12 ms·
Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target
- verdverm 7y agoOr create sequestration systems so the net is that? Or would the numbers change?
- astrodust 7y agoTrees. You're talking about trees.
- altacc 7y agoTrees seem to be the solution of the day but, cynically, it seems to be a smokescreen in that some people are promoting this as the solution to climate change. No amount of tree planting is going to solve long term climate change, so it should be seen as one action amongst many. The focus on tree planting shifts the focus away from the action needed to reduce carbon emissions. It's a bit like building an extension to your house whilst the house is on fire. It'll catch up eventually.
- rossdavidh 7y ago"No amount of tree planting..." is a strong statement. Not "we won't do enough", but "No amount..." will work? I find that hard to imagine. Is there a reason you say this?
- malka 7y agoI guess if we empty the oceans, and cover every inch of the earth with tree, it might work.
- altacc 7y agoTwo reasons: trees are part of a carbon cycle, most of the carbon returns to the atmosphere eventually, and we don't have an infinite sized planet to keep planting forests at the same rate which we're producing CO2. New growth forests are good at capturing carbon short term, but established forests aren't as good as the rate of growth is slower and there is more tree decay & decomposition of organic matter releasing C=2. In some places, and more common due to climate change, a forest fire will sweep through a forest and undo all that carbon capture. If we use trees for fuel it is closing most of the cycle for that carbon, less ancillary fuel use for harvesting, producton & transport, but that doesn't solve the production from other sources. If we use wood for building & materials then the carbon capture is longer, but that's a small fraction of the CO2 capture needed.
- astrodust 7y agoNatural forest fires have a fairly minimal impact on old-growth forests and in some cases are even necessary for them to function properly (e.g. some pinecones will only open when burned). The underbrush and younger trees burn off, the older trees are largely unaffected. What most people don't realize is the trees that exist today are all "new", as in are less than a few hundred years old. The trees that were cut down in the 18th and 19th century are unlike anything you'd see today. Far, far bigger and longer lived, on time-scales that we're really not used to dealing with. These capture carbon and store it for hundreds of years. When they die they will decay and be recycled back into the forest floor and soil, not necessarily burned off and released as CO2. Sure, a half-hearted tree-planting effort is not going to solve the problem, but a more ambitious reforestation plan with an emphasis on carbon-sequestering trees instead of those trees intended to be harvested every 20-40 years could make a huge difference.
- rossdavidh 7y agoI'm not able to evaluate the truth of it myself, as it's outside my area of expertise, but at least some who do make a living studying this sort of thing believe it's feasible: https://www.livescience.com/65880-planting-trees-fights-climate-change.html https://www.livescience.com/65880-planting-trees-fights-clim...
- elihu 7y agoWell, trees can store a lot of carbon while they're alive. When they die, they release a lot of that back into the atmosphere as they decompose. So, trees are medium-term carbon storage. I expect we'll eventually need to figure out some way to store carbon long-term (for example, put it back in the ground in a way that it'll stay there).
- TheCoelacanth 7y agoTrees are medium-term carbon storage. Forests are long-term carbon storage (the trees that die get replaced by new trees).
- elihu 7y agoOnce the forest is mature, though, it's mostly just storing the carbon, rather than acting as an effective sink. So maybe you need to cut some trees down from time to time, and store that wood somehow where the carbon will be locked up for a long time without taking up valuable land area. The problem is that we keep pulling carbon out of the ground and introducing it into the ecosystem. If we don't have a corresponding method of removing it from the ecosystem, we'll eventually run out of room for forests that we can use to store it. Some of that happens by natural means, but we'd have a bit more breathing room if we could figure out how to make it happen faster.
- graeme 7y agoTrees used to cover the earth, and fossil fuels used to be sequestered underground. We cut down trees and burned fuels. Planting trees only undoes one of those two. This kind of facile response radically underestimates the magnitude of what we have to reverse.
- raxxorrax 7y agoTrees plant themselves quite well and the planet already got greener in the last decades. You would need bury them though before they decompose. After the apocalypse a new civilization might find them again as coal and to start the cycle again.
- maxharris 7y agoI searched for 'nuclear' on that page, and found no mention of the word at all. Whatever you might think of nuclear energy, I don't think such a drastic energy cut is even possible to implement without it. (After all, I see little point in cutting CO2 emissions in the US if people in other countries emit an amount equivalent to whatever gets cut here.)
