9 ms·

In November 2020, the 26th COP summit will be held in the UK, where world leaders will agree on the action plans for cutting emissions. When that conference en

In November 2020, the 26th COP summit will be held in the UK, where world leaders will agree on the action plans for cutting emissions. When that conference ends, we have one decade to cut global emissions by 50%. Are we going to make it? If so, how?

melling 7y ago
We seemed to have difficulty with the Kyoto climate deal with a 5% reduction. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2093579-was-kyoto-climate-deal-a-success-figures-reveal-mixed-results/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2093579-was-kyoto-clima... The United States wouldn't even sign it because it "would cause serious harm to the U.S. economy." https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/03/20010314.html https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/20...
Brakenshire 7y ago
That assumes keeping temperatures below 1.5C, and no negative emissions technologies. In reality, likely this number will slip to 2C, and some negative emissions will be assumed. That brings us to the Paris emissions reduction pathways, which are very achievable with shared global effort. The more we can eliminate the need for negative emissions, the better. But we shouldn’t assume no negative emissions, and the most stringent temperature pathway, otherwise people will just assume that action is impossible and use it as an excuse to do nothing.
noja 7y ago
How? Buy less stuff, travel less, eat less meat.
- cableshaft 7y ago
  But companies need butts in seats for that water cooler effect, so people might have a good idea once in a blue moon when talking in person! That alone is worth forcing everyone to spend up to three hours a day traveling to and from work!
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  That's profoundly too-little, too-late. Its a false narrative designed to pacify folks into inaction i.e. not taking political action. If we only skip a burger now and again, we don't have to address dependence on fossil fuels! Ridiculous.
  - rhacker 7y ago
    You're right - there are far more people that don't care at all than the number of those of us that do. Which is why we have to fight.
  - mikestew 7y ago
    Your asking the beginning meditation student to sit in an all-day eight hour session of silence. Let's start them out with a quickie ten-minute guided meditation session with soothing voice in their headphones, eh? Drastically curtailing airline flights and eating less meat is a considerable step for most Americans who aren't already doing so. Let 'em start with that, maybe they'll make the next step to riding the bicycle to work a few times a week, maybe they'll find they can just cut meat altogether. Next thing you know, they're washing their hemp clothes in their water-saving washer less often. Because let me tell you what voting green has gotten me over the last thirty years...
    - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
      That's the point -all dwindles to insignificance next to power generation, transportation, industry.
hanniabu 7y ago
Sadly, I expect that the only result of this summit will be to plan for another summit a few months to a year later.
onion2k 7y ago
Are we going to make it? No. Global heating is pretty much inevitable. There's no taste for fixing it among the people who can actually do something. Politicians don't see farther than their next term in office, and the rich don't need to fix it. It's not really a case of "if" any more. It's going to happen.
- Brakenshire 7y ago
  Global heating has already happened, we’re 1C up on preindustrial. The question is how high are we willing to go. Doing nothing will lead to another 6C, concerted serious action will be another 2C, and we could end up anywhere in between, depending on what and whether tipping points exist, as well as people’s good sense, and their willingness to elect politicians who will do something.
  - esotericn 7y ago
    > Doing nothing will lead to another 6C Surely doing nothing (not actually doing nothing, but rather continuing to burn fossil fuels) leads to, well, ~ infinite warming until we run out of fuel? Or is the assumption that at 6c we're dead so whatever?
    - Brakenshire 7y ago
      Without big feedback loops you actually have to go out of your way to get above a certain level of warming. RCP8.5, for 8.5C of warming, involves a frankly silly quantity of emissions, I assume this is because CO2 absorbs at certain wavelengths and there are diminishing returns as concentrations get really high. Of course, we don’t know what the feedback loops are, they could kick in and take over. The IPCC is quite conservative about including feedback loops, and mainly deals with direct effects. But the same logic applies either way, within any reasonable range any reduction in CO2 emissions is worth pursuing. I also personally think the economics for certain low carbon technologies will dominate over a middle/long time period, just that as it stands they won’t take over quick enough to dramatically bring down emissions.
Panino 7y ago
All options need to be on the table. It's crucial that when someone spends their time and energy on a project that's good but not your preferred strategy... just let them. Put your energy into advancing your own goals (instead of destroying theirs), and we can all meet in the middle. That's what it will take. My 2000 sq ft home is currently using about 8kwh per day of electricity in summer, which I think is pretty good. I'd love to get solar panels to get that down to below zero. I treat electricity reduction like a game, always trying to go further. Lately I've been using a solar cooker to cook food and it's awesome. It keeps the cooking heat and smell out of the house while using no electricity. I only recently just started but I've made curry, pizza, veggie burgers, potatoes, baked bread, and reheated leftovers. My next target is getting the summer usage down to 7kwh per day average. I think improving water heating is going to be the ticket there by reducing the heater temperature a little, wrapping it in a thermal blanket, and getting a more efficient shower head. Having a solar water heater would be huge but that's a possibility for down the road. What are other people doing?
- fastbeef 7y ago
  Insulation and heat pumps. New houses built in Sweden _above the Arctic circle_ use less than 9000 kWh per year. 300mm of insulation and a geothermal heat pump that gives you at least 3 kW of heat for every 1 kW of electricity.
  - antisthenes 7y ago
    I'm sorry, is that number supposed to be in any way impressive? You can cut that number by a factor of 3, just by building apartment blocks instead of individual houses. It cuts down the heat loss area, and lets you install larger pumps that benefit from efficiencies of scale. AFAIK, an average flat around the latitude of St. Petersburg uses ~300-500 kWh per month, or 3600-6000 kWh per year. And that's considering that most housing stock there was built in the 70s and 80s. If we're talking top of the line insulation and a geothermal heat pump, the numbers should be way lower than that even. Not to mention that generally speaking living inside the Arctic circle is a giant waste anyway. You can't do agriculture there and it costs a lot to heat things. It should be reserved for research stations and temporary work establishments.

