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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by edIII on Wednesday July 03 2019, @08:30PM (2 children)

    by edIII (791) on Wednesday July 03 2019, @08:30PM (#862894)

    I'm not sure about that, but I would say the typical "Left" person is against nuclear. Nuclear is the only real solution. Solar might supplement things, but at really large scales, solar also has an impact on the environment from manufacturing to handling of defunct panels. I'm not convinced wind power can solve our issues, and that's using the highly advanced and compact solid state wind generators. Those have the same environmental foot print issue related to manufacturing.

    Considering what is at stake, I think we should be building nuclear reactors underground as fast as we possibly can. Nuclear is a dirty word though, even when we talk about advanced designs using Thorium that are far safer than any traditional reactor.

    --
    Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday July 03 2019, @08:46PM (1 child)

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday July 03 2019, @08:46PM (#862902) Journal

    Well THIS lefty is vociferously PRO nuclear.

    I'll take a localized pollution issue over a global one any day of the week!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03 2019, @11:57PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03 2019, @11:57PM (#862976)

      Vociferous here too.