SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the Better-step-on-the-gas!-Oh...wait dept.
Expansion of wind and solar power too slow to stop climate change:
The production of renewable energy is increasing every year. But after analyzing the growth rates of wind and solar power in 60 countries, researchers at Chalmers University of Technology and Lund University in Sweden and Central European University in Vienna, Austria, conclude that virtually no country is moving sufficiently fast enough to avoid global warming of 1.5°C or even 2°C.
"This is the first time that the maximum growth rate in individual countries has been accurately measured, and it shows the enormous scale of the challenge of replacing traditional energy sources with renewables, as well as the need to explore diverse technologies and scenarios," says Jessica Jewell, Associate Professor of Energy Transitions at Chalmers University of Technology.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified energy scenarios compatible with keeping global warming under 1.5°C or 2°C. Most of these scenarios envision very rapid growth of renewable electricity: on average about 1.4 percent of total global electricity supply per year for both wind and solar power, and more than 3 percent in more ambitious solar power scenarios. But the researchers' new findings show that achieving such rapid growth has so far only been possible for a few countries.
Measuring and predicting the growth of new technologies like renewable energy is difficult, as they do not grow linearly. Instead, the growth usually follows a so-called S-curve—at first it accelerates exponentially, then stabilizes to linear growth for a while, and in the end slows down as the market becomes saturated.
Journal Reference:
Cherp, Aleh, Vinichenko, Vadim, Tosun, Jale, et al. National growth dynamics of wind and solar power compared to the growth required for global climate targets, Nature Energy (DOI: 10.1038/s41560-021-00863-0)
(Score: 2) by BsAtHome on Tuesday October 19 2021, @06:33PM (46 children)
We should enforce a 5% reduction of the world wide population every year for the next 40 years or so would be a good way to reduce our footprint. Then, in 2062, we have a manageable 12% of the population left and a reduction of pollution to about the same amount. With so "few" left (still 1e9), we should actually be able to use pure renewables for the entire world.
Soylent (Green), we're getting there. Maybe not for food, but for the planet!
(Score: 5, Touché) by Tork on Tuesday October 19 2021, @06:50PM (25 children)
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 5, Interesting) by BsAtHome on Tuesday October 19 2021, @07:06PM (24 children)
Actually, not satirical at all. The question is not if the population will get reduced, but merely a question of when and how fast.
Our problems are very much correlated with the size of the population and causally linked. We went from a (marginally) symbiotic relation with nature to a parasitical relation. At some stage, nature will find a new balance where we are reduced significantly because we can no longer keep up our parasitic handling of the environment. There will soon no longer be an environment left for us to be the parasites of.
The question we should ask ourselves is: do we let "nature" correct the size of the population or are we smart enough, as a species, to get our act together and do it ourselves?
(Score: 5, Touché) by Tork on Tuesday October 19 2021, @07:18PM (10 children)
Heh. "We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!"
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by BsAtHome on Tuesday October 19 2021, @07:33PM
Human behavior: https://openclipart.org/image/800px/222014 [openclipart.org]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by khallow on Tuesday October 19 2021, @07:48PM (8 children)
We have a billion people in the developed world. Not only are we trying those ideas, but they're working pretty well too! If it weren't for immigration, then the entire developed world would be declining in population (and the immigrants become low fertility natives in a couple of generations). Combine that with the pretty good environment, it checks off the boxes you're trying for.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by deimtee on Wednesday October 20 2021, @03:53AM (7 children)
That's a temporary effect. It's axiomatic that if fertility is hereditary then those who have more kids will have more grandkids. Any individuals who reproduce at below replacement will be replaced by those who reproduce at above replacement.
In any population, declining fertility or not, there will be some who produce more offspring than average. They will come to dominate the population, at which point it will grow to the limit, whatever the limit is.
You cannot defeat evolution. Sometimes you can fool yourself into thinking you have, but all you've done is alter the selection criteria.
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 20 2021, @04:04AM (4 children)
The problem with that is that axioms don't always hold in the real world. You need more than what's axiomatic. In particular, fertility need not be hereditary here!
