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: 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.