SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
We've Already Built too Many Power Plants and Cars to Prevent 1.5 °C of Warming:
In a [...] paper published in Nature today[*], researchers found we're now likely to sail well past 1.5 ˚C of warming, the aspirational limit set by the Paris climate accords, even if we don't build a single additional power plant, factory, vehicle, or home appliance. Moreover, if these components of the existing energy system operate for as long as they have historically, and we build all the new power facilities already planned, they'll emit about two thirds of the carbon dioxide necessary to crank up global temperatures by 2 ˚C.
If fractions of a degree don't sound that dramatic, consider that 1.5 ˚C of warming could already be enough to expose 14% of the global population to bouts of severe heat, melt nearly 2 million square miles (5 million square kilometers) of Arctic permafrost, and destroy more than 70% of the world's coral reefs. The hop from there to 2 ˚C may subject nearly three times as many people to heat waves, thaw nearly 40% more permafrost, and all but wipe out coral reefs, among other devastating effects, research finds.
The basic conclusion here is, in some ways, striking. We've already built a system that will propel the planet into the dangerous terrain that scientists have warned for decades we must avoid. This means that building lots of renewables and adding lots of green jobs, the focus of much of the policy debate over climate, isn't going to get the job done.
We now have to ask a much harder societal question: How do we begin forcing major and expensive portions of existing energy infrastructure to shut down years, if not decades, before the end of its useful economic life?
Power plants can cost billions of dollars and operate for half a century. Yet the study notes that the average age of coal plants in China and India—two of the major drivers of the increase in "committed emissions" since the earlier paper—is about 11 and 12 years, respectively.
[*] Monday.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03 2019, @02:02PM (56 children)
How about humans just adapt just like they have always done before?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03 2019, @02:08PM (41 children)
The real goal is to misdirect people's blame from the collapse of the global economic ponzi that has been created as the perpetrators seize even more power.
You can tell because if you suggest people do anything on their own to plan for climate change you'll get called a troll. The only acceptable solution is for governments and corporations to become more powerful.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by choose another one on Wednesday July 03 2019, @03:14PM (40 children)
> The real goal is to misdirect people's blame from the collapse of the global economic ponzi that has been created as the perpetrators seize even more power.
Not quite, the real goal is to perpetuate the current system by deluding the people as to what the real choices actually are.
The problems is that "renewables" is just another marketing scam that makes more money for the suppliers of a dodgy product. Renewable energy can never, ever, give us the power and security of supply that we exist with now at a price we are collectively willing to pay. The problems are fundamental:
* the required physical space (compare size of multi GW wind/solar and multi GW coal or nuclear plant)
* location/transmission (remote locations that have the space require difficult and expensive transmission to get power to where it is needed)
* variability and non-existence of effective mass storage (yeah, "smart grids" will solve all that - where "smart grid" = "load-shed the poor folk first")
* often "renewable" simply has a different environmental cost - back in the 80's hydro power was going to be the great saviour, sustainable, controllable, security of supply, seems strangely out of favour now... because we've figured out how bad it is
"Sustainable" energy provision at our current level of civilisation simply isn't possible with current tech (yeah, fusion is 20yrs away). See e.g.: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/05/06/the-reason-renewables-cant-power-modern-civilization-is-because-they-were-never-meant-to [forbes.com]
The real choices are:
* accept climate change and deal with the effects
* get rid of way more that half of world population
* cease / reverse "development" so that the current world population has a living standard about the average of current sub-Saharan Africa, and stays there
Ain't no one saying that though, apparently not a popular set of options...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03 2019, @03:26PM (18 children)
This sounds fine to me... What is the problem?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03 2019, @03:53PM (17 children)
The problem is that the effects may well cause options 2 and 3 combined.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03 2019, @04:04PM (11 children)
So can lots of other things (solar flare, asteroid, nuclear war, poleshift, etc).
(Score: 4, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Wednesday July 03 2019, @05:23PM (9 children)
That's like saying "I could die from being run over by a rhinoceros, from being smothered by a warmth-seeking raccoon that snuck into my home, from sheer exhaustion of humping every starlet now living, from being buried under so much money I simply could not draw enough air to breathe... so it doesn't matter if I walk out in front of a speeding truck."
You has the dumbs. Seek help.
--
Reality is that thing which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03 2019, @05:42PM (8 children)
Uh no. You should simply prepare for scenarios that are common to many possible threats. It is going to be the people sitting on the coasts waiting for someone else to do something that get screwed over the worst. The people prepping for a grand solar minimum, etc will also be better prepared for warming anyway.
