Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday October 09 2018, @06:26PM   Printer-friendly
from the hot-stuff dept.

It's the final call, say scientists, the most extensive warning yet on the risks of rising global temperatures.

Their dramatic report on keeping that rise under 1.5 degrees C says the world is now completely off track, heading instead towards 3C.

Keeping to the preferred target of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels will mean "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society".

[...] After three years of research and a week of haggling between scientists and government officials at a meeting in South Korea, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued a special report on the impact of global warming of 1.5C.

The critical 33-page Summary for Policymakers certainly bears the hallmarks of difficult negotiations between climate researchers determined to stick to what their studies have shown and political representatives more concerned with economies and living standards.

Despite the inevitable compromises, there are some key messages that come through loud and clear.

"The first is that limiting warming to 1.5C brings a lot of benefits compared with limiting it to two degrees. It really reduces the impacts of climate change in very important ways," said Prof Jim Skea, who co-chairs the IPCC.

"The second is the unprecedented nature of the changes that are required if we are to limit warming to 1.5C - changes to energy systems, changes to the way we manage land, changes to the way we move around with transportation."

"Scientists might want to write in capital letters, 'ACT NOW, IDIOTS,' but they need to say that with facts and numbers," said Kaisa Kosonen, of Greenpeace, who was an observer at the negotiations. "And they have."

The researchers have used these facts and numbers to paint a picture of the world with a dangerous fever, caused by humans. We used to think if we could keep warming below two degrees this century, then the changes we would experience would be manageable.

Not any more. This new study says that going past 1.5C is dicing with the planet's liveability. And the 1.5C temperature "guard rail" could be exceeded in just 12 years, in 2030.

We can stay below it - but it will require urgent, large-scale changes from governments and individuals and we will have to invest a massive pile of cash every year, about 2.5% of global gross domestic product (GDP), the value of all goods and services produced, for two decades.

-- submitted from IRC


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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @06:56PM (20 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @06:56PM (#746557)

    Yea, if the climate ever changes in a way that makes things worse for someone itll be bradley13's fault...

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:10PM (18 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:10PM (#746566)

    Yes it will be. At least he'll share the blame with millions of other morons, but yes. Why have we had so little action? Because a good portion of the population bought the propaganda from the oil companies, and even now after those same companies admitted to lying about climate change we STILL have bradley_mindofa13yearold holding the dogmatic line.

    All I'm asking for is that he put his money where his mouth is. If he isn't willing to take that chance then why not promote a more sustainable energy future? Why continue obfuscating the problem and preventing people from galvanizing on the topic?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:13PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:13PM (#746567)

      Climate change concern has no necessary relation to a sustainable energy future. In fact, you would be best off dropping the climate change angle altogether if that is your true concern, since it only confuses/obfuscates the actual issue.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:40PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:40PM (#746581)

        No, the actual issue is that our current methods of power generation are destabilizing the global climate much quicker than the natural oscillations that occur. Just because you are a cynical fool who has bought into the "liberal climate change conspiracy" does not make it less valid a reason to reduce carbon fuels.

        YOU are the one confusing and obfuscating here. Seriously, you lot are getting unbearable with your requirement that we not discuss topics that offend your delicate sensibilities. If you only care about the renewable/sustainable energy aspect then fine, just discuss that. Don't try and rope people into your own delusions about climate conspiracy because that only obfuscates and confuses the issue.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:50PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:50PM (#746584)

          Here is what was written:

          All I'm asking for is that he put his money where his mouth is. If he isn't willing to take that chance then why not promote a more sustainable energy future? Why continue obfuscating the problem and preventing people from galvanizing on the topic?

    • (Score: 1) by Sulla on Tuesday October 09 2018, @08:24PM (12 children)

      by Sulla (5173) on Tuesday October 09 2018, @08:24PM (#746602) Journal

      When the people telling me to change my way of life give up meat, cars, air conditioning, almonds, heaters, private jets, etc then I will consider making the change. Those in power that are legitimately concerned need to walk the talk.

      --
      Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:07PM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:07PM (#746620)

        Or instead of passing the buck along you can make whatever incremental changes you are OK with. Maybe eat a little less meat? Have one day a week meat-free? Try to drive less and carpool more? Plan your activities to reduce last-minute drives to the store? Upgrade to more efficient appliances and vehicles? Or just install solar? Try and eliminate use of disposable containers and products by getting a reusable coffee cup and using reusable containers?

        So many items you can work on if you care, but from the tone of it you're more outraged that anyone expects you to care about the environment in a way that needs the slightest change to your daily life. I'm not a perfect environmentalist either but I don't try and pass the blame on to anyone but myself.

