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: 2) by FatPhil on Monday October 08 2018, @10:59PM (2 children)

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday October 08 2018, @10:59PM (#746192) Homepage
    "Old houses, in addition to their simpler (and cheaper) construction and low maintenance costs, give you the freedom to modify it to your hearts content. You can paint the walls, punch holes in them, install air-con, and open the damn windows.
    [...]
    Round my area, 200-300 year old Victorian houses are the most expensive. Further afield, stone cottages 800+ years old even more so."

    Some might be listed, so with very little freedom to modify. My local council even specifies the type of brush and painting motion my ~450-year old (and listed) building is to be painted with (as well as having swatches of the only colour it's allowed to be painted in). I'd be surprised of anywhere near you with a thatched roof doesn't have to remain that way by law, for example. Unsurprisingly, our metre-thick limestone walls score a massive G on the energy efficiency scale (that's worse than the worst rating with a defined meaning).

    "... easy/cheap maintenance."

    Quite the opposite!
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Unixnut on Tuesday October 09 2018, @08:45AM (1 child)

    by Unixnut (5779) on Tuesday October 09 2018, @08:45AM (#746335)

    Yes, listed buildings are very different, but they are not listed just because they are old. Usually there is a reason for it, perhaps they (or the area they are in) are unique in environment/architecture, or have some historic value.

    When I talk about old Victorian houses, I mean the things like the red-brick terraced houses that used to be for mill workers. The cookie cutter houses that are all over the place, and the vast majority of which are not listed (as witnessed by my old neighbours, who painted their house Mr. Blobby colours, pink with yellow dots!).

    Those houses are (relatively) cheap to maintain, because they make use of normal materials and methods of manufacture that every builder is familiar with, so labour costs are cheaper. Hell, a lot of the work can be done by a competent DIYer.

    Specialist modern houses with computerised smart-enabled systems require specialist maintenance and builders, who will cost a lot more. Plus there is a lot more to go wrong. My old Victorian house had windows that still worked since it was built. I highly doubt the computerised blind thingies on the eco-house will still be the original working pieces in a couple of hundred years. To be honest I would be surprised if the house itself was still around by then.

    Unsurprisingly, our metre-thick limestone walls score a massive G on the energy efficiency scale (that's worse than the worst rating with a defined meaning).

    Heh, my current dwelling has 1.5m thick stone walls. The place is too old to be even listed on the efficiency scale (oldest records state the house was standing around 1300AD, so could be older than that). Saying that, the walls are excellent at keeping the place warm in winter and cool in summer. Quite a bit of energy gets stored in them I guess.

    So out of curiosity, why did you buy your current place? Especially if you have restrictions based on it being listed, and more expensive maintenance than other houses. It doesn't sound like it was a decision based on financial concerns or freedom to modify :-)

    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday October 09 2018, @01:27PM

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday October 09 2018, @01:27PM (#746426) Homepage
      We wanted to stay central, and a large proportion of the buildings in the old town are of a similar age and style. We found a place that was recently renovated, from cellar to roof, and were happy with the concept that what we'd be buying would not need any changes. Technically, we were right, but just to piss us off, a dozen unrelated other things have shat on our heads since we moved in. (Like, erm, about 10 nightclubs moving into the same street, including 2 in the same building... corrupt local government behind that, nothing we can do.)
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves