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, @08:21PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @08:21PM (#746600)

    To continue from my comment yesterday. [soylentnews.org]

    Let's not shoot the messengers. We have the AGW crowd solution [twitter.com] and the capitalist solution. [nature.com] One of these is possible without tyranny, which would you prefer?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @10:14PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @10:14PM (#746661)

    Wow, you are not just an ancap nutter but truly a fucking moron.

    Your "capitalist solution" is a plan that has no market for the extracted carbon and thus relies on government subsidies to exist. Environmental protection has always been costly, Capitalism by definition is not even interested in it. "Tyrannical" legislation and threats of punishment are apparently the only way to get Capitalists to be less evil. Maybe someday we will get eCapitalists who always factor in the hidden costs to the environment and we will be a step closer to our ideal reality, but again what is to prevent a regular Capitalist from undercutting the eCapitalist and driving them out of business?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @12:34AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @12:34AM (#746729)

      Wow, you are not just an ancap nutter but truly a fucking moron.

      Sorry if I pissed on your socialist utopia or something, you could always try moving to Venezuela.

      Your "capitalist solution" is a plan that has no market for the extracted carbon and thus relies on government subsidies to exist.

      "No market"? [nationalgeographic.com]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @02:22AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @02:22AM (#746772)

        Again your market solution fails, gas from oil fields is going to be way cheaper. Try again!

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @10:22AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @10:22AM (#746891)

          Again your market solution fails, gas from oil fields is going to be way cheaper. Try again!

          No, the failure is your confusion between laissez-faire economics and free market capitalism. Did you even read the article?

          “It costs more than a barrel of oil right now, but in places with a price on carbon of $200 a ton, like what’s enabled through California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, we’re competitive,” Oldham said in an interview.

          Read a book! [typepad.com]

  • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday October 10 2018, @07:16AM (1 child)

    by maxwell demon (1608) on Wednesday October 10 2018, @07:16AM (#746851) Journal

    OK, let's play your game:

    For not getting your property damaged, you've got the capitalist solution [cambridge.org] or the “tyrannical” solution. [wikipedia.org] Which one do you prefer?

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @10:34AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @10:34AM (#746894)

      You presented two examples of coercion, one by the mob and one by the state. If you disagree, try not paying your taxes.