8 ms·

There's no chance of limiting warming to 2 degrees anymore. Not only are emissions still rising, but the rate of increase is also still accelerating. It's just

by eloff 4y ago

There's no chance of limiting warming to 2 degrees anymore. Not only are emissions still rising, but the rate of increase is also still accelerating. It's just not a realistic goal. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/04/un-ipcc-1-5-degree-report-global-warming/629486/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/04/un-ipcc-... https://www.iea.org/news/global-co2-emissions-rebounded-to-their-highest-level-in-history-in-2021 https://www.iea.org/news/global-co2-emissions-rebounded-to-t... https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-022-00285-w https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-022-00285-w

pentae 4y ago
Imho it will all depend on China and India coming to the party, and considering cheap oil and coal funds their expansion i can't really see that happening any time soon
- nebula8804 4y ago
  Can you blame them? Cheap oil and coal made the west into what it is today. Should they be denied the same ability to get to where we are today?
nh23423fefe 4y ago
"I can retire by 65... I just need a budget." Catching up to meet some goal no one understands isn't possible. The world will get warmer and warmer until some market/military/survival barrier is reached. "We need to pass this law so that in 1000 years sea levels will be X" is complete farce. I'm not saying the science is wrong. I've read the ipcc reports and im convinced of human caused warming. I'm saying being right about the science says almost nothing about what changes need to be made in the world. Humans dont care about altering the environment to meet our needs. The Holocene Extinction carries on.
- melenaboija 4y ago
  > I'm saying being right about the science says almost nothing about what changes need to be made in the world. What? Maybe reducing CO2 emissions? Maybe you meant that being right about the science says almost nothing about what human beings are willing to do to solve it. And I guess “science” does not have an opinion about the system we live in, arguably.
  - nh23423fefe 4y ago
    That's tautological though. The ipcc report says CO2 causes warming. So of course less emissions would mean less warming. No, I didn't mean to say what you said. I meant to say what I said.
    - melenaboija 4y ago
      I guess that if it is a tautology then science says that we have to reduce emissions. And apologies for my wording.
- wffurr 4y ago
  We're just here to consume the energy gradient. Nature abhors unused reserves of energy. 2nd law of thermodynamics etc. Something was bound to evolve that would burn up all the fossil fuels buried underground.
- candiodari 4y ago
  You do realise the earth is at the very end of an interglacial period? The purpose of "stopping global warming" is not to stop the earth warming. Stopping warming would be as bad as global warming. Reversing warming would be much worse. We want to slow it, not stop it. Global warming is the (as usual incredibly well-chosen) name for the rate of increase in temperature going up way too fast. The purpose is to stretch the next 100 years of warming at the current rates to call it 2000 years of warming. To make it take longer. Not to stop it, and not to reverse it. The ideal global warming changes will keep warming the planet, just much slower than is currently happening. The problem is I'm going to get downvoted for this, as there is an anti-global-warming "theory" that says we're at the start of the next ice age. And like all good lies, it's essentially true. In the next few thousand years an ice age should start. The name global warming, however, means that if possible it'd be nice if all the remaining progress to the next ice age didn't happen in ~200 years.
PheonixPharts 4y ago
Can we as a HN community stop downvoting comments because we don't like the reality of what is happening? I know the reality of unavoidable climate catastrophe is uncomfortable to talk about, but aggressive denial is really a problem in the HN community. I can completely understand people who haven't studied this topic in depth not being aware of how dire the situation is, so asking questions or debating is healthy and expected. Downvoting a comment consisting of a statement of fact combined with a logical hypothesis derived from that fact, backed up by 3 well known citations is not a healthy direction for this community to develop in. Denial is a part of dealing with this reality, but as a community we should work a bit harder to move towards better acceptance and understanding.
- newaccount2021 4y ago
- novaRom 4y ago
  Proposal: make possible to vote up/down only if a new comment submitted.
  - ianai 4y ago
    Or just have upvote and “disagree” buttons separately.
    - k0k0r0 4y ago
      This is such a great idea! Very often I disagree with some comment and nevertheless upvote, because that comment is really thoughtful and is an important contribution to the discussion with important subjects or perspectives that need to be considered.
    - k0k0r0 4y ago
      Edit: Sorry about that duplicate. I couldn't see my other comment and thought my phone has failed submitting. Yes, I totally agree. Often I upvote a comment I disagree with since it nevertheless is a thoughtful and important contribution to the discussion. I feel I learn most from people I disagree with.
