4 ms·

Should the layperson be concerned with this news?

by thatcherthorn 3y ago

whalesalad 3y ago
Absolutely
- firecall 3y ago
  What can we do?
  - ars 3y ago
    Advocate for nuclear power, and advocate for easier zoning of energy projects.
    - tigershark 3y ago
      Nuclear is too expensive nowadays and way too slow to build. For comparison we have 368GW of nuclear power in the world (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_reactors#:~:text=The%20list%20only%20includes%20civilian,electrical%20capacity%20of%20368.6%20GW https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_r....), while just last year we added 191GW of solar power (https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/03/22/new-global-solar-capacity-additions-hit-191-gw-in-2022-says-irena/#:~:text=IRENA%20says%20developers%20installed%20295,solar%20was%20installed%20last%20year https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/03/22/new-global-solar-capa....). Solar installations are also growing pretty quickly YoY and it won’t be many years when we’ll be installing the total energy of all the world nuclear power plants per year in solar.
      - s5300 3y ago
        [dead]
      - baggy_trough 3y ago
        > Nuclear is too expensive nowadays and way too slow to build. This was a policy choice and can be reversed.
        lamontcg 3y ago
        It isn't. We can't build anything big and complicated without costs spiraling out of control. You're going to have to fundamentally change our management approach in this country to get cheap nuclear.
        baggy_trough 3y ago
        That sounds easier than some of the other ideas on this thread.
  - itsanaccount 3y ago
    Ideally? Mobilize like WW2 to decarbonize the economy. Quadruple the cost of fossil fuel via taxes and then use those funds to help the lower 60% or so survive by giving money direct to consumers for food, heating, etc. The markets will rapidly adapt as most tech is there, we just misallocate the hand of government spending. Realistically since what I proposed above is non-viable? Increase the cost of producing fossil fuels through more direct means, of which discussion is banned on most of the public internet.
    - grej 3y ago
      "Quadruple the cost of fossil fuel via taxes" - It's not what people want to hear, but this type of taxation will have no practical impact on the fossil fuel use of the world. Any fossil fuels produced and not consumed by the west where those tax regimes exist, will be consumed by the developing world. The overall world use of fossil fuels will continue to increase. Nuclear does have a hope in changing this dynamic. But even then, fossil fuels have powerful advantages that won't be easily overcome any time in the next 10-15 years, at least.
      - defrost 3y ago
        Taxation to reflect the true cost of fossil fuels can (rather should) be redirected towards mega scale (ie matching the scale of oil extraction industry) actual atmospheric carbon capture, both industrial plant based (to create fuels used to reduce deep extraction fuels) and organic plant based (as plants are pretty damn good at pulling down C02) for sequestration. The goal is to reduce the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere by whatever means work.
      - itsanaccount 3y ago
        I'm not gonna pretend I expect anything short of war, be it internal or external, to change things. By the time it actually happens though it will be too late for a lotta people. But the parent asked what we _should_ do.
        kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 3y ago
  - Nursie 3y ago
    Stop ignoring climate science and stop politicising it unnecessarily, then take steps to move to renewable energy and cut down CO2 emissions from all sources. Figure out how to keep oil money out of public discourse. And do it all 20 years ago. Like everyone was saying at the time. I’d say I’m disappointed and disgusted at humanity’s collective failure to act in the face of clear evidence. But I had massively low expectations.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - sh34r 3y ago
    Collapse now and avoid the rush
  - vouaobrasil 3y ago
    It seems impossible at times... creating more green energy just reduces the demand for fossil fuels, making them cheaper for other people to use. Reducing one's impact makes space for more people...basically, more efficiency in one place is immediately counteracted by people using MORE resources. The only solution would be for humanity to collectively agree to make fossil fuels incredibly expensive GLOBALLY...in some way or another. Whether that's through collective action or something else, I guess time will tell. On most days, I think we are screwed.