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- toomuchtodo 7y agoIf you break ground today on a nuclear generator, you will not see your first kwh generated for at least a decade, and that kwh will not be cost competitive with anything else on the spot market. At the same time, you could replace all nuclear in the US currently operating in around three years (even compensating for capacity factor), solely from PV manufacturing capacity in the US. It is plainly obvious why nuclear is not included when renewables and at grid parity and the cost of utility scale storage is rapidly declining. Even if the cost decline of storage takes longer than expected, you can compensate with overbuilding, curtailment, transmission and demand response. You ask why nuclear isn't being talked about. I can't fathom anyone thinking it's a real option compared to solar, wind, and battery storage, all of which are cheaper unsubsidized than nuclear today, can be manufactured and shipped where ever needed, and scaling up production is trivial (in comparison). https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2019 https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2019 (Lazard Levelized Cost of Energy and Levelized Cost of Storage 2019)
- TomMarius 7y agoThis seems weird to me. Would that be on the roofs or are you forgetting to count for all that land? But I am European and land is way more valuable here, so that might be the case, I don't know - perhaps you do?
- toomuchtodo 7y agoThere is a lot of worthless land where utility solar can be installed in the US, not to mention folks who want it on their roof (rooftop solar is cost competitive in most states over 25 years). Europe has enough wind potential to power the world [1]. "Taking into consideration socio-technical constraints, which restricts 54% of the combined land area in Europe, the study reveals a nameplate capacity of 52.5 TW of untapped onshore wind power potential in Europe - equivalent to 1 MW per 16 European citizens – a supply that would be sufficient to cover the global all-sector energy demand from now through to 2050." [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421519304343 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151...
- LinuxBender 7y agoIs there a chart that shows the progress each nation is making year over year to cut emissions?
- altacc 7y agoThe problem with country by country analysis is that people turn it into an excuse not to do anything. "Why should the US/EU do anything if China is just going to keep polluting." Countries should be focusing on what they can do themselves, as well as globally, and be leaders, not laggards.
- rossdavidh 7y agoYeah, but I have the sneaking suspicion that the countries which have "committed" to meeting these goals, may not actually in fact be cutting their emissions any better than the rest. Seeing some country vs. country data on that, would help. Also, looking at which countries _are_ having the most success (if any), would help to show which strategies work better than others (e.g. the nuclear debate).
- altacc 7y agoVery good point, transparency can be beneficial. Countries and their politicians are constantly making promises and commitments which they fail to live up to.
- malka 7y agoexcept that it makes no sense in game theory. The first state to do it will see its economy shrink, and it will be bought by other who do not.
- altacc 7y agoIt's somewhat of a fallacy that green is always more expensive than other options, especially if you've already got to adhere to decent standards. Companies are finding that eco-friendly processes and green energy can be the same cost, or even cheaper, that the old processes. Also, it is possible for a country to become greener without shrinking its economy. There's a lot of economic theory that public investment brings public and private growth. Green infrastructure supporting green industries is already profitable in many places.
- nabla9 7y agoAccording to EIA global emissions are growing and predicted to grow through 2035. In 2035 global emissions are 40% higher than today. When the developed world can gradually reduce CO2 emissions, China, India and the rest of the developing world will continue to increase emissions.
- SimbaOnSteroids 7y agonaive question, if renewable become cheaper than fossil fuel options, why would they continue to increase emissions.
- nabla9 7y agoRenewable are not likely to be cheaper any time soon. Renewable are competing with fossils and competition reduces prices. Just citing spot price in price/kwh is not telling the truth about total cost. You need to build energy storage, grids and extra capacity to fix the fluctuation of renewable availability. Chunks of brown coal to used in heating and cooking will be cheaper than renewables for as long as I can see. Only infrastructure cost is a road for the truck to deliver coal.
- irrational 7y agoBasically, the western world went through their development cycle (aka the industrial revolution) and now the rest of the world wants to catch up. Of course, when we say they shouldn't because of climate change, they say "You had your chance to pollute and develop, now we get to do the same thing." Frankly, I find it difficult to argue with them. The only sensible thing to do is for the Western world to reverse back to where we were prior to the industrial revolution and ask the developing nations to do the same - no technology above a horse drawn plown and horse drawn wagons, everyone reverts to being in the agriculture business or supporting the agriculture business, no cars, no planes, only wind powered sailing ships, no rockets, no computers, etc. Since that won't happen - we are royally screwed.
- gizmo686 7y agoThere is no reason the developping world needs to go through the same cycle. They can leapfrog ahead to modern technology; particuarly if they are activly helped by developped nations.
- ape4 7y agoSo we're all in trouble, I guess.