pier25 4y ago
Even if a miracle happened and we reached zero emissions today, there's climate lag and feedbacks. Temps would keep rising for decades if not centuries.
- salmonfamine 4y ago
  This is not true. https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/305/graphic-when-emissions-stop-warming-stops/ https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/305/graphic-when-...
  - pier25 4y ago
    It is true. In fact if you look at the source for that graph [1] you'll see it's a paper from 2009 and they used old 2007 IPCC data for their models. The IPCC has not taken feedbacks into account until their sixth report of which the synthesis hasn't been published yet [2]. In 2009 feedbacks were still not well understood. In fact Natalia Shakhova didn't publish her seminal paper on methane in the Arctic until 2010. Here's an interview with her in 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx1Jxk6kjbQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx1Jxk6kjbQ [1] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0812721106 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0812721106 [2] https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/ https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/
    - salmonfamine 4y ago
      Interesting, I pulled this from a very recent tweet from a climate scientist. This article delves into it in more detail: https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-st... Curious to hear your take on that.
      - pier25 4y ago
        I'm not a scientist but I've been reading about climate change for some years now. Maybe I'm missing something but here's my pedestrian view on it. The thing that bugs me the most is the article almost completely ignores the role of feedbacks. This has been the classic IPCC position (which AFAIK they've rectified for their sixth assessment). The article only mentions this right at the end: "If, however, zero emissions were to occur later in the century, there is the potential to lock in more carbon-cycle feedback processes – such as melting permafrost – than under current global temperature levels." Quite a strange comment considering the permafrost has been melting for decades. See the Natalia Shakhova video I shared on my earlier comment. A quick google search will tell you more about the methane feedback. And there are other feedbacks already triggered like the Arctic ice melting. Arctic ice deflects sunlight and has been decreasing yearly since we started measuring it in the 70s IIRC. See the latest data from the PIOMAS project: http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger... The article also makes some bizarre claims such as "If emissions are cut to zero, on the other hand, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 would quickly fall, before eventually stabilising at a lower level.". But according to NASA, CO2 remains in the atmosphere between 300 and 1000 years. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-... https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-20/ https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-chan... Then "as the oceans slowly warmed up to reach the same temperature as the atmosphere". The oceans absorb more heat than the atmosphere which is the released over the following decades in a phenomenon sometimes called climate lag. http://climatecat.eu/ufaqs/5-why-does-co2-lag-temperature/ http://climatecat.eu/ufaqs/5-why-does-co2-lag-temperature/ https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/3/031001 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/3/03...
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
> Meeting the goal will require taking coal, oil, and natural-gas capacity offline before it was designed to shut down. This doesnt sound that impossible? It's already happenening. > The use of coal for electricity generation in 2021 was intensified by record high natural gas prices High natural gas prices sound like a good thing for renewables?
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  > High natural gas prices sound like a good thing for renewables? Not if it's a short term dip you can only practically fill with coal
captainmuon 4y ago
Is that under "realistic" economical assumptions? I.e. phasing out fossil fuel while keeping our political system and economy reasonably intact? Or is it even impossible if we stop emitting all CO2 tomorrow, because the warming is lagging behind? Last I heard, we could still physically achive 1.5 degrees, but we would have to switch completely to command economy immediately and take a big reduction in economic activity (a couple times larger than during the peak of COVID). Which I believe is still better than the alternative.
- miltondts 4y ago
  Depends on the model used. Some models say we already have 2C locked in: https://www.ecowatch.com/greenhouse-gases-paris-agreement-2649767807.html https://www.ecowatch.com/greenhouse-gases-paris-agreement-26...
- zdragnar 4y ago