(Score: 3, Troll) by fyngyrz on Wednesday July 03 2019, @06:11PM (7 children)
Uh no.
Climate change is the truck. It's coming. All you have to do is look at the data.
And no, it won't just be people on the coasts.
It's going to affect agriculture and livestock, and therefore what you can eat, and what that costs you.
It's going to affect weather, and therefore the costs of insurance, housing materials and any compensating that needs to be done.
It's going to affect land/home availability, prices and rents everywhere as the coasts become less livable.
It's going to acidify the oceans, and therefore affect the price and availability of sea-based foodstuffs. Even if the temperature changes are able to be accommodated by sea life moving around, the change in water chemistry will only be survivable by organisms that (a) evolve very quickly and (b) can find adequate forage in the reduced food circumstances they find themselves existing in. This is a big one; people seem to really overlook the impact that significant changes to ocean chemistry will almost certainly bring. The oceans feed a lot of people. If that stops, there's going to be some pretty notable unrest, even if nothing else happens.
It's going to create (more) desperate people pretty much no matter what.
All of this is only as inevitable as we let it be. We don't have to walk in front of that truck. Although I have to say, at least here in the US, we're walking and not looking nearly hard enough, because... dumb.
Whereas the asteroid and similar? Yeah, if one arrives, there won't be shite you can do about it.
As I said: you has the dumbs.
--
Rap is to music what stale convenience store sandwiches are to fine cuisine.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03 2019, @06:17PM (5 children)
There are people who have years of food saved up with their residence(s) in strategic locations who are spending this time to learn survival skills. They are doing this because they looked at the data and it shows we are due for a mini-ice age. The CO2 warming may or may not eventually happen later but that hardly matters if the cold wipes you out first...
Say they are wrong and warming happens. Do you think they will be better or worse off than people living in coastal cities waiting for the government to do something?
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Wednesday July 03 2019, @07:20PM (4 children)
It's already happening. No matter how many people die from extremes of weather, there'll always be deniers refusing to call it climate change. No true Scotsman.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03 2019, @07:26PM (2 children)
I think you misunderstood my post. I am talking about people who believe they have reason to be very worried about much bigger and threatening climate change than what you are referring to. The problems in TFS are simply negligible in comparison.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Wednesday July 03 2019, @07:42PM (1 child)
Yeah I get that you're talking about people preparing for widespread harm / possible social breakdown from bigger changes in climate. My point is that if someone is already killed as a result of current changes in the climate, it won't matter to them how negligible or threatening people say it is.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03 2019, @07:53PM
Ok, well my point is if they (or their family/community/government/whatever) would have prepared more for bigger changes in climate (or whatever threat) then those people wouldn't have died. The people preparing in general are going to be far better off almost no matter what the threat is.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 05 2019, @10:15AM
So what? What's the increase in deaths from slightly worse weather extremes? Meanwhile a fossil fuel based developed world economy can reduce deaths from extremes of weather, whether caused by global warming or not, by orders of magnitude.
Sorry, it's pretty stupid to angst over extremes of weather when basic emergency preparedness, which covers far more than just climate change-induced extreme weather, can vastly reduce the harm just by itself. Among other things, it shows you're not even serious about solving these problems.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 05 2019, @10:09AM
Data like 4mm of sea level rise per year? You do realize that's only 40 cm of sea level rise a century? That's one really slow moving truck.
Yes, the dire effects could, maybe include slightly higher food prices and desperate farmers profitably farming stuff presently growing slightly closer to the equator.
But not even within an order of magnitude of any reform of those industries.
To the contrary, the coasts remain quite livable, they just move slightly and maybe have slightly more storm damage. Some increase in storm damage does seem to be a likely effect of global warming.
Slightly acidify. Notice how often the terms "slight" and "slightly" appear in reference to descriptions of climate change.
But the economic activity that we thereby do may create orders of magnitude (more) less desperate people which swamp the problem above.
Let us note here that you haven't even established that doing something about climate change is even slightly better than not doing something about climate change. Meanwhile basic emergency preparedness (as one of the common sense things advocated by the grandparent) works for a variety of threats, including a large portion of the global warming-induced ones. It shouldn't be a mystery why the developed world has seen orders of magnitude drop in deaths from extreme weather despite its alleged increase in frequency due to climate change.
Not being at the point of impact is a huge thing you can do about asteroids. Another example of what one can do is food security, which conveniently addresses a variety of problems including climate change and large asteroid impacts.