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:20AM (3 children)
Fertility may not always be hereditary, but infertility is. If you don't have any kids, your kids won't have any kids either.
Facetiousness aside, in the long run fertility is always hereditary. It is the bedrock of evolution.
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @02:21PM (2 children)
Lack of fertility is not what is causing people not to have kids...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @05:46PM
No, but fitness is. What are we selecting for? What are we conditioned to select for? What are we being conditioned to select for?
"Smarter" people, it has been said, are reproducing less. I'm wildly out of touch so I can't realistically answer the latter questions. I suspect the answer is nonetheless apparently egrergious.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:57PM
Depends on how you define fertility.
If you define fertile as having lots of descendants then yes it is.
If you define it as medically capable of reproducing, then it is irrelevant in this context.
Evolution doesn't care about reason. It is based solely on outcomes.
No kids = infertile = eliminated from the gene pool.
Have kids = fertile = still in the gene pool.
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday October 20 2021, @06:04PM (1 child)
An axion is an assumption. And you know what they say about assumptions....
If fertility were hereditary why would it be dropping in sync with education and poverty reduction? I don't see a huge amount of people emigrating from the developed world to go live in Sub Saharan Africa. So where are all the breeders going if access to birth control plays no role?
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:46PM
Dropping birth rates are temporary. Those individuals who have more kids even in an educated, developed society will have more descendants. It's practically a tautology. Those who don't have kids in a rich society are eliminating themselves from the gene pool.
You cannot turn off evolution, all you can do is alter the selection criteria. Currently, the major selection criterion in our societies is "do you want kids in spite of being in a developed society". That's it.
It currently vastly outweighs every other selection criteria. In a few generations the entire population will be descended from those who have kids despite being in a rich society.
If you don't have kids for any reason your genes will be eliminated from the gene pool. Not having kids in a rich society is a de-selection criterion so strong it will be eliminated in a just a few generations.
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @07:59PM (1 child)
Nothing? Hardly. I've put my faith in the invisible hand and pray to the invisible sky God.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 19 2021, @08:11PM
(Score: 1, Troll) by PiMuNu on Tuesday October 19 2021, @09:33PM
> symbiotic relation with nature to a parasitical relation
What does that mean?
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @09:34PM
There is a faction out there that is convinced COVID is a cover for a scare tactic to get us all to willingly accept injections of genetic DNA altering vaccines, whose action is irreversible.
http://stateofthenation.co [stateofthenation.co]
Note: ".co", not ".com"
I am fishing for comments... What do you guys make of this?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by mhajicek on Tuesday October 19 2021, @10:59PM (5 children)
Ok, start with the rich, they use the most resources.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Tokolosh on Wednesday October 20 2021, @03:08AM (4 children)
But they procreate the least. The poors are the ones adding to the population, and hence are impacting the climate most.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by mhajicek on Wednesday October 20 2021, @07:04AM (3 children)
One rich person, with three mansions, a yacht, and a private jet, consumes more resources and has a greater carbon footprint than multiple villages of destitute people.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2, Touché) by Tokolosh on Thursday October 21 2021, @02:10AM (2 children)
Until he dies. The village never dies, but gets bigger and continues.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @03:09AM
Who the fuck thinks that was worth modding up? The bad logic filling this thread is cringe worthy.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Thursday October 21 2021, @06:30AM
Rich peoples dynasties typically last many generations, each generation living off the backs of the working class like parasites.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2, Insightful) by ChrisMaple on Tuesday October 19 2021, @11:13PM (2 children)
Writing of environment as an entity, an entity of the sort that can have parasites, an entity that can cease to exist, is an absurdity deserving of no respect in serious discussions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @01:18AM
Aren't you a God Fearing Christian???
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday October 20 2021, @06:08PM
Do you get this worked up about metaphors in all domains or only when it comes to climate change?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by DannyB on Tuesday October 19 2021, @06:52PM (6 children)
Won't climate change do that for us with no effort on our part?
