Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Wednesday July 03 2019, @01:50PM   Printer-friendly
from the The-Heat-is-On!-?? dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Rupert Pupnick on Wednesday July 03 2019, @04:32PM (5 children)

    by Rupert Pupnick (7277) on Wednesday July 03 2019, @04:32PM (#862776) Journal

    How about if we take steps to make that adaptation the cause of as little suffering as possible?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03 2019, @04:54PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03 2019, @04:54PM (#862785)

    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)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 04 2019, @12:35PM (#863112) Journal
    Why? There isn't a lot of suffering from adaptation. Meanwhile there is a lot of suffering from braking hard the global economy so that it can change slightly less from someone's desired 1850 climate.
    • (Score: 2) by Rupert Pupnick on Thursday July 04 2019, @01:09PM (2 children)

      by Rupert Pupnick (7277) on Thursday July 04 2019, @01:09PM (#863115) Journal

      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 04 2019, @06:48PM (#863197)

        Cause yer not a droolin' varmint incapable of higher thinking!

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 04 2019, @10:23PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 04 2019, @10:23PM (#863261) Journal

        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.

        The 1.5 C limit mentioned in the story is such advocacy.