6 ms·

> 1.5°C consistent: there are a range of emissions pathways that would be compatible with limiting average warming to 1.5°C by 2100. However, all would require

> 1.5°C consistent: there are a range of emissions pathways that would be compatible with limiting average warming to 1.5°C by 2100. However, all would require a very urgent and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. Is this polite data analyst-speak for "We're fucked"?

mikelyons 7y ago
It's polite data analyst speak for, "We need immediate and globally-coordinated _radical_ action" (action being the key term) Edit: We're not fucked yet. Apotheosis of hope.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  I'd say at this point, "radical" is the key term here.
  - mikelyons 7y ago
    Pragmatically its more a return to old-style living in many ways but will seem radical to groups addicted to modern lifestyles.
    - pif 7y ago
      Pragmatically, it's a non starter. Global warming is here to stay: better learn to cope with it!
      - coldtea 7y ago
        A, don't worry about it. After the first hundred million corpses, tons of measures will be taken, very pragmatically...
    - adrianN 7y ago
      No, return to old style living won't save us, because the planet can't sustain our current population levels with old-style living. Unless you want to trigger civil unrest and kill many people, the solution has to be technological. Renewable energy and improved energy efficiency can do it, it just needs a few trillion dollars of investment.
      - NotPaidToPost 7y ago
        Indeed, the major issue that is always conveniently forgotten is population growth. Stopping it should at the top of our priorities along with renewable energies.
        TeMPOraL 7y ago
        The parent didn't say population growth, they said population. There's way more people currently alive on Earth than the planet's carrying capacity under 1600-level tech, to which we'd had to backtrack globally if we wanted to fix the climate crisis through reducing consumption alone. This is unacceptable for pretty much every reason. We either find technological solutions to this problem - both on the emission end and on the sequestration end - or climate change starts killing people (and making more people kill even more people). It's that simple.
        NotPaidToPost 7y ago
        Population is the result of population growth. The best solution for the planet and our quality of life is to make population growth stop, and ideally see population decrease.
        TeMPOraL 7y ago
        Population growth is slowing itself. So we have that covered. And now what? Turns out, it's not enough, not even before considering that 2/3 of this population is still in developing countries, which are going to increase their emission levels in the pursuit of decent quality of life.
rayiner 7y ago
Seeing as how the 1.5C pathways require global emissions to go zero of negative within our lifetimes, yes: https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2018/04/Greenhouse-gas-emission-scenarios-01.png https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2018/04/Greenhouse-gas-em....
- frankbreetz 7y ago
  What I don't understand about this is, that we were flat for about three years, and then we went up a little bit. This to me signals that we are close to if not at peak emissions and we should be able to start seeing the downturn at any time. But the chart you are showing has emissions increasing for the next 20 years. Am I oversimplifying or being naive?
  - rayiner 7y ago
    We are nowhere near peak emissions. There may be dips here and there (e.g. due to recession). But look what happened to China starting in 2000: https://images.app.goo.gl/F4m9zThoK7Yr9jC66 https://images.app.goo.gl/F4m9zThoK7Yr9jC66. It added more CO2 than the total output of the US. That’s going to happen to India and Africa over the next few decades as those places develop into middle class economies.
    - vixen99 7y ago
      In other words authorities in China, India and Africa pay lip service to what one might call the 'Greta Prediction' while their actions show they simply do not believe it.
- ForHackernews 7y ago
  Two years old at this point: 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... > This image should terrify you. It should be on billboards. > 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.

mikelyons 7y ago

It's polite data analyst speak for, "We need immediate and globally-coordinated _radical_ action" (action being the key term) Edit: We're not fucked yet. Apotheosis of hope.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
I'd say at this point, "radical" is the key term here.
- mikelyons 7y ago
  Pragmatically its more a return to old-style living in many ways but will seem radical to groups addicted to modern lifestyles.
  - pif 7y ago
    Pragmatically, it's a non starter. Global warming is here to stay: better learn to cope with it!
    - coldtea 7y ago
      A, don't worry about it. After the first hundred million corpses, tons of measures will be taken, very pragmatically...
  - adrianN 7y ago
    No, return to old style living won't save us, because the planet can't sustain our current population levels with old-style living. Unless you want to trigger civil unrest and kill many people, the solution has to be technological. Renewable energy and improved energy efficiency can do it, it just needs a few trillion dollars of investment.
    - NotPaidToPost 7y ago
      Indeed, the major issue that is always conveniently forgotten is population growth. Stopping it should at the top of our priorities along with renewable energies.
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        The parent didn't say population growth, they said population. There's way more people currently alive on Earth than the planet's carrying capacity under 1600-level tech, to which we'd had to backtrack globally if we wanted to fix the climate crisis through reducing consumption alone. This is unacceptable for pretty much every reason. We either find technological solutions to this problem - both on the emission end and on the sequestration end - or climate change starts killing people (and making more people kill even more people). It's that simple.
        NotPaidToPost 7y ago
        Population is the result of population growth. The best solution for the planet and our quality of life is to make population growth stop, and ideally see population decrease.
        TeMPOraL 7y ago
        Population growth is slowing itself. So we have that covered. And now what? Turns out, it's not enough, not even before considering that 2/3 of this population is still in developing countries, which are going to increase their emission levels in the pursuit of decent quality of life.

rayiner 7y ago

Seeing as how the 1.5C pathways require global emissions to go zero of negative within our lifetimes, yes: https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2018/04/Greenhouse-gas-emission-scenarios-01.png https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2018/04/Greenhouse-gas-em....

frankbreetz 7y ago
What I don't understand about this is, that we were flat for about three years, and then we went up a little bit. This to me signals that we are close to if not at peak emissions and we should be able to start seeing the downturn at any time. But the chart you are showing has emissions increasing for the next 20 years. Am I oversimplifying or being naive?
- rayiner 7y ago
  We are nowhere near peak emissions. There may be dips here and there (e.g. due to recession). But look what happened to China starting in 2000: https://images.app.goo.gl/F4m9zThoK7Yr9jC66 https://images.app.goo.gl/F4m9zThoK7Yr9jC66. It added more CO2 than the total output of the US. That’s going to happen to India and Africa over the next few decades as those places develop into middle class economies.
  - vixen99 7y ago
    In other words authorities in China, India and Africa pay lip service to what one might call the 'Greta Prediction' while their actions show they simply do not believe it.
ForHackernews 7y ago
Two years old at this point: 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... > This image should terrify you. It should be on billboards. > 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.