I find it interesting how you can reply to a common sense post like that with such stupid bullshit and then accuse them of "having the dumbs".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03 2019, @11:06PM
Probability says [wikipedia.org]: You're talking out of your ass.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 04 2019, @12:19PM (4 children)
The obvious rebuttal is that the effects haven't caused options 2 and 3 combined yet. Instead, we've seen the greatest improvement in the human condition ever. The narrative isn't matching reality.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday July 04 2019, @05:19PM (3 children)
You know the story about the man who fell from the top of a skyscraper?
Every time he passed a further floor, he noted: “Well, up to now, nothing bad happened.”
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 04 2019, @10:26PM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday July 05 2019, @07:39AM (1 child)
Well, I don't know about you, but I don't consider graduation to be a catastrophic event.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 05 2019, @09:11AM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday July 03 2019, @03:54PM (20 children)
Well, I'd like to challenge you on some of those assumptions about renewables, but I'm sure someone else will do so. Instead, I'd like to add another option to your very limited list of apathy. How about:
* Stop wasting obscene amounts of energy and resources on shit we don't need?
I'm not saying everyone has to go eat tofu in a yurt, but be honest: Does everyone really NEED a huge gas-guzzling 5-7 seater car all to themselves? What if we made it easier for people to commute less, or to share cars or even (gasp) get people using public transport? Or what about diet? Sure, I know people like their meat, but the carbon footprint is huge. What if everybody, for the good of everybody, were to halve their meat intake? Some people live quite happily on no meat at all, so your average punter should be able to make a huge difference without going full veggie. Oh, and while we're at it, how about people not buying loads more food than they need only to chuck it into landfill as soon as it hits the "best before" date? What if we were to seriously question the amount of plastic shit that gets manufactured in China, shipped half way round the world to fill Christmas stockings, and ends up in landfill before February? How about addressing instagram-fuelled "Fast Fashion" where idiots buy whole new outfits of cheap clothes only to throw them away after the first wearing? I could go on and on, but you get the idea. Our society is wasteful. There are plenty of savings we could make, drastic savings, if only there weren't so many people making money from the destructive status quo. And if we had made those changes 30 years ago when the warning flags were first raised, things wouldn't be anywhere near so desperate now.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03 2019, @04:01PM (2 children)
That is what people have been saying. All you need to do to accomplish that is have a deflationary currency so people are rewarded for saving.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Wednesday July 03 2019, @05:27PM (1 child)
And/or interest rates that actually reward saving in the amounts the typical person can manage.
Ask your bank what a savings account will earn. Such an account is utterly pointless today.
--
After my girl turned vegan, it was
like I'd never seen herbivore.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03 2019, @05:48PM
The opposite is on its way: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=32428&page=1&cid=862764#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by digitalaudiorock on Wednesday July 03 2019, @07:05PM (4 children)
Another huge culprit is home air conditioning. Actually our central air gave out almost three years ago...we're actually due for a new furnace and AC...just haven't gotten around to it. I have to say though this is the third year we've gone without it (New Jersey) and there have only been a few times I missed it much.
What blows me away is that there are a lot of people who literally cool their homes in the summer down to a temperature that's actually lower then the temperature the heat it to in the winter! I mean FFS...adapt to the climate a little. At one job I had years ago I almost needed fucking gloves to code in the middle of August due to that bullshit. I mean come on.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03 2019, @10:46PM (2 children)
And this is a feedback loop: climate gets hotter -> people use more air conditioning which causes more greenhouse gasses -> climate gets hotter
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday July 04 2019, @09:13PM (1 child)
That loop is dependent upon one particular toxic link: power generation that generates those greenhouse gasses. Typically other types of pollution as well.
Many types of power generation do not do that. Those are the ones we should be developing in order to replace the toxic power generation systems. That will break the loop.
The trick here is to convince the government and the public that this really needs to be done as in, "this is a fucking emergency, get after it."
I wouldn't get anyone's hopes up, though. I think the stupid is far too deeply rooted.
--
Fibonacci: it's as easy as 1, 1, 2, 3
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 05 2019, @09:18AM
So when will you try evidence? If the situation really is as dire as claimed, then there's evidence for that.
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Thursday July 04 2019, @03:10AM
What blows me away is that there are a lot of people who literally cool their homes in the summer down to a temperature that's actually lower then the temperature the heat it to in the winter!