The anti vax hysteria didn't stop, it just died down.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by BsAtHome on Tuesday October 19 2021, @07:18PM (4 children)
Yes, but wouldn't you prefer to to take charge?
Species come and go, that is known. But for us doing (close to) nothing makes us the first species in the history to work knowingly on our own huge scale disaster and possibly extinction.
Or maybe, we, the human species, are not as enlightened as we thought we were.
(Score: 5, Touché) by DannyB on Tuesday October 19 2021, @07:57PM (1 child)
I have to wonder if I am wise enough to take charge of such an endeavor.
Maybe there could be China-style birth limitations per person and birth taxes, etc. But then do you go on to mandatory sterilization for offenders?
I don't think I want to touch a project like that. Best left to politicians.
But what about my freedom to have a dozen kids, and drive intoxicated, and as fast as I want, and shoot firearms in any arbitrary direction without looking at any time of the day or night? My rights! (anyone else's rights don't matter)
The anti vax hysteria didn't stop, it just died down.
(Score: 2) by BsAtHome on Tuesday October 19 2021, @08:07PM
Alright then, the new dark ages it will be.
Please be careful and try not to miss shooting your foot.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 20 2021, @10:25AM (1 child)
Do you really think we're the first to act as agents of our own demise? That story about the huge meteor wiping out the dinosaurs is bullshit. They were working on nuclear reactors, and their biggest reactor went "kerblooie". They done it to themselves, I tell you!
Fun story in that vein, 'Devourer' by Lin Cixin.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday October 20 2021, @02:02PM
Another fun story in that same vain vane is The Marching Morons [wikipedia.org]
The anti vax hysteria didn't stop, it just died down.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday October 19 2021, @08:17PM
No. Have you actually looked at graphs [reason.org] of deaths from climate change? (see figure 2) They're going way down!
(Score: 2) by HammeredGlass on Tuesday October 19 2021, @08:52PM (8 children)
You first.
(Score: 2) by BsAtHome on Tuesday October 19 2021, @10:21PM (7 children)
Already done... no children, by choice.
(Score: 3, Touché) by ChrisMaple on Tuesday October 19 2021, @11:09PM (2 children)
Your having no children is not a reduction in population until you die.
(Score: 2) by optotronic on Wednesday October 20 2021, @01:41AM (1 child)
But it is a guaranteed future reduction. Having children is not. Having three or more kids is almost a guaranteed increase.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @02:11AM
> But it is a guaranteed future reduction. Having children is not. Having three or more kids is almost a guaranteed increase.
And thus you have the paradox leading inevitably to the Marching Morons scenario, unless the culling is planned and supervised. Then that automatically brings in politics and, most likely, turns plain eugenics into genocide or worse.
(Score: 2) by HammeredGlass on Wednesday October 20 2021, @12:56AM (3 children)
There's still your own personal carbon footprint to eliminate. Offsets don't count.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @06:48AM
What??? But our CEO told us that we now offset all our private jet flights so we are GREEN!!! We even have GREEN company logo!
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday October 20 2021, @06:10PM (1 child)
If I emit 2 tons of CO2 then capture and sequester 2 tons of CO2 that's a net of zero. That's math and math counts.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by HammeredGlass on Wednesday October 20 2021, @11:46PM
That's not math. That's feelgood rationalization.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Tuesday October 19 2021, @10:54PM (2 children)
The question is, how do you want to choose those 5%?
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19 2021, @11:46PM
They've volunteered, we call them "climate change activists".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @01:44AM
> how do you want to choose those 5%?
You really only need to cull 1% and their progeny to make a huge difference.
A simple proxy for carbon emissions per capita is wealth.
Carbon emissions of richest 1 percent are more than double the emissions of the poorest half of humanity.
So, the richest 1% and their spawn.
[1] https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-richest-1-percent-more-double-emissions-poorest-half-humanity [oxfam.org]
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 20 2021, @05:09AM
This was the setting [youtube.com] back when the population was one billion
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..