  Economic depression in much of the world will see a return to deforestation as people are forced to use wood for heating, cooking and clearing land for more subsitence farming. I think the extent of the "command" portion of the command economy itself is unrealistic.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  Command economy isn't going to help if they command it to "keep burning fossil fuels". Which is the main flaw that the current economic model has regarding climate change, paying people to do the thing we don't want them to do. > Globally, fossil fuel subsidies were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020 and are expected to increase to 7.4 percent of GDP in 2025 as the share of ... https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidie...
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > Is that under "realistic" economical assumptions? It would be with nuclear. But the nutters won round 1, which makes 2º virtually assured. > we would have to switch completely to command economy Command economies centralize political power. Broadly speaking, modern elites are insulated from everything but total societal collapse, which any country able to re-organise into a command economy is unlikely to face. One would expect a centralized political structure to give fewer shits about the environment, not more.
wollsmoth 4y ago
Yeah, we're along for the ride at this point. We are definitely not going to start treating this seriously until it's an immediate catastrophe.
mrtksn 4y ago
There's a special breed of alt-right people who are actually well informed on the issue, don't deny climate change but because they are doom&gloom minded libertarians they passionately advocate for de-regulation because "we won't make it, so lets just have a good time when we can". I'm not accusing anyone, it's just that I know such a person with phd in a related field and he is very active online, pushing for alt-right agendas and culture wars in spite of "leftist who cant stop lying". Went offline for weeks when Trump lost and he doesn't like the guy. I really can't understand this mentality. So what if we probably won't reach the goals? What is the proposed action here? Increase the limits on carbon emissions? Evacuate the places that will go under water? For some reason, the arguments I see online revolve around the idea of "we can't make it, just don't bother" as if it is a investment opportunity that failed.
- npc54321 4y ago
  I rarely argue online lately but I'll bite. I think similar to your friend. I'm anti-everything that pollutes even on a more instinctive level because my nose just can't handle gas odors / car exhaust etc I just hate it. You will never fix climate change without first fixing wealth inequality. Ain't no chance in hell John Doe will start biking to his workplace where he'll arrive drenched in sweat while he sees the CEO arriving in a private helicopter. Another example: Bill Gates being a climate change activist, a noble cause of course but the guy owns the largest fleet of private jets no I do not care he offsets it with credits. Forget about John Doe, think of Jose Gonzalez in some South American shithole, guy makes less than $50 a week as a taxi driver in his own car, his catalytic converter breaks down and it costs $500 you think he's going to replace it? No way. I'm inviting everyone in this thread to step into the real world for a moment.
  - ejb999 4y ago
    >>I do not care he offsets it with credits. Buying carbon offsets is the same as beating your wife every week and then donating money to a battered women's shelter to atone for your sins.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
abeppu 4y ago
I think 2020 was an unfortunate lesson: the painful crises that we _can't_ control can change consumption / emission more than all the intentional actions and programs by our governments. A giant pandemic, and a shutdown of a lot of normal economic behaviors resulted in a sharp drop in emissions, which was totally reversed in 2021. What if what the world needs now is a hard, damaging recession and perhaps another (or several more) disruptive disease outbreaks? I'm not saying that this would be _good_ exactly, but so far it seems like the only thing that really works.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
But importantly, even if this take is true then: * the cheapest way to generate new energy is still renewables * the biggest bang for buck change governments could make would be to stop subsidizing fossil fuels * phasing out the fossil fuels would also increase our global health So, even in this pessimistic scenario, we should still be phasing out coal as quickly as possible, it's a no-regret strategy. Did we keep the temp change below 2C? No we just saved millions of lives, Trillions of dollars. vs Did we keep the temp change below 2C? Yes, and we saved millions of lives, Trillions of dollars on top of that.
- Sharlin 4y ago
  See that's the problem. Limiting temp change is not a goal distinct from saving millions of lives and trillions of dollars, it's literally about saving millions of lives and trillions of dollars (as well as saving other things more difficult to put price on). And that's the problem with abstractly talking about degrees of warming – we should be directly modelling the human and economic costs of every 0.1° of additional warming. Some economists are doing just that, of course, but then again nobody really knows how reliable any of the models are, so they're easy to ignore.