I've seen a lot of that in some places. It has also been going on for a very long time. I remember learning to pack winter clothes for certain buildings during the summer in the US. The height of the wastefulness was that many of the younger women were running space heaters under their desks at the same time instead of just adding winter clothes when indoors during the summers.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ElizabethGreene on Thursday July 04 2019, @07:23AM (6 children)
With the utmost of respect, you're going the wrong direction with this. You cannot conserve or downsize your way out of climate change. It will not happen, and people will fight you tooth and nail all the way until you fail. You can reduce the energy consumption and CO2 production from the United States and Europe to zero and you've only bought yourself a couple of decades. Why? Because there are billions of people working to claw their way out of poverty in underdeveloped countries and they will not be stopped without anything short of globe-spanning genocide.
The only way to solve climate change is to create abundance. Any solution that does not create more abundance is a waste of time and money.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday July 04 2019, @11:35AM (5 children)
I think you missed a word. I think you probably meant to write The only way to solve climate change is to create sustainable abundance. Otherwise you're just making things worse
Which is kind of the point of downsizing: We already know how to do abundance, now let's make it more sustainable.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 04 2019, @10:56PM (4 children)
Let us note that ElizabethGreene made a case for why abundance is more sustainable than its absence.
What needs to be downsized? Most of the stuff people talk about conserving, just isn't that valuable.
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Friday July 05 2019, @05:15AM (3 children)
While you're banging out the semantics of getting what I meant out of what I said, can we take a look at...
I'm not that smart, and that's literally the off the top of my head list. If we get some smart people with actual clue thinking about this we can come up with ideas that have a real impact instead of making token gestures.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 05 2019, @09:03AM
We have an approach in the developed world that checks off a lot of nice boxes: greater wealth, lower human fertility, better environment, etc. And yet there's people arguing that we should short circuit it because it's wasteful in ways that aren't important, babbling about SUVs and meat intake in this thread alone.
Are we going to go with what works? Or are we going to pursue sexy, but destructive narratives?
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Friday July 05 2019, @12:15PM (1 child)
I agree with most of your points, but with respect to point 2, I would point out that high or low temp doesn't really matter.
While a low temperature reaction would be nice, the CO2 is produced by the chemical reaction itself, not the heat. CaCO3 = CaO + CO2
Even if you use a nuclear power station to make your cement the process will still emit large quantities of CO2.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Friday July 05 2019, @05:22PM
There is a significant amount of dead dinosaur used to fuel the process, and that's the low hanging fruit. That said, I'm not going to complain at all if you find another way to do it that produces something other than CO2.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 04 2019, @12:25PM (4 children)
Energy is cheap and global warming isn't a big problem for the next few centuries, even should we choose to continue to use fossil fuels to provide that obscene amount of energy. What's the problem?
really means
The enormous drawback to public transportation is that so often, it doesn't go where you want to go, and hence, is slower than cars, the usual point to point transportation system that does go where you want to go.
My view is that human time and quality of life is more important than saving some modest amount of energy.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday July 05 2019, @08:47AM (3 children)
> What's the problem?
You are, apparently. A whole swathe of the population who is either so blindly contrarian to anything they perceive as a challenge to their political / economic dogma or so greedy/lazy that they can't even be bothered to contemplate that their actions might have consequences.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 05 2019, @09:10AM (2 children)
And now we're to the religious argument that the mental failwaves of the heretics are why we can't have good things. It's telling that you can't argue anywhere in this discussion on scientific grounds.
Of course, if you tried, you'd quickly find that there isn't scientific support for your continued assertions that we need to act right now to mitigate climate change as well as the implicit, economically ignorant assumption that such mitigation would actually work.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday July 05 2019, @01:39PM (1 child)
I'm not going to sit here and regurgitate half a century of climate science for you. (a) I don't have time and (b) it's a massive waste of time, since you will just shout NO NO NO THAT CAN'T BE TRUE LALALALALALA. It's not hard for you to find by yourself. It's solid science, backed and supported by the vast majority of scientists in relevant fields (and most scientists in other fields, for that matter.)
The only people who continue to go against it are people who stand to lose money - primarily, the oil companies - who have invested huge amounts of cash into anti-climate science FUD that has stuck hard with certain sections of the population, particularly those on the right-wing.
There is no religion here, only science.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday July 06 2019, @02:01AM
This is the typical religious argument - it's the fault of the skeptic that they don't believe. Handwaving about nebulous half centuries of scientific literature is no different that claiming that someone would believe, if they only listened to God or other deity.
Sure, it is. Meanwhile in the real world, there's quite a few scientists in related fields wondering what's going on in climatology with its crazy certainty, ridiculous data massaging, piles of speculative models - often several layers removed from reality, and peculiar blindnesses to implications of their research. And not much in the way of science that backs the urgency of global warming.
