SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:43PM (17 children)
That's a good start. Some other things that should be on the list:
1. Bring building insulation up to modern standards more universally. Even if you think AGW is complete nonsense, this is a worthwhile spend for building owners this applies to, for the simple reason that it will cut utility bills and thus pay for itself.
2. A push for telecommuting as a replacement for physical commuting. Why are we spending all kinds of time and money and carbon on getting people into a special building to do work they could do just as easily from their living room? Again, even without AGW this is probably a good move, since it means folks are saving the expense of commuting, and rush hour got a bit less painful for everyone who does still have to go into work.
3. HVAC systems upgrades to take advantage of newer technologies such as geothermal heat pumps that are 2-4 times more efficient than the alternatives. Another utility bill savings, even if you think AGW is a lie.
4. Vehicle emissions standards improvements. We already have the technology to make more efficient engines, we should be using it. And of course, without AGW that means we're all saving on gas money, oh noes.
5. Plant trees in cities with the kind of climate that normally supports forests. It's relatively cheap, it makes the city prettier, it reduces the "heat island" effect and thus summertime cooling costs, and of course the trees act as carbon sinks.
Notice that nowhere in there was a plan to give lots of tax money to Solyndra or something like that: We can do a great deal by applying existing technology on a larger scale than we have been to improve the efficiency of our big carbon emissions sources.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday October 09 2018, @11:38PM (16 children)
1 and 3 imply you know more about the economics of retrofitting an existing building than the owners with actual money on the table instead of bullshitting. If you were only bullshitting it wouldn't matter but people like you tend to want laws to make other people be as smart as you when your genius isn't properly recognized. The truth is is building owners could realize significant savings they would. They like money.
2 has been tried by many companies large and small with mixed results. Again you seem convinced you know more than people who have actually done the experiment and imply that force be used to 'encourage' people to realize your genius.
4 Vehicle design is a compromise among many factors, most important of which being sticker price, safety and efficiency. Again, you seem to object to the industry's consensus of where those compromises should be and want to force them to adopt your preference. So enlighten us, which one gets sacrificed for greater efficiency? Since people only keep a new car a few years it would need be a LOT more efficient to pay off much of an increase in sticker price so are you suggesting we lower safety and pay in blood and brains splattered on our roads?
5. So great idea! Whose building do we bulldoze for the new park? I suppose it will be political opponents, the ones who won't "invest" in new tech you want them to?
Taxing and spending is so old school Progressive, the new hotness is borrowing from the Fascists and simply having government dictate to industry what it should be doing "for the common good."
(Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Wednesday October 10 2018, @12:40AM (2 children)
I'm guessing, based on your comments, that you live in a major city, and rent rather than own your home.
More? Maybe not. But I do know something about it, because I've been in the process of retrofitting an existing building that I own, namely my house, with my actual money on the table.
Regarding my insulation suggestion: My direct experience as of this year is that bringing attic insulation up to code set me back about $1K (a dumpster rental to get rid of the old insulation, and the new insulation delivered to my front door) and a couple weekends worth of manual labor. It's very possible that I will recoup that entire cost in heating oil savings this winter, and if not next winter will do the trick. As for your thinking that building owners are smart enough to do this math and respond accordingly, well, the previous owner of this building had decades to make the same calculations I did and didn't, most likely for the reason that the question never entered his alcohol-addled head as something to think about.
The heating system investment is longer-term, so I'm still number-crunching, but I have good reason to think it will work in my favor over something like a 5-year run.
Mixed results would indicate being no better and no worse than making people get to an office every day. Which means that it wouldn't take much to nudge things in that direction.
The kinds of measures I'm proposing would gain fuel efficiency at the expense of sticker price. When that becomes a long-term win depends on a bunch of factors in addition to the car's price, such as the price of gasoline and how long you hang onto the car. Also, I'm definitely going to contest the "people only keep a new car a few years" issue: According to the articles I just looked up, people hang onto their new cars about 7 years these days, and that number is trending upwards as car quality improves. And then those cars typically last 5 more years on the used market.
Nobody's: In a lot of cities, there are lots of places to plant trees that aren't where a building already exists. For instance, you can replace a section of sidewalk concrete with a tree, put them on the tree lawns between the street and sidewalk, and of course put them on any lawns and other green space.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @03:09AM
I live in a city where they love planting trees on too narrow sidewalks. The result is that the roots cause huge bumps, and you're screwed if you use a wheelchair.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Wednesday October 10 2018, @04:58PM
Mixed results might mean it works well in some industries and badly in others. Applying it where it works would be a big win. Applying it where it doesn't would be stupid.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday October 10 2018, @01:01AM (5 children)
Your faith in the sensibility of vehicle design is touchingly naive. Price, safety and efficiency, you say? Wow, just wow. You totally overlooked appearances, which is stunningly important to most people. I am constantly amazed at the importance they place on appearances. The paint may not make the car go, but their attitude is it ain't worth going if the paint is bad. And what people want for the most part is what they know, whatever is conventional no matter how dated. We're still lugging spare tires around. At least most aren't full sized any more, but still, the practice continues despite little need for it thanks to tires having become far better. Also, roadside assistance is a lot better and more common. I have had badly designed tires fail on me-- had 2 of those infamous Firestone 500s as spares, and when used, one lasted 8000 miles, and the other only 13 miles. Another bum one was a defective Pep Boys store brand tire. The last time I had a defective tire surprise me with a sudden blow out was over 20 years ago. Well, I refuse to ever buy Firestone again, which may well have saved me some trouble.