by eloff 4y ago

pentae 4y ago

Imho it will all depend on China and India coming to the party, and considering cheap oil and coal funds their expansion i can't really see that happening any time soon

nebula8804 4y ago
Can you blame them? Cheap oil and coal made the west into what it is today. Should they be denied the same ability to get to where we are today?

nh23423fefe 4y ago

"I can retire by 65... I just need a budget." Catching up to meet some goal no one understands isn't possible. The world will get warmer and warmer until some market/military/survival barrier is reached. "We need to pass this law so that in 1000 years sea levels will be X" is complete farce. I'm not saying the science is wrong. I've read the ipcc reports and im convinced of human caused warming. I'm saying being right about the science says almost nothing about what changes need to be made in the world. Humans dont care about altering the environment to meet our needs. The Holocene Extinction carries on.

melenaboija 4y ago
> I'm saying being right about the science says almost nothing about what changes need to be made in the world. What? Maybe reducing CO2 emissions? Maybe you meant that being right about the science says almost nothing about what human beings are willing to do to solve it. And I guess “science” does not have an opinion about the system we live in, arguably.
- nh23423fefe 4y ago
  That's tautological though. The ipcc report says CO2 causes warming. So of course less emissions would mean less warming. No, I didn't mean to say what you said. I meant to say what I said.
  - melenaboija 4y ago
    I guess that if it is a tautology then science says that we have to reduce emissions. And apologies for my wording.
wffurr 4y ago
We're just here to consume the energy gradient. Nature abhors unused reserves of energy. 2nd law of thermodynamics etc. Something was bound to evolve that would burn up all the fossil fuels buried underground.
candiodari 4y ago
You do realise the earth is at the very end of an interglacial period? The purpose of "stopping global warming" is not to stop the earth warming. Stopping warming would be as bad as global warming. Reversing warming would be much worse. We want to slow it, not stop it. Global warming is the (as usual incredibly well-chosen) name for the rate of increase in temperature going up way too fast. The purpose is to stretch the next 100 years of warming at the current rates to call it 2000 years of warming. To make it take longer. Not to stop it, and not to reverse it. The ideal global warming changes will keep warming the planet, just much slower than is currently happening. The problem is I'm going to get downvoted for this, as there is an anti-global-warming "theory" that says we're at the start of the next ice age. And like all good lies, it's essentially true. In the next few thousand years an ice age should start. The name global warming, however, means that if possible it'd be nice if all the remaining progress to the next ice age didn't happen in ~200 years.

PheonixPharts 4y ago

Can we as a HN community stop downvoting comments because we don't like the reality of what is happening? I know the reality of unavoidable climate catastrophe is uncomfortable to talk about, but aggressive denial is really a problem in the HN community. I can completely understand people who haven't studied this topic in depth not being aware of how dire the situation is, so asking questions or debating is healthy and expected. Downvoting a comment consisting of a statement of fact combined with a logical hypothesis derived from that fact, backed up by 3 well known citations is not a healthy direction for this community to develop in. Denial is a part of dealing with this reality, but as a community we should work a bit harder to move towards better acceptance and understanding.

newaccount2021 4y ago
novaRom 4y ago
Proposal: make possible to vote up/down only if a new comment submitted.
- ianai 4y ago
  Or just have upvote and “disagree” buttons separately.
  - k0k0r0 4y ago
    This is such a great idea! Very often I disagree with some comment and nevertheless upvote, because that comment is really thoughtful and is an important contribution to the discussion with important subjects or perspectives that need to be considered.
  - k0k0r0 4y ago
    Edit: Sorry about that duplicate. I couldn't see my other comment and thought my phone has failed submitting. Yes, I totally agree. Often I upvote a comment I disagree with since it nevertheless is a thoughtful and important contribution to the discussion. I feel I learn most from people I disagree with.

