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: 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.