- markkat 7y agoOver the last 40M years, when CO2 was at current levels (400ppm), sea level was +9 to +31 meters higher. We need to reduce to 280ppm to start rebuilding ice. https://www.pnas.org/content/110/4/1209 https://www.pnas.org/content/110/4/1209 Coastal cities are going to move.
- eanzenberg 7y agoThis is not representative by current trends nor simulations (which themselves have huge error bars)
- markkat 7y agoDo you have a citation for current simulations? The +9m to +31m isn't from simulations. It's from ice core sample and sediment analysis.
- eanzenberg 7y agohttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12808-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12808-z "Most estimates of global mean sea-level rise this century fall below 2 m."
- makerofspoons 7y agoIn terms of emissions we are tracking right along RCP 8.5, the worst case emissions scenario: https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-the-high-emissions-rcp8-5-global-warming-scenario https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-the-high-emissions-rcp...
- wazoox 7y agoTo stay under the 2°C limit, we need to cut emissions by 4% per year. It happened exactly twice in the past century: at the worse of the great depression in 1932, and after the annihilation of Germany and Japan in 1945.
- jahaja 7y agoUnfortunately, it feels like too many people in power would rather go down with the ship than change their ways. Since that would threaten their current privileges.
- gorpovitch 7y agoI don't think I've ever seen this here : https://theshiftproject.org/en/home/ https://theshiftproject.org/en/home/ It's a think tank working on handling the climate crisis with excellent, pragmatic, efficiency-focused studies, without ideologies or dogma. They have recently been known to put some numbers on the CO2 emissions caused by the digital industry, that is less visible but very real (4 percent of total emissions, 4x more than air travel!) They have Jean-Marc Jancovici in the management, who also founded Carbone 4 - a consulting firm working on enabling companies to make their transition to a carbon-neutral world. He's an original figure among ecologists in France because he pleads in favor of nuclear energy in France, to avoid emitting CO2 (it's mainly thanks to nuclear energy that France emits 7 times less CO2 for the same amount of electricity produced compared to the OECD). I highly recommend his conferences.
- PaulHoule 7y agoWe're close to the tipping point for geoengineering. Elites don't want to stop global warming, they've spent billions of dollars trying to stop a response to global warming. Ordinary people say they want to do something about global warming but if it inconveniences them such as an increase in gas taxes, they will riot in the streets. (See the Yellow Shirts in France.) The conspicuous inability of governments to make elites feel a little pain (Macron and the wealth tax) means that governments have no legitimacy with which to demand sacrifices from anybody else. Thus you see "last straw" rebellions just about anywhere when there is an unpopular change, say a 4% increase in subway fares. With geoengineering you only need to scrape together a few billion a year which could be done by a small group of elites or governments (if Bloomberg didn't waste his time and money and reputation running for pres he could do it...) The best part of it is that a credible threat to Geoengineer might solve the collective action problem for other interventions: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0102-0 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0102-0 As for all the reasons why geoengineering is seen as a "cop-out" note that if it's really an extinction worth rebelling about, then we have to use "all means necessary" and that includes solar radiation management.
- ng12 7y agoI don't understand why globalism rarely, if ever, factors into the debate. It boggles my mind that if I walk down to the drug store to buy a toothbrush that toothbrush was likely made in a Chinese factory, shipped across the Pacific ocean in a diesel-spewing container ship, and then driven a good thousand miles in an 18-wheeler. It seems like a tremendous waste of energy for something that could be made locally for cheap.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- irrational 7y agoHow could it be made locally for cheap? Who is going to pay to build the local factories for everything your local drug store stocks (not to mention all the other local stores)? Who is going to work in all of those factories for cheap? Wont all of those thousands of local toothbrush factories worldwide pollute even more than a single toothbrush factory worldwide?
- ng12 7y agoThere are plenty of American toothbrush manufacturers which already compete on price (I use Preserve, made from recycled material in America for $3). It's mostly the big guys (Colgate + OralB) who are trying to maximize profit by outsourcing to China. > Who is going to pay to build the local factories for everything your local drug store stocks The manufacturer is going to pay for it by selling their products to drug stores. > Wont all of those thousands of local toothbrush factories worldwide pollute even more than a single toothbrush factory worldwide? How so? Even if there was a single manufactory in Oklahoma it could serve the entire country at a fraction of the environmental cost.
- hackeraccount 7y agoWhat's the margin on making toothbrushes? If you have a pile of money and you want the best return is it really going to be on a toothbrush factory in the U.S.? I have no idea what the answer to those questions are but it seems like "not much" and "something else."