melling 7y ago

We seemed to have difficulty with the Kyoto climate deal with a 5% reduction. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2093579-was-kyoto-climate-deal-a-success-figures-reveal-mixed-results/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2093579-was-kyoto-clima... The United States wouldn't even sign it because it "would cause serious harm to the U.S. economy." https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/03/20010314.html https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/20...

Brakenshire 7y ago

That assumes keeping temperatures below 1.5C, and no negative emissions technologies. In reality, likely this number will slip to 2C, and some negative emissions will be assumed. That brings us to the Paris emissions reduction pathways, which are very achievable with shared global effort. The more we can eliminate the need for negative emissions, the better. But we shouldn’t assume no negative emissions, and the most stringent temperature pathway, otherwise people will just assume that action is impossible and use it as an excuse to do nothing.

noja 7y ago

How? Buy less stuff, travel less, eat less meat.

cableshaft 7y ago
But companies need butts in seats for that water cooler effect, so people might have a good idea once in a blue moon when talking in person! That alone is worth forcing everyone to spend up to three hours a day traveling to and from work!
JoeAltmaier 7y ago
That's profoundly too-little, too-late. Its a false narrative designed to pacify folks into inaction i.e. not taking political action. If we only skip a burger now and again, we don't have to address dependence on fossil fuels! Ridiculous.
- rhacker 7y ago
  You're right - there are far more people that don't care at all than the number of those of us that do. Which is why we have to fight.
- mikestew 7y ago
  Your asking the beginning meditation student to sit in an all-day eight hour session of silence. Let's start them out with a quickie ten-minute guided meditation session with soothing voice in their headphones, eh? Drastically curtailing airline flights and eating less meat is a considerable step for most Americans who aren't already doing so. Let 'em start with that, maybe they'll make the next step to riding the bicycle to work a few times a week, maybe they'll find they can just cut meat altogether. Next thing you know, they're washing their hemp clothes in their water-saving washer less often. Because let me tell you what voting green has gotten me over the last thirty years...
  - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
    That's the point -all dwindles to insignificance next to power generation, transportation, industry.

