5 ms·

Well that's great but it's not really enough and it's 50 years too late. Also UK accounts for 1% of global production. Sorry to be negative but we need to face

Well that's great but it's not really enough and it's 50 years too late. Also UK accounts for 1% of global production. Sorry to be negative but we need to face up to the fact that we are in deep shit.

SECProto 8y ago
"The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is today." The only thing worse than the "not really enough" emissions reduction plans, is idle comments about how terrible they are without offering any better, more effective solution. Reducing the UK by 50% is better than not. If every country didn't reduce because they "only" make up X% of global emissions, no progress would be made, period. The solution is to target 0 CO2 emissions, and work our way there one productive step at a time.
- ForHackernews 8y ago
  There isn't a better, more effective solution. Maybe 25 years ago, but it's almost certainly too late now. [0] Even if we cut emissions to 0 tomorrow using magic, the ice caps would continue melting from the CO2 we've already released. That said, it's still worth it to keep emphasizing the fact that things are going to continue getting worse for the environment. Otherwise, people will be shocked, angry and outraged and societal upheaval and violence are likely to result. Already, you see people are upset about the wildfires in California, or the influx of migrants from the global south. It would be doubly sad (though perhaps some would call it poetic justice) if we lost our civilization as a consequence of destroying our ecosystem. [0] https://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=8433 https://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=8433
  - Wowfunhappy 8y ago
    > There isn't a better, more effective solution. Maybe 25 years ago, but it's almost certainly too late now. [0] Even if we cut emissions to 0 tomorrow using magic, the ice caps would continue melting from the CO2 we've already released. Please propose an alternative solution that does not involve time travel. Yes, Climate Change is going to have a negative impact on the world regardless of what we do today. But if we don't do anything, that impact will be even worse!
    - lrem 8y ago
      CO2 capture in the vein of www.climeworks.com might be the solution, but it would need the political will to tax the humankind. There is no way we will ever find a commercial use for the captured CO2. In the meantime, those of us with the means to do so can buy cheap arable land (of the low yield potential, remote and so on) and plant a native forest there. If you're in the EU, the cost of doing so might be way less than you imagine, thanks to the Union heavily subsidizing forestation. My first order approximation is that fully offsetting the estimated emissions of my family would delay getting that damned flat downpayment by two or three years. Which I'm seriously considering.
      - Wowfunhappy 8y ago
        This should all be done in addition to emissions reductions, though!
      - bjourne 8y ago
        CO2 capture will unfortunately never be practical. Assuming we can get the cost down to $100/ton (which is very optimistic!), the cost of capturing all CO2 emitted by fossil fuels per year would roughly equal 20% of the total US GDP. Limiting emissions will always be orders of magnitudes more efficient.
        lrem 8y ago
        Indeed. But to really stop the bleeding, we do have to go negative emissions. It's not like the answer to "we'll reach the point of no return by 2030" should be "ok, let's settle for 2035 instead".
    - ForHackernews 8y ago
      > Please propose an alternative solution that does not involve time travel. This is what you Pollyannas need to get through your thick skulls: There is no "solution". You can't "solve" something that has already happened. We've already driven the bus off the cliff: I'm saying we need to brace for impact, and you're still whining "oh but you need to propose a solution to keep us on the road".
ben_w 8y ago
While it would be great if the UK could reduce CO2 emissions by 10,000% of current levels, it’s probably easier for every country to individually reduce their own CO2 emissions, starting with whatever is most cost-effective. In those cases where a country can produce more than it needs, export it, like any other good — this already happens in some cases.

SECProto 8y ago

"The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is today." The only thing worse than the "not really enough" emissions reduction plans, is idle comments about how terrible they are without offering any better, more effective solution. Reducing the UK by 50% is better than not. If every country didn't reduce because they "only" make up X% of global emissions, no progress would be made, period. The solution is to target 0 CO2 emissions, and work our way there one productive step at a time.

ForHackernews 8y ago
There isn't a better, more effective solution. Maybe 25 years ago, but it's almost certainly too late now. [0] Even if we cut emissions to 0 tomorrow using magic, the ice caps would continue melting from the CO2 we've already released. That said, it's still worth it to keep emphasizing the fact that things are going to continue getting worse for the environment. Otherwise, people will be shocked, angry and outraged and societal upheaval and violence are likely to result. Already, you see people are upset about the wildfires in California, or the influx of migrants from the global south. It would be doubly sad (though perhaps some would call it poetic justice) if we lost our civilization as a consequence of destroying our ecosystem. [0] https://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=8433 https://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=8433
- Wowfunhappy 8y ago
  > There isn't a better, more effective solution. Maybe 25 years ago, but it's almost certainly too late now. [0] Even if we cut emissions to 0 tomorrow using magic, the ice caps would continue melting from the CO2 we've already released. Please propose an alternative solution that does not involve time travel. Yes, Climate Change is going to have a negative impact on the world regardless of what we do today. But if we don't do anything, that impact will be even worse!
  - lrem 8y ago
    CO2 capture in the vein of www.climeworks.com might be the solution, but it would need the political will to tax the humankind. There is no way we will ever find a commercial use for the captured CO2. In the meantime, those of us with the means to do so can buy cheap arable land (of the low yield potential, remote and so on) and plant a native forest there. If you're in the EU, the cost of doing so might be way less than you imagine, thanks to the Union heavily subsidizing forestation. My first order approximation is that fully offsetting the estimated emissions of my family would delay getting that damned flat downpayment by two or three years. Which I'm seriously considering.
    - Wowfunhappy 8y ago
      This should all be done in addition to emissions reductions, though!
    - bjourne 8y ago
      CO2 capture will unfortunately never be practical. Assuming we can get the cost down to $100/ton (which is very optimistic!), the cost of capturing all CO2 emitted by fossil fuels per year would roughly equal 20% of the total US GDP. Limiting emissions will always be orders of magnitudes more efficient.
      - lrem 8y ago
        Indeed. But to really stop the bleeding, we do have to go negative emissions. It's not like the answer to "we'll reach the point of no return by 2030" should be "ok, let's settle for 2035 instead".
  - ForHackernews 8y ago
    > Please propose an alternative solution that does not involve time travel. This is what you Pollyannas need to get through your thick skulls: There is no "solution". You can't "solve" something that has already happened. We've already driven the bus off the cliff: I'm saying we need to brace for impact, and you're still whining "oh but you need to propose a solution to keep us on the road".

ben_w 8y ago

While it would be great if the UK could reduce CO2 emissions by 10,000% of current levels, it’s probably easier for every country to individually reduce their own CO2 emissions, starting with whatever is most cost-effective. In those cases where a country can produce more than it needs, export it, like any other good — this already happens in some cases.