        I think someone nailed it climate deniers simply don't want the convenient life to change and there is really nothing else to it.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:19PM (4 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:19PM (#746632)

          Actually if they eat almost only meat but cut out grains and sugar many people will eat a lot less (fewer hunger cravings). If you want people to stop overeating the best way (for many) involves a high percentage of meat in the diet.

          So, I don't know how it would work out but your plan of cutting out meat may end up having the exact opposite effect.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:59PM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:59PM (#746656)

            BZZZZT WRONG

            You can achieve the same thing with plant proteins. No one should substitute their meat protein for carbs.

            Here, get informed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edible_protein_per_unit_area_of_land [wikipedia.org]

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @11:04PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @11:04PM (#746689)

              It is probably possible, but a vegan-low carb diet sounds really annoying. How are you going to eat a vegetarian diet with under 50 carbs per day?

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @02:19AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @02:19AM (#746770)

                It is 100% possible, plenty of people do it. It is probably a bad idea to switch your diet immediately, I suggest slowly reducing the amount of meat you eat until you have just a few meals a week with it. We really don't need to eat meat on a daily basis, nutritionally speaking.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @02:25AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @02:25AM (#746776)

                  I know plenty of vegetarians, they eat craploads of carbs. Most people on the standard diet also eat craploads of carbs, vegetarian is probably healthier than that.

                  However, I am talking about reducing peoples appetites by having them eat very few carbs (under 50 g per day). I think this would be difficult to do without eating meat.

                  Do you know of anyone eating a vegetarian/vegan diet who consumes less than 50 or even 100 g of carbs per day?

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by fyngyrz on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:14PM (1 child)

        by fyngyrz (6567) on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:14PM (#746625) Journal

        Those in power that are legitimately concerned need to walk the talk.

        It seems very unlikely that any meaningful walking-the-walk of the powerful will ever happen. They're almost never first in these things; in fact they're almost always last. They live lives of privilege because they intend to live lives of privilege, not because they're inclined to sacrifice things for the likes of you and me.

        Either we change our lives at the level of the common man, or we face whatever consequences are coming down the pike because "those in power didn't, so we didn't."

        It might also be worth keeping in mind that those in power will have far more ability to deal with said consequences than the common man will. They would be the ones with the huge A/C plants, the high walls, the big guns, the armed and armored storehouses. The rest of us would be left scrabbling for whatever scraps or power and resources left over, because we simply can't pull that kind of resource-collection off.

        Finally, reducing emissions makes sense on a number of levels quite aside from any threat of climate change. We should do it anyway. It's obvious. If you actually think it through.

        • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Wednesday October 10 2018, @12:38AM

          by mhajicek (51) on Wednesday October 10 2018, @12:38AM (#746732)

          When the SHTF their money will stop being green. That scares the pants off them.

          --
          The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
      • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:52PM

        by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:52PM (#746650)

        Ah yes, the "Al Gore does it, so it must be OK" defense. I'll freely admit the dude is a bit hypocritical, but that doesn't mean he's wrong about global climate change.

        Well, I'm going to suggest you change your way of life a bit, and I don't generally eat meat, don't use AC, have never owned a private jet, and don't particularly like almonds. I do own a car, which I need to living well outside public transit coverage, but I don't drive it all that much. As for giving up heating, no, I'm not going to do that, because plumbing + temperatures below freezing = major problems. Instead, I'm trying to reduce my usage of heating fuel by making my home hold heat better than it used to, and replacing the oil-based heating system with something more efficient when my money situation allows.

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Tuesday October 09 2018, @11:51PM (2 children)

        by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday October 09 2018, @11:51PM (#746713) Journal

        No Almonds for Sulla! Let him eat figs instead! Good enough for Augustus. (And, oh, we're coming for your capital gains, Chuck!)

        • (Score: 1) by Sulla on Wednesday October 10 2018, @12:25AM (1 child)

          by Sulla (5173) on Wednesday October 10 2018, @12:25AM (#746722) Journal

          I'd gladly pay capital gains if only I had some capital to gain!

          --
          Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @04:48AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @04:48AM (#746817)

      And where have you put your money?

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday October 10 2018, @01:28PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 10 2018, @01:28PM (#746938) Journal

      then why not promote a more sustainable energy future? Why continue obfuscating the problem and preventing people from galvanizing on the topic?

      What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing? [pics.me.me]

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @08:09PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @08:09PM (#746595)

    No it won't. Everybody knows it'll be janrinok's fault!