hanniabu 7y ago

Sadly, I expect that the only result of this summit will be to plan for another summit a few months to a year later.

onion2k 7y ago

Are we going to make it? No. Global heating is pretty much inevitable. There's no taste for fixing it among the people who can actually do something. Politicians don't see farther than their next term in office, and the rich don't need to fix it. It's not really a case of "if" any more. It's going to happen.

Brakenshire 7y ago
Global heating has already happened, we’re 1C up on preindustrial. The question is how high are we willing to go. Doing nothing will lead to another 6C, concerted serious action will be another 2C, and we could end up anywhere in between, depending on what and whether tipping points exist, as well as people’s good sense, and their willingness to elect politicians who will do something.
- esotericn 7y ago
  > Doing nothing will lead to another 6C Surely doing nothing (not actually doing nothing, but rather continuing to burn fossil fuels) leads to, well, ~ infinite warming until we run out of fuel? Or is the assumption that at 6c we're dead so whatever?
  - Brakenshire 7y ago
    Without big feedback loops you actually have to go out of your way to get above a certain level of warming. RCP8.5, for 8.5C of warming, involves a frankly silly quantity of emissions, I assume this is because CO2 absorbs at certain wavelengths and there are diminishing returns as concentrations get really high. Of course, we don’t know what the feedback loops are, they could kick in and take over. The IPCC is quite conservative about including feedback loops, and mainly deals with direct effects. But the same logic applies either way, within any reasonable range any reduction in CO2 emissions is worth pursuing. I also personally think the economics for certain low carbon technologies will dominate over a middle/long time period, just that as it stands they won’t take over quick enough to dramatically bring down emissions.

Panino 7y ago

All options need to be on the table. It's crucial that when someone spends their time and energy on a project that's good but not your preferred strategy... just let them. Put your energy into advancing your own goals (instead of destroying theirs), and we can all meet in the middle. That's what it will take. My 2000 sq ft home is currently using about 8kwh per day of electricity in summer, which I think is pretty good. I'd love to get solar panels to get that down to below zero. I treat electricity reduction like a game, always trying to go further. Lately I've been using a solar cooker to cook food and it's awesome. It keeps the cooking heat and smell out of the house while using no electricity. I only recently just started but I've made curry, pizza, veggie burgers, potatoes, baked bread, and reheated leftovers. My next target is getting the summer usage down to 7kwh per day average. I think improving water heating is going to be the ticket there by reducing the heater temperature a little, wrapping it in a thermal blanket, and getting a more efficient shower head. Having a solar water heater would be huge but that's a possibility for down the road. What are other people doing?

fastbeef 7y ago
Insulation and heat pumps. New houses built in Sweden _above the Arctic circle_ use less than 9000 kWh per year. 300mm of insulation and a geothermal heat pump that gives you at least 3 kW of heat for every 1 kW of electricity.
- antisthenes 7y ago
  I'm sorry, is that number supposed to be in any way impressive? You can cut that number by a factor of 3, just by building apartment blocks instead of individual houses. It cuts down the heat loss area, and lets you install larger pumps that benefit from efficiencies of scale. AFAIK, an average flat around the latitude of St. Petersburg uses ~300-500 kWh per month, or 3600-6000 kWh per year. And that's considering that most housing stock there was built in the 70s and 80s. If we're talking top of the line insulation and a geothermal heat pump, the numbers should be way lower than that even. Not to mention that generally speaking living inside the Arctic circle is a giant waste anyway. You can't do agriculture there and it costs a lot to heat things. It should be reserved for research stations and temporary work establishments.