- hn_throwaway_99 7y agoI think it should be somewhat obvious that it will be impossible for us to avoid the absolute worst of global warming. Humans simply don't have the capability to act in the coordinated, political way that is necessary. Somehow holding out hope that we'll all come to our senses and things will change is like holding out hope that we'll never have any wars again. It is just not compatible with human nature. I'd love it if I were wrong, or if someone can change my mind, but in a world where we have never had as much access to information, large swaths of the population don't even believe global warming is _real_, let alone something we should do something about. We should just start planning for the worst case scenarios, because they are going to happen regardless.
- avocado4 7y agoSo how should an investor prepare today to the inevitable consequences of climate change?
- jdkee 7y agoBuying waterfront property in the great lakes region of the U.S. seems like a good bet.
- justin66 7y agoLake Erie set a record high water level this year, so timing your purchase might be a little tricky.
- Scarblac 7y agoSpend your money on entertainment while you still have it.
- larnmar 7y agoBuy tundra. Buy up tons of land anywhere that’s currently too cold to be useful.
- lugg 7y agoPull your head out your ass. You're the one sitting here on the internet claiming defeat. How many people have you told to cut back on consumption and fuel use this month? Yea. That's what I thought. Don't act like it's impossible to change behavior it's not. Smoking, drunk driving, domestic violence, racism, homophobia, and a bunch of other social issues have all been largely tackled the last few decades. In WW2 we repurposed car factories to make tanks in a matter of weeks. Please, don't act like we're a bunch of invilids incapable of change. Speak for yourself.
- DubiousPusher 7y agoI know change is slow but I can't help but feeling this goal is unattainable. In my own very environmentally concious state two versions of a carbon tax failed (one libertarianish leaning the other more green new deal like). France utterly rejected a climate focused gas tax. With fairly liberal populaces rejecting the economic commitment to addressing climate change It's become very hard to imagine how we'll ever get sufficient numbers of international polities with more conservative leaning voters to ever agree to do something.
- larnmar 7y agoWhat are the error bars on those numbers?
- blondie9x 7y agoTo all, because governments have mostly failed us on quick action I created a climate pledge. It is open to feedback but I think starting with individual commitments and sustainable lifestyles will help us move society forward as a whole. Governments are not moving quickly enough on climate change with small incremental changes over time. However, people and organizations who champion these efforts can pressure governments to drive faster change. Climate Pledge To protect humanity now and for the future of our posterity I am committing to the following. - I pledge to limit eating red meat. I will restrict intake of cows and lambs etc. - If I choose to have children, I will have 2 or less. - I will try to use cycling or mass transit options whenever possible and to participate in efforts to expand transit. - I will restrict flying to only when necessary and try to limit flying to only when no other choice is available. If I do fly I will try to offset all emissions. - I will try my utmost to conserve energy and minimize use of heating and cooling appliances. - I will try my best to limit energy use to renewable sources when I have the choice. When I cannot choose I will fight for the ability to have this choice. - I will try to help those close to me understand these choices and the need for those able, to also join the pledge. - I will only consume what I need. I will not perpetuate extravagance and will only support companies who champion sustainable efforts. - I will do my best to strive for and support sustainable and minimalist technology. - I will stay involved in the public discourse on environmental issues and stay engaged on efforts to mitigate climate change.
- Etheryte 7y agoFor those wondering about the relative impact of each bullet, [1] is a quick starting point down a rabbit-hole that goes very deep. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wynes_Nicholas_CO2_emissions_savings.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wynes_Nicholas_CO2_emissi...
- nsporillo 7y agoSure if one is counting just their personal impact, but in reality the developing nations will have no problem replacing you and the children you choose to not have with their own and it'll be a wash. Those resources don't disappear, the market will move them around. Is the argument to have less kids to save the planet not just population control propaganda?
- daenz 7y agoIf only some authoritarian would rid us of these meddling emissions!
- jesperlang 7y agoIsn't this ultimately going to end up being a rationing issue? OK, rationing it's a forbidden word today but maybe we could have carbon credits divided by person and they are free to use them however they want. Even trade them to others. I know this is _super_ simplified but perhaps we need to start thinking in those terms sooner or later?
- nathanaldensr 7y agoWho is "we?" Almost every human alive will not willingly accept a quality of life reduction on the scale most people here seem to assume can just... happen. The only way it happens is via brutal dictatorship.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- algaeontoast 7y agoGood thing China has increased co2 emissions from coal equivalent to the current co2 output of all of Europe. The US can do better, but China and much of the developing world isn’t exactly helping.