6 ms·

Carbon budget will exhaust in 10 years at current emission levels: IPCC report

21 points by boplicity 5y ago

boplicity 5y ago
I think the goal, at this point, should be to do anything we can to give us breathing room. Maybe over the next two years, we can turn things around enough so that we still have 10 years before we hit the emissions limit. Even that, though, would require dramatic investments that I'm not seeing right now.
chewz 5y ago
In other news. China reopens 44 coal plants. Europe is stocking coal like crazy for winter so coal prices reached all time high at Rotterdam.
- rakoo 5y ago
  And the US asks the OPEC+ to produce even more oil to boost American growth
raffraffraff 5y ago
I was under the impression that we're way past the point where we should be removing co2 from the atmosphere instead of talking about some emmissions budget. There is no budget. Practically nobody I've ever spoken to on the subject of climate change actually knows what the 1.5C "thing" is all about. The assumption most people seem to make is that we're fine for now, we just have to make sure that "some temperature" doesn't exceed "some value" by 1.5C, within, uh... "some time frame". In other words: don't worry! The boffins have drawn a nice safe imaginary line somewhere, and future generations better not cross it or bad things will happen to polar bears! But don't worry, keep eating steak and driving everywhere and buying shit you don't need, and of course you can fly transatlantic as long as you're vaccinated! That while 1.5C thing was supposed to be a "DO NOT CROSS" worst-case-scenario. But it was domed from the start because it was based on a lot of best case scenarios (like magic co2 capture that doesn't exist) and didn't even account for the multitude of feedback loops that were thought possible (but actually all happening). I did a deep dive on this stuff 4 years ago. I was already vegetarian and don't drive, don't have kids. All I could really do was give up flying (which I did). I'm done worrying about this stuff. I know we're fucked, but I refuse to let it bother me. It's funny having it ignored for years until suddenly the weather actually turned to shit and people all start to talk about it like it's a surprise. Sorry. I'm drunk and pissed off seeing this shit.
- ipspam 5y ago
  I agree, but in a totally different way. We are past the tipping point. To destroy capitalism and everything that got us here is a VERY risky strategy. Instead, it's full steam ahead. Technology will save us from ourselves. Or not. But that's the only realistic option. On a positive note, we've been here many many times before and overcome. There would be no trees left without coal. There would be no whales left without petroleum. Now we are on to coal, petroleum, natural gas, nuclear, and renewables. Whatever budget anyone thinks there is, life goes on. Coal will be the next to go, and probably in about 50 years.
  - tuatoru 5y ago
    Capitalism got "destroyed" in WW II for a while. The US government told US factories what to make, and US growers what to grow. Changed circumstances need changed responses.
    - raffraffraff 5y ago
      Exactly. Capitalism is a construct. An invention. We can (in theory anyway) argue about it, change it, put it on hold during "wartime". The climate is fucking real. How do you argue with a wall of water that's sweeping cars and houses and people down the street? Or the hurricane that's making matchsticks out of your house? What good is it to shake your fists at 50°C? Can you talk the gulf stream into "staying put"? If Capitalism doesn't serve our long term survival, what's the point? And that's the question: can we somehow spend our way out of this? I think, no.
  - lmilcin 5y ago
    Technology may save us. But that is no reason to act stupid and leave future generations with the problem because we wanted to have it comfortable.
    - ipspam 5y ago
      Technology May save us, so that's a good reason not to destroy the systems and institutions that allow economies and technology to flourish like never before.
newbamboo 5y ago
“As of September 2017, there are two new reactors under construction with a gross electrical capacity of 2,500 MW, while 39 reactors have been permanently shut down. ... More than 100 orders for nuclear power reactors, many already under construction, were canceled in the 1970s and 1980s, bankrupting some companies.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_... Split wood not atoms.
nashashmi 5y ago
What’s the possibility that man can panic over this like we did during the onset of the pandemic and freeze energy use for a couple of weeks. And then make that a habit for three days a week. Until we get this under control again.
- loopz 5y ago
  CO2 won't go down for hundred years. The gas will still be up there and still having the same effects, even if we stop all emissions. This has been warned against for decades already.
throwaway52811 5y ago
I'm surprised that so far, no coal trains have been derailed by activists.

