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This discussion has been archived.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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03 2019, @06:17PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03 2019, @06:17PM (#862829)

    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)

    by acid andy (1683) on Wednesday July 03 2019, @07:20PM (#862859) Homepage Journal

    Say they are wrong and warming happens.

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03 2019, @07:26PM (#862861)

      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)

        by acid andy (1683) on Wednesday July 03 2019, @07:42PM (#862870) Homepage Journal

        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

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03 2019, @07:53PM (#862874)

          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

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 05 2019, @10:15AM (#863430) Journal

      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.

      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.