4 ms·
It has to be both. If we want to have any hope, we have to dramatically cut emissions AND we also have to invent magic new carbon-scrubbing technology and deplo
by ForHackernews 8y ago
It has to be both. If we want to have any hope, we have to dramatically cut emissions AND we also have to invent magic new carbon-scrubbing technology and deploy it at a global scale in the next 30 years or so.
https://www.vox.com/2016/10/4/13118594/2-degrees-no-more-fossil-fuels https://www.vox.com/2016/10/4/13118594/2-degrees-no-more-fos...
> As you can see, in either scenario, global emissions must peak and begin declining immediately. For a medium chance to avoid 1.5 degrees, the world has to zero out net carbon emissions by 2050 or so — for a good chance of avoiding 2 degrees, by around 2065.
> After that, emissions have to go negative. Humanity has to start burying a lot more carbon than it throws up into the atmosphere. There are several ways to sequester greenhouse gases, from reforestation to soil enrichment to cow backpacks, but the backbone of the envisioned negative emissions is BECCS, or bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration.
> BECCS — raising, harvesting, and burning biomass for energy, while capturing and burying the carbon emissions — is unproven at scale. Thus far, most demonstration plants of any size attaching CCS to fossil fuel facilities have been over-budget disasters. What if we can’t rely on it? What if it never pans out?
> "If we want to avoid depending on unproven technology becoming available," the authors say, "emissions would need to be reduced even more rapidly."
> Check out that middle graphic. If we really want to avoid 1.5 degrees, and we can’t rely on large-scale carbon sequestration, then the global community has to zero out its carbon emissions by 2026.
(emphasis mine)
- binichgross 8y agoYour children will die unless you lobby your representative to listen to this person. This shit is realer than any other crisis in the history of mankind and we face extinction if we do not fight it now. Pay attention.
- mrob 8y agoI don't think inaction causing extinction is certain. All extinction scenarios involve unproven positive feedback loops like the clathrate gun hypothesis. It seems to me quite likely that billions of humans will survive in the remaining habitable regions, even if the fight for those regions turns into World War 3. Really it's not much worse than the Cold War-era nuclear war scenarios.
- empath75 8y agoOh not much worse than nuclear war. Carry on then.
- icelancer 8y agoThey'll die even if I do, assuming you are right and you think this problem is as large as you say it is. Our representatives care little about us.
- rayiner 8y agoNote that article is three years old and carbon emissions increased significantly over that time instead of going down as in the middle graphic. (It didn't even stay constant as in the first graphic, which would push the deadline to go to zero emissions to 2021.) So in reality we probably have to go to net zero by 2020.
- adrianN 8y agoHere is a nice graphic of reduction curves for staying within 1.5° warming: https://mobile.twitter.com/rahmstorf/status/1070717050430070787 https://mobile.twitter.com/rahmstorf/status/1070717050430070...
- icelancer 8y ago>> we have to dramatically cut emissions The "we" in this is primarily China and keeping third-world countries from industrializing using the means that the Western world used to get up to speed. It is not the Western countries, as raynier pointed out. As long as we understand the magnitude - and perhaps incredible unfairness - of the problem, then that's fine. But cutting emissions in the United States and Europe isn't going to do anything.
- swish_bob 8y ago>> But cutting emissions in the United States and Europe isn't going to do anything. You're right, we shouldn't bother doing anything, we should just tell them to clean up their act.
- aoner 8y agoThis is such a common misconception. US per capita emissions are around 15 tons and China is around 7 tons. And don't forget that there is a lot of creative accounting going on. All carbon emissions are "exported" by making china the factory of the world. Furthermore flying is not counted in US emissions... I don't think emissions are actually reducing in the US. And let's not forget about the shale "revolution". Oh also: the US has the highest historical emissions. There is an interesting interactive graph made by carbonbrief: https://mobile.twitter.com/carbonbrief/status/1120715988532629506 https://mobile.twitter.com/carbonbrief/status/11207159885326...