Further, a little more spending up front can more than pay for itself, but manufacturers won't do it, because the public won't go for it. For instance, consider the undersides. There's no cover, and just about no one cares, it's very much out of sight, out of mind. Instead there's all kinds of stuff hanging down, contributing to drag. We have hoods to cover the top of the engine. They aren't absolutely necessary, cars can run fine without hoods, but they are a good idea. But we won't insist on the same for the underside, although covering it is as good an idea. Every time a car splashes through a big puddle, some of that gets thrown on the engine. Can get the belt wet, and cause slipping and squealing. It can get into more important places and cause the engine to stall. Also a good idea to put skirts on the wheels, and shrink the grill opening. Some of these changes would actually reduce costs as well as save gas. But people won't accept it because it's "ugly".
What cars should look like is this: http://edison2.com/very-light-car-overview/ [edison2.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by jmorris on Wednesday October 10 2018, @01:33AM (3 children)
Like I said, your kind want to rule and force the "stupid people" to obey you. For our own good of course. I'll be one of the mob outside your palace shooting at you with a nice big coil of rope along for the festivities after we get in.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @02:16AM
Your paranoid fantasies are finally leaking out as violent dreams. Good stuff. Your most deeply buried fantasies will also come true if you pull off your little shooting spree and get a life sentence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @02:49AM
And, you want to force the consequences of your actions (for your own short term gains) upon everyone else. Stealing from us, our freedom to live quality and healthy lives.
Your freedom to swing your fist ends a couple feet away from my nose-- your freedom to destroy our shared environment ends where your actions affect anyone besides yourself. E.g., I don't care if you swallow poison, but I do care if you dump poison in our rivers or oceans.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday October 10 2018, @08:51AM
+Informative on what excites jmorris.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @02:57AM
I guess you haven't looked underneath most cars built in the last ten years. Most of them have plastic fairings underneath them now. They can't cover the whole underside - you can't cover an exhaust pipe with a plastic cover, or suspension with much of anything - but they do cover most of the machinery. They have plastic fairings under the hood, too, to direct the airflow to where it needs to go instead of letting it blow around inside the engine compartment causing drag.
You probably haven't looked at the grille much either. Most cars today have mostly cosmetic grilles and take in only the amount of air they need for cooling and combustion. This was true even decades ago. It's true that people like the looks of them. So they are still there - in fact much bigger than before - but just for show.
For me the poster child for this grille inflation is the Hyundai Elantra. Compare the second generation car of the late 1990s, which essentially had no grille [wikipedia.org] to today's model [wikipedia.org]. This grille is not real. It's just for looks, and it contributes almost nothing to drag. With the computer modeling they have now, it might even improve the drag.
Fuel economy standards are serious business, and manufacturers take them seriously. Today's passenger sedans have better drag coefficients than most sports cars or economy cars had even 20 years ago. Heck, even today's *minivans* have better drag coefficients than most sports cars or economy cars did 30 years ago.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday October 10 2018, @02:11AM (6 children)
In a good amount of cases, the owners aren't the occupiers. So, as long as the occupier pays for the energy, the owners have absolutely no incentive to invest making the home more energy efficient because... they like the money.
In the cases of owner occupiers, note the evolution of the cost of living and the availability of disposable income that can be invested in making the home more energy efficient.
I certainly could afford it when I bought the home off-the-plan and, yes, the extra insulation pays off. Over 6-7 years in comparison with a home with less insulation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @04:45AM (5 children)
The super majority (67%) are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home-ownership_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday October 10 2018, @05:16AM (4 children)
Cf linked, 67% are the owner occupiers. I'm calling the rest of 23% a significant enough amount where "energy-waste proofing" is unlikely to happen - because the occupier has little interest to invest on behalf of the owner and the owner has no interest to invest if the home brings him income as it is.
Even for the 67% of owner occupiers - an interesting fact "However, homeowner equity has fallen steadily since World War II and is now less than 50% of the value of homes on average." This reflects the "yeah, I'm theoretically the owner, but practically I still need to pay the mortgage. Can I afford to invest in the energy efficiency of my home and pay the mortgage in the same time?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @05:22AM (3 children)
If you have a mortgage the bank owns the home and lets you live there. You do no "own" it. It is all very simple really.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday October 10 2018, @05:34AM
Technically, you are right.
This doesn't preclude you to act as an owner in regards with the investment of "your" home - unlike renting, as long as you pay the mortgage withing the contracted conditions to the bank, the bank can do nothing with the home or cannot stop you behaving as the owner.
And we are in the "investment in energy efficiency for homes" context, are we not?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by bootsy on Wednesday October 10 2018, @09:20AM (1 child)
Well the bank owns some of the equity and if you paid a deposit you own some equity as well. The more you pay off the more of the equity you own. You own 100 percent of the appreciation in the asset price of the property ( and in the UK you also "own" any depreciation, unlike US mortgages you cannot walk away and post the keys ). If you have insulated the house any future owner will benefit so the price should rise in a normally functioning housing market ( or fall less in a correction or downturn). Given how poor the return on savings is with historically low interest rates, the decision to insulate a property more is currently a complete no-brainer. The reduced heating bills will easily give you a better rate of return.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday October 10 2018, @01:09PM
If you can afford to do it (or convince a lender to let you have the money for the job in one go).
For instance, I'm waiting for the LiFePO4 batteries prices to come down to install an energy buffer. It's really a no-brainer since I sell the energy from the solar panels a wee over wholesale prices (6.5c/kWh) but I'm buying it at retail prices (33c/kWh). A battery to last me for 2 days with no input will mainly make me "independent" of the grid for most of the year; but at the current prices such a system means about 12 years to RoI. I decided that no, in my circumstances, I can't yet afford it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford