM (3 children)

            by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday October 10 2018, @08:09AM (#746864)

            The part where the air is eminently more breathable and less acidic without coal plants and with chimney/tailpipe emission standards, that does qualify as a better world.
            Harvesting renewable energy instead of digging chemicals mostly by supporting unpleasant people and displacing/killing/poisoning the people who are in the way.
            Not converting two thirds of the resultant product into waste heat and pollution.
            Not converting >90% of our electricity into heat when we try to generate light in summer.
            Putting money into helping poor peasants make a living without doing forest clear-cuts.
            Making industries responsible for their usage of the commons, instead of the tradition of laissez-faire which has left so many places with toxic dumps after the owners moved away.
            ...
            The list can get pretty long. Sadly, paying for previously ignored externalities raises the cost of things, or more precisely integrates their costs upfront rather than socializing them. And yes, specific examples, like for all humans behaviours, will turn out to be mistakes and wasteful. Macroeconomics teach us to learn, then look past and keep on moving, rather, as you do, than highlight bad cases as final proof that nothing should be done.
            I apologize for the MAGA crowd, but it turns out that the careless past has consequences for my kids, and I'd like to slow down the all-out profit-driven rampage on the environment. Turns out that Global Warming is a more comprehensive rallying cry against waste than more spectacular but SEP-fielded flaming rivers and LA smog.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 10 2018, @01:48PM (2 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 10 2018, @01:48PM (#746945) Journal

              The part where the air is eminently more breathable and less acidic without coal plants and with chimney/tailpipe emission standards, that does qualify as a better world.

              Except when people die to make that happen. Coal power happens to be a very important way for developing world countries to bring their citizens out of extreme poverty. Similarly, chimney/tailpipe emission standards often are counterproductive, such as the Volkswagon emissions scandal where Volkswagon was punished severely for cheating on emissions testing. There, the cheating resulted in a car that performed better and consume fuel more efficiently (in other words lower CO2 output). Again, that costs peoples' lives through making a less efficient economy, less capable of doing its part to provide for our needs.

              Harvesting renewable energy instead of digging chemicals mostly by supporting unpleasant people and displacing/killing/poisoning the people who are in the way.

              What again is the unsubsidized cost/benefit of renewable energy versus fossil fuels? The accounting games played with that talking point are ridiculous particularly when some of the alleged fossil fuel subsidies actually reduce market demand for fossil fuels (by encouraging demand for state production of fossil fuels, mostly in OPEC).

              Not converting two thirds of the resultant product into waste heat and pollution.

              Waste heat is a near irrelevant concern and is a problem for renewables as well (all forms of energy production result in waste heat production). Then you're comparing two unrelated quantities, pollution and energy. Finally, while the pollution from renewable energy is mostly fixed at construction (solar cells don't usually continue to pollute after production), land use becomes a big issue with most (hydroelectric, wind, and solar all create significant restrictions on what can be used with them). This often results in substantial displacing/killing people (a thing you mentioned earlier). Hydroelectric in particular has a huge drawback here with many examples of people moved and people dying from dam failures.

              Putting money into helping poor peasants make a living without doing forest clear-cuts.

              Forest clear cuts can be done renewably. Something else is wrong there - poor management of resources.

              Making industries responsible for their usage of the commons, instead of the tradition of laissez-faire which has left so many places with toxic dumps after the owners moved away.

              Ditto. You've conflated a number of things that have nothing to do with mitigating global warming.

              The list can get pretty long.

              Let's add a couple more dubious benefits. Increasing the cost of food globally from the US's subsidizing of ethanol production. And doubling the cost of electricity for a significant portion of Europe (Germany and Denmark have a population of just under 90 million combined).

              • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday October 10 2018, @04:38PM (1 child)

                by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday October 10 2018, @04:38PM (#747015)

                You make me sad.
                I'll petition Santa to bring you a lump of coal.
                It will make you happy.

                > some of the alleged fossil fuel subsidies actually reduce market demand for fossil fuels (by encouraging demand for state production of fossil fuels, mostly in OPEC).

                What ?

                > cheating resulted in a car that performed better and consume fuel more efficiently

                At the cost of people's lungs, reducing their efficiency.

                > What again is the unsubsidized cost/benefit of renewable energy versus fossil fuels?

                Are you factoring in the aircraft carriers and the hate in the OPEC countries? Are you factoring in the fracking pollution in your back yard ?

                > Coal power happens to be a very important way for developing world countries to bring their citizens out of extreme poverty.

                FTFY. What matters is the power. Gas is cheaper and healthier these days. Even burning oil is cheaper and healthier. Panels and batteries are what works in remote villages.

                > people dying from dam failures

                Really ? Really ? Wanna start counting the daily deaths/diseases from oil and coal industries ? Yeah, planes crash too, let's ignore how rarely they do compared to cars.

                > Forest clear cuts can be done renewably.

                Any clear cut results in a more fragile system, ready to collapse at the first disturbance (soil erosion, monoculture disease...)

                > Increasing the cost of food globally from the US's subsidizing of ethanol production.

                Yeah, I did type something about not all ideas being good. This one barely even qualifies as "trying", since it's mostly a political gift to Iowa and similar places. Notice how timely: Trump is trying to make Ethanol great again this week, and there's not pretense of eco-anything a few weeks before the midterms.

                > doubling the cost of electricity

                Hey, if we could double the price of energy in the US, maybe people would start addressing how wasteful (selfish, in a global market) they are.
                Just got my annual negative electricity bill, just from getting rewarded for using about a third of what my "efficient 100 neighbors with similar square footage" use. I live comfortably with 6 people in a 45 yr-old house.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 11 2018, @11:18AM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 11 2018, @11:18AM (#747383) Journal

                  Yeah, I did type something about not all ideas being good. This one barely even qualifies as "trying", since it's mostly a political gift to Iowa and similar places. Notice how timely: Trump is trying to make Ethanol great again this week, and there's not pretense of eco-anything a few weeks before the midterms.

                  I do recall environmental groups lauding this when it was first created. For example, the National Wildlife Federation still brags [nwf.org]:

                  2007—Energy Independence and Security Act

                  Created the Renewable Fuel Standard, which increased bio-fuel standards, and significantly strengthened vehicle fuel economy standards.

                  was a legislative victory, even though they're advocating [washingtontimes.com] to reverse much of it now.

                  That's the pattern though. Create dumb laws and regulations for climate change, throw gobs of money at various pointless projects (which I think is partly how Big Oil got on board), and no real progress made. Now we're supposed to throw trillions of dollars a year at this? Good money after bad.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08 2018, @05:06PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08 2018, @05:06PM (#746026)

      2.7 trillion/7billion=$385/person

      Welp, I've already done my part (and more) averaged out over the last 15 years or so

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:00AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:00AM (#746317)

        Yeah, I'm sure people in Africa/SE Asia making $1 a month will pitch in with their $385 a year any day now.