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, 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