Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday July 10 2014, @10:05PM   Printer-friendly
from the science-or-science-fiction? dept.

Ars Technica brings us another report on Climate change.

Given what we know about the sensitivity of the climate to added greenhouse gases, it's possible to calculate how much more carbon dioxide we can admit while still having a reasonable chance of staying within the two degree Celsius envelope. What's striking about these calculations is how many large changes we'll have to make in order to get there. According to Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University's Earth Institute, the per-capita emissions would have to drop from five tons annually (where they are now) to 1.6 tons by 2050.

To accomplish this, Sachs says that all nations will have to undergo a process he calls "deep decarbonization," which is part of the title of a report he's helped organize and deliver to the UN today. Pathways to Deep Decarbonization, prepared by researchers in 15 different countries, looks into what's needed to achieve sufficient cuts in our carbon emissions. The report finds that current government pledges aren't sufficient, and the technology we need to succeed may exist, but most of it hasn't been proven to scale sufficiently.

Achieving this, the report's authors argue, will have to come with a normal pace of economic growth: "There is no prospect of winning the fight against climate change if countries fail on poverty eradication or if countries do not succeed in raising the living standards of their people." Although this may add to the challenge of lowering carbon emissions, the report concludes that "Robust economic growth and rising prosperity are consistent with the objective of deep decarbonization."

The report identifies what Sachs called "three pillars" of emissions reductions: low-carbon electricity, massive efficiency gains, and a greater electrification of transit and infrastructure. (Sachs also added that land use changes could also have a major impact.)

Ok, folks you can't just put your head in the sand and pass this off as Science fiction. Do you honestly believe that the governments around the world will actually do something about this, or shall we just hope for a nice asteroid so we don't have to deal with long term planning?

 
This discussion has been archived.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 khallow on Saturday July 12 2014, @02:35PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday July 12 2014, @02:35PM (#68113) Journal

    Moonshoot funding is lacking.

    My view on that is that moonshot funding should stay lacking. Consider the epitome of moonshot programs, the Apollo program. Aside from the lunar science and a bit of land-side infrastructure, no legacy of Apollo survives. That's pretty much what a moonshot is. It's expensive with little, if any, long term benefit to it.

    My view is that current funding of renewable energy research is more than adequate. If it's being spent poorly (as you imply above), then that's a solid indication that more spending would also be spent poorly.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by kaszz on Saturday July 12 2014, @05:04PM

    by kaszz (4211) on Saturday July 12 2014, @05:04PM (#68158) Journal

    The lack of space legacy from the moon landings is because the government decided to shelve the project(s). We should already have presence on Mars and the Moon. Mining to cover raw material supply, solar satellites etc by now if priorities had been different.

    Moonshoot financing is to take on low cost projects and do that many times. It should then pay return on investment. It may also be tried for hugely disruptive technology where the benefit for the whole civilization is just to great to pass by not trying.

    • (Score: 2) by khallow on Sunday July 13 2014, @02:36AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday July 13 2014, @02:36AM (#68329) Journal

      Moonshoot financing is to take on low cost projects and do that many times. It should then pay return on investment. It may also be tried for hugely disruptive technology where the benefit for the whole civilization is just to great to pass by not trying.

      Well, I get now your original comment. My view is that in that light there's too much rather than too little research out there. It just happens to be of poor quality.

      When public funds are involved, there is little political incentive to invest in moonshots (or other potentially high value projects). They don't generate enough status for the decision makers unless they turn out really successful (and that may be years after the decision maker leaves office). OTOH, big projects generate status and hype even before they break ground. And in a conflict for resources, particularly manpower, between a big sexy project and small unsexy moonshots, the former will get the best people and best equipment. There's also political incentive to kill off funding for any small projects that threaten a big project. Similarly, incentives in the private world are weakened to invest in moonshots when there is all this competition from big projects.