7 ms·

From the article: “Perhaps the most worrying finding in the report is the threat of a feedback loop between severe weather events and carbon emissions. Accordin

• perfunctory 8y ago
  > but the idea of this vicious cycle is pretty scary. And I suspect it doesn't stop with increased air conditioning. Efforts to provide relief and rebuild communities after natural disasters will require more energy still.
  • ximeng 8y ago
    Also competition over limited resources means that it is in nobody’s interests to reduce energy use first. The only way this gets fixed is with cleaner energy mix and active carbon removal.
    • i_am_proteus 8y ago
      Historically, competition over limited resources has often led to reduction in population from warfare and disease. A significant population reduction from the same, today, would reduce carbon emissions. This is an observation, not a proposal, suggestion, or endorsement.
      • adrianN 8y ago
        I don't have a crystal ball, but I think that a major war that kills enough wealthy people to more than offset its own carbon cost is relatively unlikely during the next ten years. Unfortunately the next ten years are what determines whether we will be able to limit global warming to two degrees or not.
        • vkou 8y ago
          > I don't have a crystal ball, but I think that a major war that kills enough wealthy people to more than offset its own carbon cost is relatively unlikely during the next ten years. A nuclear war will: 1. Kill hundreds of millions of wealthy people. 2. Is the most likely kind of 'real' conflict between wealthy people.
          • adrianN 8y ago
            I don't think that 2) is true, and I don't think a conflict between wealthy people is going to happen in the next ten years.
          • WaltPurvis 8y ago
            Nuclear war may or may not be the "most likely" kind of war, but it's still, as the person you're responding to said, "relatively unlikely." (I would say it's very unlikely.)
            • vkou 8y ago
              Given how many close calls we have had, and given how there's thousands of nuclear weapons, pointed at eachother, on hairtrigger alert, and given that a number of countries allow themselves to use nuclear weapons in a first-strike scenario, I strongly feel that the possibility of a nuclear war in any given year is ~1-2%. 1. The US and Russia are currently doing their best to antagonize eachother. 2. The US is currently doing its best to extract itself from the tyrrany of MAD (By building ICBM defenses.) [1] If MAD breaks down, the whole house of cards that justifies the existence of nuclear weapons as a guarantor of peace collapses. 3. The Russians have an automated retaliatory-strike system - should they be attacked, it will end the world. Hopefully, there aren't any bugs with it. (But knowing how software projects go, of course there are bugs with it.) [2] 4. The decision to launch, once made by either country's leadership, cannot be second-guessed by saner subordinates. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_missile_defense_complex_in_Poland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_missile_defense_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand
      • pjc50 8y ago
        The collapse of Yemen (which is running out of water) may be considered the first of these.
    • Brakenshire 8y ago
      Europe is actually reducing energy use though, it's amazing looking at the difference between the US and Europe on that chart, given Europe is a similar sized economy, with a larger population. If the US increase is half down to a.c. and heating, perhaps it reflects that US is just far more exposed to the impacts of climate change. As you say, we need to push zero carbon technologies in, and break the link between increased energy use (which looks inevitable) and increased carbon use. The worry is that even if we do manage to get up to a large percentage of the electricity grid using nuclear or renewables, and electrifying transport and heating, which together would be a monumental task, it will just leave us with a glut of gas, coal and oil on the market. Reduced demand will just lead to lowered prices because of massive sunk investments in exploration and production (for instance: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/02/09/the-truth-about-big-oil-and-climate-change https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/02/09/the-truth-about...). In other words, to make this transition without government intervention, renewables and/or nuclear don't just need to go below the total cost of production for fossil fuels, they need to fall below even the marginal cost of production. It is a massive gamble on the ability for technology and economies of scale to reduce the costs of alternative technologies to that extent. In fact even if that happens, with someone like Trump in charge, there's a serious chance the government will try and bail out the companies that have made these bad investments, and still burn the fossil fuels even if they are uneconomic.
  • Nasrudith 8y ago
    That suggests the best way for efficiency is to build it to high standards and ideally to last in the first place - not only for disaster resistance but energy efficiency.
  • ams6110 8y ago
    From what I've seen, most people keep their houses far cooler than necessary in the summer. I keep my house at about 80 degrees in the summer. AC basically keeps the humidity under control. I don't understand keeping the house at 70 degrees.
    • freehunter 8y ago
      Necessary and comfortable are two different things. As long as the true external costs of keeping your house at a comfortable temperature are not included in the actual cost of air conditioning, people will choose comfortable rather than necessary.
• delinka 8y ago
  >Sure the availability of cheaper energy may cause increased consumption... But those cheaper alternatives should also be safer alternatives.