6 ms·
Planet is 'way off track' in dealing with climate change, U.N. report says
- jl6 7y agoCan’t help but feel the coronavirus lockdowns are a good trial run for a low carbon world: limited travel, local food and entertainment, less consumption of non-essentials.
- deerIRL 7y agoIt will be really interesting to see how much of an affect on Global Warming this Pandemic has had. I'm hoping if we can learn any lessons from this, it is better pandemic planning and larger companies finally seeing the benefit of remote work.
- usaar333 7y agoMinimal. At best, we might be pushing the timeline out by a few months. Remote work isn't even necessarily carbon positive. In hot or cold weather, transit emissions savings may be more than offset by increased HVAC usage at home. [Though avoiding business flying is probably a clear positive]
- deerIRL 7y agoOh for sure, I don't expect it to have any significant impact. Interesting point regarding HVAC usage, I am curious to see the density required for it to become a net positive.
- shadowgovt 7y ago> increased HVAC usage at home At least to a thumbnail sketch, back-of-the-napkin calculation, I'd guess not. Most American homes don't have smart thermostats and people just leave their system set to "comfortable" all day long, whether or not the home is occupied.
- JohnFen 7y agoAlso, there are large swaths of the US where air conditioners are not common.
- rjsw 7y agoAC at home is rare in Europe.
- wott 7y ago> In hot or cold weather, transit emissions savings may be more than offset by increased HVAC usage at home. Most people keep on heating/cooling their home while they are at their office; sometimes to a lesser power, sometimes the same all the time. Office which is also heated/cooled (and had to be built one day, often terribly). So with a regular job, your home emits, your office emits at the same time, and the transportation between those emits too (and had to be built).
- manfredo 7y agoFlying accounts for ~3% of carbon emissions, of which business flying is another subset. The aggregate reduction in economic activity is significant though. Oil prices are halved from their pre-outbreak levels.
- gambiting 7y agoRemember that any improvement in our emissions will temporarily make the situation worse because of the Aerosol Masking effect.
- ttul 7y agoThe pandemic will briefly stop the growth of carbon emissions, just like the global financial crisis did.
- pera 7y agoI was going to mention the ridiculous situation with ghost flights, but it seems authorities are temporarily suspending this rule: https://www.fastcompany.com/90476154/airlines-will-stop-coronavirus-ghost-flights-now-we-need-to-rethink-the-future-of-flying https://www.fastcompany.com/90476154/airlines-will-stop-coro...
- paxys 7y agoIn the very short term, probably, but things are going to back to normal (or even worse) soon. Major companies have already said that the virus is going to cause them to miss their targets for carbon reduction. For it to be a valid trial run, emissions have to be reduced while the world is running as normal.
- swebs 7y agoIt cut China's emissions by 25% and will probably do the same to the rest of the world. https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/coronavirus-china-co2-climate-crisis-greenhouse-gas-carbon-emissions-coal-a9351436.html https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/coronavirus-china-...
- est31 7y agoThe list of similarities is long. Coronavirus is also a global threat facing all of humanity. Similar to climate change deniers, there is tons of misinformation on the question in the internet. The poorest will suffer most in both instances.
- twblalock 7y agoI think civil unrest, like what happened when the French government raised fuel taxes, is the most likely outcome of a low carbon world. People are willing to suffer short-term privations, especially when they are afraid of getting the coronavirus. People are not willing to suffer for years to reduce their carbon footprints. It's also notable that the burdens of reducing carbon emissions fall disproportionately on the poor. The fuel taxes in France are a perfect example.
- shadowgovt 7y agoI hate to be the bearer of bad hot takes, but the burdens falling disproportionately on the poor is not a reason to avoid catastrophic global collapse. Even though it's unfair, if the choice is "the burdens fall on the poor" and "the burdens fall on everyone (including the poor, who will be hit harder because they have fewer resources in reserve to survive unplanned catastrophe)", the first option is better. (... it's also a false forced choice; there are other options. But the question of poverty runs somewhat separate to the question of saving humanity from climate change).
- twblalock 7y ago> I hate to be the bearer of bad hot takes, but the burdens falling disproportionately on the poor is not a reason to avoid catastrophic global collapse. It is if there will be civil unrest, leading to the election of reactionary populist governments which roll back emission cuts. Approaches to the problem that enrage a large portion of the citizenry are counterproductive. They won't work in a democracy, and most of the large polluters are democracies. The French people are generally considered to be pretty left-wing (at least by outsiders) but they took to the streets as soon as the government raised fuel prices. Imagine how well that kind of policy would go down in Texas. Poverty is therefore directly related to the question of solving climate change.