Then where is this anti-climate science FUD? It's remarkably invisible giving the huge budgets you claim they have. Most religions need an imaginary Satan to blame for failure. That box gets checked here as well.
If evidence was on your side, you wouldn't have to resort to these typical religious evasions. Similarly, that scientific community wouldn't have to suppress facts that run counter to the narrative, like the above uncertainty in climate models, the huge gap between present day climate-related changes and the supposed catastrophic future changes, or the serious economics problems with the mitigation strategies. Nor would those scientists have to hustle us like two bit con artists.
A huge example here is the history of the 1.5 C threshold. It started life as a 2 C threshold. Then when the IPCC had to reduce the bottom range of their temperature sensitivity of a doubling of CO2 from 2 C to 4.5 C to 1.5 C, simultaneously they decided that 1.5 C was an important threshold to avoid. My take is that nothing changed except that the real sensitivity of a doubling of CO2 was lower than they thought, probably in the 1.5 to 2.0 C range (else they wouldn't have bothered to lower it) and thus, they had to come up with an alternative strategy for encouraging radical climate change mitigation. Lowering the threshold to barely above present day levels, so that mitigation could be argued even in light of the huge uncertainty in temperature sensitivity, was the obvious choice.
As I see it, you and that scientific community had half a century to present that solid science, and you all failed, and as now, continue to fail. It's not Big Oil's imaginary propaganda, it's you.
At this point, you're just noise. I'm just not interested. And my take is that there's a growing number of people joining my camp.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03 2019, @03:16PM (3 children)
There is no doubt people will have to adapt.
The changes are evident already for a number of years and we are having to adapt. (Much more frequent and intense rain storms, in my neck of the woods.)
The question is: can we keep the changes from getting EVEN WORSE, but adaptation is simply a given in ANY scenario.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03 2019, @03:24PM (2 children)
http://wiki.iceagefarmer.com/wiki/Grand_Solar_Minimum_Symptoms#Torrential_Rain.2FFlooding.2C_Droughts [iceagefarmer.com]
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03 2019, @07:55PM (1 child)
Herpy derpy dooooo
Watch out, the kool-aid is poisoned with CRISPR for stupidity!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03 2019, @08:22PM
Keep downvoting reality at your own risk:
> "A number of documented incidents show the extent of the famine. Edward II, King of England, stopped at St Albans on 10 August 1315 and had difficulty finding bread for himself and his entourage; it was a rare occasion in which the King of England was unable to eat. The French, under Louis X, tried to invade Flanders, but in the low country of the Netherlands, the fields were soaked and the army became so bogged down that they were forced to retreat, burning their provisions where they left them, unable to carry them away. "
http://wiki.iceagefarmer.com/wiki/History [iceagefarmer.com]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday July 03 2019, @03:19PM (3 children)
Hey, that sounds like a much cheaper way to put humans on Mars!
People should just adapt to the environment!
Brilliant!
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 04 2019, @12:29PM (2 children)
Adaptation is a part of any serious plan for colonization of Mars. Building shirt-sleeve microenvironments on Mars (which is what all of them plan to do) is adaptation to the Martian environment. So your sarcasm is misplaced.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday July 08 2019, @04:36PM (1 child)
Drat! I hate it when I misplace my sarcasm.
I use it so much, I always try to put it back in the same place when I'm done with it.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 09 2019, @04:01PM
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Rupert Pupnick on Wednesday July 03 2019, @04:32PM (5 children)
How about if we take steps to make that adaptation the cause of as little suffering as possible?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03 2019, @04:54PM
Sure, start with getting rid of the incentives to move to a flood plain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Flood_Insurance_Program [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 04 2019, @12:35PM (3 children)
(Score: 2) by Rupert Pupnick on Thursday July 04 2019, @01:09PM (2 children)
Because I believe that adaptation on a global scale will entail suffering at the individual scale— if you accept as true the prediction of climate catastrophe. I’m not totally convinced either way. I was just responding to the cavalier response of “don’t worry, we will adapt”.
Suffering, of course, can also result from economic collapse caused by bad policy, as you point out.
But I don’t think I’ve ever heard of anyone advocating for the climate of 1850 as a desired outcome. I always thought the objective was to avoid a future disaster.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 04 2019, @06:48PM
Cause yer not a droolin' varmint incapable of higher thinking!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 04 2019, @10:23PM
The 1.5 C limit mentioned in the story is such advocacy.