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This discussion has been archived.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: 1) by khallow on Friday July 05 2019, @09:17AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 05 2019, @09:17AM (#863419) Journal

    We are talking about drastic, disruptive environmental changes taking place over a timeframe of decades. You are talking about evolutionary processes that take thousands, if not millions of years.

    Unless, of course, it doesn't happen that way. Where's your evidence?

    And over that billion plus years, there has been plenty of drastic, disruptive environmental changes over the timeframe of decades. We are still here.

    Sure, something will evolve to fill that niche eventually, but until it does we are left with a(nother) big hole in the ecosystem.

    Or we can allow the ecosystem from 200 km closer to the equator to move in (similarly for tidal based ecosystems allow it to shift a few meters up when that becomes relevant). Migrating ecosystems (with human assistance when necessary) is not a perfect solution, but it eliminates IMHO a huge portion of the problems with species extinction and such from climate change for the next few centuries and it's pretty cheap.