- mntmoss 7y agoMarketing will solve this aspect of the challenge. Poverty is a relative state, not an absolute one: We want more because our betters have more. The negative associated personal outcomes of poverty are not a corrollary of insufficient carbon emission. Therefore, market to the people climate-friendly lifestyles. Show celebrities doing their part. Make it easy to pick the right option by default with purchases. Encourage more local events and travel. It has been demonstrated that people respond to good storytelling and I don't think that is going to change.
- svara 7y agoIt's also a great demonstration that it's really hard to get people to believe that something they can't see is real. Coronavirus cases have been growing stably and predictably for weeks. Epidemiologists (and not only they) saw it coming. No panic would have been necessary if calm, decisive action had been taken early on. But somehow the panic seems to be necessary. Normalcy bias is real. These past weeks have been really instructive about collective human behavior, and have me really worried about our ability as a species to address climate change.
- avip 7y agoOtoh you see collaborations s.a China sending medical aid to Italy, which makes me feel maybe we do deserve to survive after all.
- whatshisface 7y agoTo someone who can understand abstract concepts like "the future," the behavior of world leaders can seem terrifyingly callous, irresponsible, incompetent and maybe even malicious. However when the nasty package shows up on their doorsteps, they can function normally, at least if they're part of a functioning society.
- shoo 7y agoWe're still only demonstrating ability to react to a sudden media-worthy crisis that is putting people (including decision makers) at a very minor risk of death in the very short term. For climate change, we need to demonstrate the ability to proactively avoid a creeping catastrophe that will occur in the medium-long term, where the harm may not happen to current decision makers, but will instead happen to other people who don't get a vote in the decision today, and isn't media worthy since nothing is really changing ("outlook remains bleak").
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- hn_throwaway_99 7y ago> No panic would have been necessary if calm, decisive action had been taken early on. I disagree. Shutting down major portions of the economy, and the resultant economic damage, would have been quite severe regardless of when it was implemented. Not saying there wouldn't have been less panic, but broad quarantines would have caused a lot of panic in any case.
- nixpulvis 7y agoI recall reading something about how stopping emissions outright would have a pretty dramatic adverse effect on global temperatures, because while the greenhouse effect is of course real, the emissions also act as reflection for incoming solar energy. This makes me wonder if we can fix this problem without real innovation, not just global production collapse (which is bad for other reasons, obviously). If anyone can remind me about what I'm thinking of here, that would be awesome... or prove me wrong. I'm by no means saying we shouldn't be planning and building more sustainable solutions (both policy and products), since that's EXACTLY what we need to be doing. I'm just also saying that to make this all work, I think we need to do more.
- cosmic_shame 7y agoIt's called the aerosol masking effect, and it's terrifying.
- gscott 7y agoGood article: http://theconversation.com/masking-and-unmasking-of-global-warming-by-aerosols-19990 http://theconversation.com/masking-and-unmasking-of-global-w...
- throwaway5752 7y agoIt's not even a little scary compared to continued CO2 emission trends.
- SamBam 7y agoI'd be interested in reading more. It seems counter-intuitive -- the emissions that are already in the atmosphere would still be doing any reflection that they are currently doing. And whatever shielding they're doing, the net effect of every ton of CO2 is in the direction of more warming.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- 7y ago
- pelasaco 7y agoand in some degree less people.
- agumonkey 7y agoalso: - relocalization of industries - more budget for health
- buboard 7y agoI hope it has long term effects. Tons of companies are trying remote work for the first time, hopefully some of it will stick. Commute emissions are like 8% of total
- baxtr 7y agoJap. But not only local entertainment. Netflix et al too
- Toine 7y agoOnly way to deal with this problem is to reduce world GDP by 90%. Won't happen. Prepare for the worst.
- Der_Einzige 7y agohahahahahaha you're going to eat your words when this is all over Coronavirus might not get it down by 90% but 50% is certainly possible.
- MFLoon 7y agoThat's an inane take. Even in the absolute worst case scenario of 3% global mortality, how would that possibly result in a 50% global decrease in economic output?
- oblongx 7y agoI think the main assumption is the remaining 97% of people are working with reduced output if they are working at all. Just because you didn't die doesn't mean you went to work and put in 100% of normal effort.
- wccrawford 7y agoPeople don't have to die, they just have to stop traveling so frivolously. Some people on this post seem to think that people will realize how much they were traveling, and that on the lockdown they didn't travel and didn't need to. My feeling is that people will feel caged and as soon as they think it's safe, they'll start traveling again and there'll be a giant surge of travel for a couple months, and then it'll basically return to the way it was.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- vaidhy 7y agoI am always amused by headlines like this. I do not understand why the people expect earth to react to keep humans alive. Earth does what it does. We do what we do and should be willing to face the consequences.