    - jahewson 3y ago
      The price of oil is held artificially high by OPEC so on that front at least I think we’re ok.
      - vouaobrasil 3y ago
        Not high enough. It needs to be extremely expensive for everyone.
      - dee-bee 3y ago
        "Artificially high" by a factor of maybe 3. We need to look at how to get to a factor of 100 or 1000. Oil is much, much more valuable in the long term as a material commodity, not a fuel commodity. This can be realized if we bring down the price of power, which is happening, albeit in only part of the globe.
    - baggy_trough 3y ago
      That's not the only solution. Another solution would be to come up with a better energy technology that's cheaper than fossil fuels.
      - vouaobrasil 3y ago
        That is not really a solution in itself though. As soon as it becomes cheaper, fossil fuel prices will drop due to a drop in demand for them, especially in developing countries. Moreover, more clean energy might mitigate the CO2 problem somewhat but it does not necessarily mitigate our expansion into natural habitats, an expansion that destroys them. It is simple-minded to think that a single technological breakthrough will suddenly make the problem of climate change go away.
  - romusha 3y ago
    Enjoying the remaining years
  - adolph 3y ago
    > What can we do? The first thing that I thought of when reading the headline was “more cowbell.” [0] But in reality the answer is “less cowbell” as bovine emissions are a significant greenhouse gas [1] and cattle ranching in Brasil is linked to deforestation. [2] 0. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Cowbell https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Cowbell 1. https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/making-cattle-more-sustainable https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/making-cattle-more-sustain... 2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2022/amazon-beef-deforestation-brazil/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2022/amazon... Edit: added supporting links
  - s5300 3y ago
    [dead]
  - diydsp 3y ago
    Slow production and make longer-lasting goods. Become more self-sufficient with more spread out plots of land to reduce shipping. Explore and expand reusable containers. Meatless Monday. Design more efficient water-based appliances like sinks and showers. Keep moving fwd w EVs.
    - itsanaccount 3y ago
      As sympathetic as I am to these, at its best these make no impact to overall CO2 numbers in the time we need. At its worst its propoganda to convince people its ok to keep buying things and living as they currently do as the rich abscond with the profits. If I were you I would be extremely suspicious of media that promotes these kind of tepid measures as effective.
    - ChatGTP 3y ago
      EVs still pollute.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
photochemsyn 3y ago
As ocean surface temperatures increase the atmospheric water vapor over the oceans increases as well. Water vapor is itself a infrared-absorbing gas so this drives additional warming, but this effect is included in climate models and projections of long-term CO2 effects (and has been experimentally tested, e.g. the Pinatubo explosion threw enough dust into the atmosphere in the early 1990s to cool the ocean surface and there was a subsequent drying of the atmosphere that lasted ~7 years). The main effect on human and economic activity is that increased water vapor means more extreme weather events, as warm wet air holds more energy that can be violently released if a warm wet system runs into a cold dry polar system, so we can expect more major flooding events as these trends steadily continue. Clear-air water vapor also contributes to major heat waves during the summer, so those should continue as well, along with dry conditions in some regions leading to high fire risk. For individuals, this means living in wildfire zones, flood zones etc. has a high risk factor (which is also why insurance companies are fleeing those markets right now). Practically the rational governmental response would be to put more funds into robust infrastructure (high temps mean high AC demand so more strain on the grid), more funds into emergency response for fires and floods and heat waves, and of course take major actions to eliminate fossil fuels from the energy mix as soon as possible... which is going to be a few decades at best, so adapting to these new conditions is pretty critical.