pier25 4y ago

Even if a miracle happened and we reached zero emissions today, there's climate lag and feedbacks. Temps would keep rising for decades if not centuries.

salmonfamine 4y ago
This is not true. https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/305/graphic-when-emissions-stop-warming-stops/ https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/305/graphic-when-...
- pier25 4y ago
  It is true. In fact if you look at the source for that graph [1] you'll see it's a paper from 2009 and they used old 2007 IPCC data for their models. The IPCC has not taken feedbacks into account until their sixth report of which the synthesis hasn't been published yet [2]. In 2009 feedbacks were still not well understood. In fact Natalia Shakhova didn't publish her seminal paper on methane in the Arctic until 2010. Here's an interview with her in 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx1Jxk6kjbQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx1Jxk6kjbQ [1] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0812721106 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0812721106 [2] https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/ https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/
  - salmonfamine 4y ago
    Interesting, I pulled this from a very recent tweet from a climate scientist. This article delves into it in more detail: https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-st... Curious to hear your take on that.
    - pier25 4y ago
      I'm not a scientist but I've been reading about climate change for some years now. Maybe I'm missing something but here's my pedestrian view on it. The thing that bugs me the most is the article almost completely ignores the role of feedbacks. This has been the classic IPCC position (which AFAIK they've rectified for their sixth assessment). The article only mentions this right at the end: "If, however, zero emissions were to occur later in the century, there is the potential to lock in more carbon-cycle feedback processes – such as melting permafrost – than under current global temperature levels." Quite a strange comment considering the permafrost has been melting for decades. See the Natalia Shakhova video I shared on my earlier comment. A quick google search will tell you more about the methane feedback. And there are other feedbacks already triggered like the Arctic ice melting. Arctic ice deflects sunlight and has been decreasing yearly since we started measuring it in the 70s IIRC. See the latest data from the PIOMAS project: http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger... The article also makes some bizarre claims such as "If emissions are cut to zero, on the other hand, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 would quickly fall, before eventually stabilising at a lower level.". But according to NASA, CO2 remains in the atmosphere between 300 and 1000 years. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-... https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-20/ https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-chan... Then "as the oceans slowly warmed up to reach the same temperature as the atmosphere". The oceans absorb more heat than the atmosphere which is the released over the following decades in a phenomenon sometimes called climate lag. http://climatecat.eu/ufaqs/5-why-does-co2-lag-temperature/ http://climatecat.eu/ufaqs/5-why-does-co2-lag-temperature/ https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/3/031001 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/3/03...

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

> Meeting the goal will require taking coal, oil, and natural-gas capacity offline before it was designed to shut down. This doesnt sound that impossible? It's already happenening. > The use of coal for electricity generation in 2021 was intensified by record high natural gas prices High natural gas prices sound like a good thing for renewables?

spywaregorilla 4y ago
> High natural gas prices sound like a good thing for renewables? Not if it's a short term dip you can only practically fill with coal

captainmuon 4y ago

Is that under "realistic" economical assumptions? I.e. phasing out fossil fuel while keeping our political system and economy reasonably intact? Or is it even impossible if we stop emitting all CO2 tomorrow, because the warming is lagging behind? Last I heard, we could still physically achive 1.5 degrees, but we would have to switch completely to command economy immediately and take a big reduction in economic activity (a couple times larger than during the peak of COVID). Which I believe is still better than the alternative.

