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: 4, Interesting) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday July 03 2019, @03:33PM
Fair point, but if I was feeling troublesome I could ask:
State the difference between "pumping billions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere in order to satisfy the 1st world's addiction to happy meals and shit" and "pumping billions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere in order to dislocate, drown and starve billions of poor people all over the world." The difference already seems pretty academic to a large part of the Earth's population.
Besides, anyone with the resources to put a giant sunshade in orbit over an entire population also has the resources to drop an ICBM on them. This doesn't really add any new threat.
Anyway, I imagined the sunshades would be only partly opaque. You'd want a design with regular holes in it, like a sieve, to reflect only some of the light and allow the rest through. Think "screen door" rather than "parasol". That would mean you'd still get sunlight in its shadow, it just wouldn't be as bright. Good designs would let you open / close some or all of the holes at will to modify the amount of shade.
With luck and some proper changes down on Earth you'd only need it up there for a decade or so to build the ice caps back up a bit.