Should the layperson be concerned with this news?

whalesalad 3y ago

Absolutely

firecall 3y ago
What can we do?
- ars 3y ago
  Advocate for nuclear power, and advocate for easier zoning of energy projects.
  - tigershark 3y ago
    Nuclear is too expensive nowadays and way too slow to build. For comparison we have 368GW of nuclear power in the world (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_reactors#:~:text=The%20list%20only%20includes%20civilian,electrical%20capacity%20of%20368.6%20GW https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_r....), while just last year we added 191GW of solar power (https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/03/22/new-global-solar-capacity-additions-hit-191-gw-in-2022-says-irena/#:~:text=IRENA%20says%20developers%20installed%20295,solar%20was%20installed%20last%20year https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/03/22/new-global-solar-capa....). Solar installations are also growing pretty quickly YoY and it won’t be many years when we’ll be installing the total energy of all the world nuclear power plants per year in solar.
    - s5300 3y ago
      [dead]
    - baggy_trough 3y ago
      > Nuclear is too expensive nowadays and way too slow to build. This was a policy choice and can be reversed.
      - lamontcg 3y ago
        It isn't. We can't build anything big and complicated without costs spiraling out of control. You're going to have to fundamentally change our management approach in this country to get cheap nuclear.
        baggy_trough 3y ago
        That sounds easier than some of the other ideas on this thread.
- itsanaccount 3y ago
  Ideally? Mobilize like WW2 to decarbonize the economy. Quadruple the cost of fossil fuel via taxes and then use those funds to help the lower 60% or so survive by giving money direct to consumers for food, heating, etc. The markets will rapidly adapt as most tech is there, we just misallocate the hand of government spending. Realistically since what I proposed above is non-viable? Increase the cost of producing fossil fuels through more direct means, of which discussion is banned on most of the public internet.
  - grej 3y ago
    "Quadruple the cost of fossil fuel via taxes" - It's not what people want to hear, but this type of taxation will have no practical impact on the fossil fuel use of the world. Any fossil fuels produced and not consumed by the west where those tax regimes exist, will be consumed by the developing world. The overall world use of fossil fuels will continue to increase. Nuclear does have a hope in changing this dynamic. But even then, fossil fuels have powerful advantages that won't be easily overcome any time in the next 10-15 years, at least.
    - defrost 3y ago
      Taxation to reflect the true cost of fossil fuels can (rather should) be redirected towards mega scale (ie matching the scale of oil extraction industry) actual atmospheric carbon capture, both industrial plant based (to create fuels used to reduce deep extraction fuels) and organic plant based (as plants are pretty damn good at pulling down C02) for sequestration. The goal is to reduce the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere by whatever means work.
    - itsanaccount 3y ago
      I'm not gonna pretend I expect anything short of war, be it internal or external, to change things. By the time it actually happens though it will be too late for a lotta people. But the parent asked what we _should_ do.
      - kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 3y ago
- Nursie 3y ago
  Stop ignoring climate science and stop politicising it unnecessarily, then take steps to move to renewable energy and cut down CO2 emissions from all sources. Figure out how to keep oil money out of public discourse. And do it all 20 years ago. Like everyone was saying at the time. I’d say I’m disappointed and disgusted at humanity’s collective failure to act in the face of clear evidence. But I had massively low expectations.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- sh34r 3y ago
  Collapse now and avoid the rush
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  It seems impossible at times... creating more green energy just reduces the demand for fossil fuels, making them cheaper for other people to use. Reducing one's impact makes space for more people...basically, more efficiency in one place is immediately counteracted by people using MORE resources. The only solution would be for humanity to collectively agree to make fossil fuels incredibly expensive GLOBALLY...in some way or another. Whether that's through collective action or something else, I guess time will tell. On most days, I think we are screwed.
  - jahewson 3y ago
    The price of oil is held artificially high by OPEC so on that front at least I think we’re ok.
    - vouaobrasil 3y ago
      Not high enough. It needs to be extremely expensive for everyone.
    - dee-bee 3y ago
      "Artificially high" by a factor of maybe 3. We need to look at how to get to a factor of 100 or 1000. Oil is much, much more valuable in the long term as a material commodity, not a fuel commodity. This can be realized if we bring down the price of power, which is happening, albeit in only part of the globe.
  - baggy_trough 3y ago
    That's not the only solution. Another solution would be to come up with a better energy technology that's cheaper than fossil fuels.
    - vouaobrasil 3y ago
      That is not really a solution in itself though. As soon as it becomes cheaper, fossil fuel prices will drop due to a drop in demand for them, especially in developing countries. Moreover, more clean energy might mitigate the CO2 problem somewhat but it does not necessarily mitigate our expansion into natural habitats, an expansion that destroys them. It is simple-minded to think that a single technological breakthrough will suddenly make the problem of climate change go away.
- romusha 3y ago
  Enjoying the remaining years
- adolph 3y ago
  > What can we do? The first thing that I thought of when reading the headline was “more cowbell.” [0] But in reality the answer is “less cowbell” as bovine emissions are a significant greenhouse gas [1] and cattle ranching in Brasil is linked to deforestation. [2] 0. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Cowbell https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Cowbell 1. https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/making-cattle-more-sustainable https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/making-cattle-more-sustain... 2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2022/amazon-beef-deforestation-brazil/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2022/amazon... Edit: added supporting links
- s5300 3y ago
  [dead]
- diydsp 3y ago
  Slow production and make longer-lasting goods. Become more self-sufficient with more spread out plots of land to reduce shipping. Explore and expand reusable containers. Meatless Monday. Design more efficient water-based appliances like sinks and showers. Keep moving fwd w EVs.
  - itsanaccount 3y ago
    As sympathetic as I am to these, at its best these make no impact to overall CO2 numbers in the time we need. At its worst its propoganda to convince people its ok to keep buying things and living as they currently do as the rich abscond with the profits. If I were you I would be extremely suspicious of media that promotes these kind of tepid measures as effective.
  - ChatGTP 3y ago
    EVs still pollute.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

photochemsyn 3y ago

As ocean surface temperatures increase the atmospheric water vapor over the oceans increases as well. Water vapor is itself a infrared-absorbing gas so this drives additional warming, but this effect is included in climate models and projections of long-term CO2 effects (and has been experimentally tested, e.g. the Pinatubo explosion threw enough dust into the atmosphere in the early 1990s to cool the ocean surface and there was a subsequent drying of the atmosphere that lasted ~7 years). The main effect on human and economic activity is that increased water vapor means more extreme weather events, as warm wet air holds more energy that can be violently released if a warm wet system runs into a cold dry polar system, so we can expect more major flooding events as these trends steadily continue. Clear-air water vapor also contributes to major heat waves during the summer, so those should continue as well, along with dry conditions in some regions leading to high fire risk. For individuals, this means living in wildfire zones, flood zones etc. has a high risk factor (which is also why insurance companies are fleeing those markets right now). Practically the rational governmental response would be to put more funds into robust infrastructure (high temps mean high AC demand so more strain on the grid), more funds into emergency response for fires and floods and heat waves, and of course take major actions to eliminate fossil fuels from the energy mix as soon as possible... which is going to be a few decades at best, so adapting to these new conditions is pretty critical.