miltondts 4y ago
Depends on the model used. Some models say we already have 2C locked in: https://www.ecowatch.com/greenhouse-gases-paris-agreement-2649767807.html https://www.ecowatch.com/greenhouse-gases-paris-agreement-26...
zdragnar 4y ago
Economic depression in much of the world will see a return to deforestation as people are forced to use wood for heating, cooking and clearing land for more subsitence farming. I think the extent of the "command" portion of the command economy itself is unrealistic.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Command economy isn't going to help if they command it to "keep burning fossil fuels". Which is the main flaw that the current economic model has regarding climate change, paying people to do the thing we don't want them to do. > Globally, fossil fuel subsidies were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020 and are expected to increase to 7.4 percent of GDP in 2025 as the share of ... https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidie...
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> Is that under "realistic" economical assumptions? It would be with nuclear. But the nutters won round 1, which makes 2º virtually assured. > we would have to switch completely to command economy Command economies centralize political power. Broadly speaking, modern elites are insulated from everything but total societal collapse, which any country able to re-organise into a command economy is unlikely to face. One would expect a centralized political structure to give fewer shits about the environment, not more.

wollsmoth 4y ago

Yeah, we're along for the ride at this point. We are definitely not going to start treating this seriously until it's an immediate catastrophe.

mrtksn 4y ago

There's a special breed of alt-right people who are actually well informed on the issue, don't deny climate change but because they are doom&gloom minded libertarians they passionately advocate for de-regulation because "we won't make it, so lets just have a good time when we can". I'm not accusing anyone, it's just that I know such a person with phd in a related field and he is very active online, pushing for alt-right agendas and culture wars in spite of "leftist who cant stop lying". Went offline for weeks when Trump lost and he doesn't like the guy. I really can't understand this mentality. So what if we probably won't reach the goals? What is the proposed action here? Increase the limits on carbon emissions? Evacuate the places that will go under water? For some reason, the arguments I see online revolve around the idea of "we can't make it, just don't bother" as if it is a investment opportunity that failed.

npc54321 4y ago
I rarely argue online lately but I'll bite. I think similar to your friend. I'm anti-everything that pollutes even on a more instinctive level because my nose just can't handle gas odors / car exhaust etc I just hate it. You will never fix climate change without first fixing wealth inequality. Ain't no chance in hell John Doe will start biking to his workplace where he'll arrive drenched in sweat while he sees the CEO arriving in a private helicopter. Another example: Bill Gates being a climate change activist, a noble cause of course but the guy owns the largest fleet of private jets no I do not care he offsets it with credits. Forget about John Doe, think of Jose Gonzalez in some South American shithole, guy makes less than $50 a week as a taxi driver in his own car, his catalytic converter breaks down and it costs $500 you think he's going to replace it? No way. I'm inviting everyone in this thread to step into the real world for a moment.
- ejb999 4y ago
  >>I do not care he offsets it with credits. Buying carbon offsets is the same as beating your wife every week and then donating money to a battered women's shelter to atone for your sins.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

abeppu 4y ago

I think 2020 was an unfortunate lesson: the painful crises that we _can't_ control can change consumption / emission more than all the intentional actions and programs by our governments. A giant pandemic, and a shutdown of a lot of normal economic behaviors resulted in a sharp drop in emissions, which was totally reversed in 2021. What if what the world needs now is a hard, damaging recession and perhaps another (or several more) disruptive disease outbreaks? I'm not saying that this would be _good_ exactly, but so far it seems like the only thing that really works.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

But importantly, even if this take is true then: * the cheapest way to generate new energy is still renewables * the biggest bang for buck change governments could make would be to stop subsidizing fossil fuels * phasing out the fossil fuels would also increase our global health So, even in this pessimistic scenario, we should still be phasing out coal as quickly as possible, it's a no-regret strategy. Did we keep the temp change below 2C? No we just saved millions of lives, Trillions of dollars. vs Did we keep the temp change below 2C? Yes, and we saved millions of lives, Trillions of dollars on top of that.

Sharlin 4y ago
See that's the problem. Limiting temp change is not a goal distinct from saving millions of lives and trillions of dollars, it's literally about saving millions of lives and trillions of dollars (as well as saving other things more difficult to put price on). And that's the problem with abstractly talking about degrees of warming – we should be directly modelling the human and economic costs of every 0.1° of additional warming. Some economists are doing just that, of course, but then again nobody really knows how reliable any of the models are, so they're easy to ignore.