21 points by boplicity 5y ago

I think the goal, at this point, should be to do anything we can to give us breathing room. Maybe over the next two years, we can turn things around enough so that we still have 10 years before we hit the emissions limit. Even that, though, would require dramatic investments that I'm not seeing right now.

chewz 5y ago

In other news. China reopens 44 coal plants. Europe is stocking coal like crazy for winter so coal prices reached all time high at Rotterdam.

rakoo 5y ago
And the US asks the OPEC+ to produce even more oil to boost American growth

raffraffraff 5y ago

I was under the impression that we're way past the point where we should be removing co2 from the atmosphere instead of talking about some emmissions budget. There is no budget. Practically nobody I've ever spoken to on the subject of climate change actually knows what the 1.5C "thing" is all about. The assumption most people seem to make is that we're fine for now, we just have to make sure that "some temperature" doesn't exceed "some value" by 1.5C, within, uh... "some time frame". In other words: don't worry! The boffins have drawn a nice safe imaginary line somewhere, and future generations better not cross it or bad things will happen to polar bears! But don't worry, keep eating steak and driving everywhere and buying shit you don't need, and of course you can fly transatlantic as long as you're vaccinated! That while 1.5C thing was supposed to be a "DO NOT CROSS" worst-case-scenario. But it was domed from the start because it was based on a lot of best case scenarios (like magic co2 capture that doesn't exist) and didn't even account for the multitude of feedback loops that were thought possible (but actually all happening). I did a deep dive on this stuff 4 years ago. I was already vegetarian and don't drive, don't have kids. All I could really do was give up flying (which I did). I'm done worrying about this stuff. I know we're fucked, but I refuse to let it bother me. It's funny having it ignored for years until suddenly the weather actually turned to shit and people all start to talk about it like it's a surprise. Sorry. I'm drunk and pissed off seeing this shit.

ipspam 5y ago
I agree, but in a totally different way. We are past the tipping point. To destroy capitalism and everything that got us here is a VERY risky strategy. Instead, it's full steam ahead. Technology will save us from ourselves. Or not. But that's the only realistic option. On a positive note, we've been here many many times before and overcome. There would be no trees left without coal. There would be no whales left without petroleum. Now we are on to coal, petroleum, natural gas, nuclear, and renewables. Whatever budget anyone thinks there is, life goes on. Coal will be the next to go, and probably in about 50 years.
- tuatoru 5y ago
  Capitalism got "destroyed" in WW II for a while. The US government told US factories what to make, and US growers what to grow. Changed circumstances need changed responses.
  - raffraffraff 5y ago
    Exactly. Capitalism is a construct. An invention. We can (in theory anyway) argue about it, change it, put it on hold during "wartime". The climate is fucking real. How do you argue with a wall of water that's sweeping cars and houses and people down the street? Or the hurricane that's making matchsticks out of your house? What good is it to shake your fists at 50°C? Can you talk the gulf stream into "staying put"? If Capitalism doesn't serve our long term survival, what's the point? And that's the question: can we somehow spend our way out of this? I think, no.
- lmilcin 5y ago
  Technology may save us. But that is no reason to act stupid and leave future generations with the problem because we wanted to have it comfortable.
  - ipspam 5y ago
    Technology May save us, so that's a good reason not to destroy the systems and institutions that allow economies and technology to flourish like never before.

newbamboo 5y ago

“As of September 2017, there are two new reactors under construction with a gross electrical capacity of 2,500 MW, while 39 reactors have been permanently shut down. ... More than 100 orders for nuclear power reactors, many already under construction, were canceled in the 1970s and 1980s, bankrupting some companies.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_... Split wood not atoms.

nashashmi 5y ago

What’s the possibility that man can panic over this like we did during the onset of the pandemic and freeze energy use for a couple of weeks. And then make that a habit for three days a week. Until we get this under control again.

loopz 5y ago
CO2 won't go down for hundred years. The gas will still be up there and still having the same effects, even if we stop all emissions. This has been warned against for decades already.

throwaway52811 5y ago

I'm surprised that so far, no coal trains have been derailed by activists.