- jwilk 7y agoThe submission title is editoralized. It poorly paraphrases this quote: > We are currently way off track to meeting either the 1.5°C or 2°C targets that the Paris Agreement calls for The article doesn't use the words "planet" or "Earth".
- JohnFen 7y agoIndeed. This is a point I frequently make to people who say things like "we're destroying the Earth" or "we're destroying nature". We're not. The Earth, and nature, will be just fine. The question is whether or not the planet will remain conducive to human life.
- jvanderbot 7y agoNow here's a crisis we can deal with. I hope COVID's rapid and haphazard response will teach us drastic changes are not so terrible and not so scarey when implemented slowly.
- SamBam 7y agoHonestly, I feel like the world leaders' confused, belated, contradictory, and deceitful response to COVID is still miles better than their response to climate change. Just imagine if climate change today were being met by the kinds of panicked direct interventions, quick decisions, and money being released the way is (fortunately) happening for COVID. The problem is that climate change is still more like the proverbial frog in hot water, while COVID is more like a frying pan.
- DFHippie 7y agoCOVID kills old people, so the people in power (the ones competent to protect their own interests) have taken notice.
- CiPHPerCoder 7y agoI don't believe we'll ever succeed in dealing with climate change. It's going to kill us all and the people in power will refuse to accept responsibility the whole while. Happy to be proven wrong!
- geddy 7y agoAgreed, and also I hope to be proven wrong. People don't want to change, by nature. Humans are terribly flawed. The last two people alive on earth will be pointing fingers at each other moments before they perish.
- Hamuko 7y ago>The last two people alive on earth will be pointing fingers at each other moments before they perish. Doesn't really work with the fact that there's about 7.7 billion people.
- sturza 7y agobut it will increase shareholder value.
- kcindric 7y agoI agree, but I'm interested to see will we see the fall during our generation or the next one will experience it. Bringing children to this world seems selfish.
- dumbfoundded 7y agoI actually believe we're in one of the best times to bring children into this world. Child mortality has dramatically fallen. We just live in an age where we're hyper-aware of our actions. I believe if we get out of an emergency, "we're all going to die" mindset, we may actually have a chance.
- rnd0 7y agoChild mortality is the least of it, however. You have to consider what the world is going to be like in 20,30 and 40 years from now and factor that into your decision. You have to consider what you'd be asking them to live through. Bringing children into this world isn't doing them any favors; at all.
- _bxg1 7y agoPoor timing for the publication of this report, to be honest. People have finite emotional capacity for dealing with stress/threats. Most people right now, with the coronavirus going, probably don't have the energy to spend on caring about this, so instead they'll just detach from it (I know that's what I find myself doing). Waiting a month or two would've likely meant a stronger impact.
- lotsofpulp 7y agoPeople have been ignoring it for decades now, and it's not going to change due to another UN report regardless of timing. Everyone wants the upper middle class US lifestyle, and the future will have to pay for it.
- _bxg1 7y agoIf they did the report, it's because they hoped to make an impact. All I'm suggesting is that whatever impact they were hoping to make, it could've been larger with better timing. Your defeatism has no relevance to that question one way or the other.
- ISL 7y agoDon't worry, we'll still be "way off track" in two months, and we can bang the drum again then. It is a drum that needs a lot of banging. The slowing of economic activity from Covid-19 is going to make it possible to test many climate and environmental models in ways climate-modelers couldn't have dreamed up six months ago. It is possible that Covid-19 will teach our present generations a lot about collective global action. The novel coronavirus is small potatoes in magnitude relative to the impact of climate change, but the timescale makes Covid-19 far more acute.
- DoofusOfDeath 7y agoI don't want to be pessimistic, but I'm working on the assumption that we won't (collectively) enact any plan that (requires coordinated sacrifice of multiple countries) but (allows some country to gain economic / military advantage by gaming the system at others' expense). So I'm assuming that it's smartest to assume climate change will happen without significant mitigation, and try to minimize the suffering that results. Now that I think about it, this reminds me a lot of our response to covid-19: I always assumed people lacked the political will for real containment, and we should focus our efforts on "flatting the curve" instead.
- chewz 7y agoPlanet is doing all right. It has just started to fight back with locust, coronavirus, Lassa fever and everything else that's coming soon. With a few billion people gone the climate changes will quickly revert itself.