7 ms·
2024 first year to pass 1.5C global warming limit
- gnabgib 2y agoRelated from 2 months ago: State of the climate: 2024 will be first year above 1.5C of global warming (5 points, 9 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42085978 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42085978 This year set to be first to breach 1.5C global warming limit (10 points, no comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42077420 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42077420
- ksclarke 2y agoLooking at the number of points and comments on each (including this one), I remember something my mom (an elementary school teacher) always said: "You have to repeat something three times before people hear it."
- SMP-UX 2y agoWhat, global warming?? Naaaaaillllll!
- Timon3 2y agoFor those uninitiated, this is a quote from Dragonball Z: Abridged. It's a fan dub of DBZ until the Cell saga, with incredible amounts of work put into each aspect of the production. It's a true gem of the internet of the 2010s, and a must-watch for any fan. A bunch of voice actors even started their careers through it!
- a5c11 2y agoDoes that mean they are going to push Europeans even harder, and do nothing to countries which are the real culprit?
- lm28469 2y agoWhich countries?
- pjc50 2y agoThe real culprits are at the top of https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/ https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-pe... : gulf oil states, Australia, petrostate Canada, then the ones you'd expect like US and Russia.
- igg 2y agoThis list seem to be based on production based accounting if emissions. Consumption-based per-capita emissions are available here for those curious: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita?tab=chart https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capit...
- _aavaa_ 2y agoIs there a version of this that isn’t per capita? The environment cares about absolute amounts not per capita amounts.
- throawayonthe 2y agoabsolute amounts of emissions by country is an arbitrary division, more people = more (demand for) industrial activity; for the numbers to be useful and actionable, they need to be understood in the context of the people those emissions are for, no?
- meany 2y agoDoesn’t that assume that the production isn’t for export. For instance, if the EU and US export their industries to low wage, high population countries you would see their per capita numbers drop and overall leveling out. However, the damage to the climate would be equal. Essentially, you need to look at a lot of factors and think holistically about the problem.
- _aavaa_ 2y agoNo. The comment I replied to is about comsumption-based emissions, which attempt to account for exactly this. See the description in the link
- matthewmacleod 2y agoWho is “they”?
- acadapter 2y agoI assume the unspecific "they" is a linguistic shortcut for "people in power"
- toomuchtodo 2y agoChina is rapidly decarbonizing, India is right behind, it is the US you have to convince to move faster (coal plants are rapidly on their way out, but US consumers prefer ICE pickups over EVs, and LNG exports must be prevented and substitutes found [carbon footprint determined to be substantially higher than coal]). Europeans have, for the most part, done very well considering the carbon profile of everything west of Poland. But they also need to speed up the EV uptake, with domestic EU automakers pleading "it's too hard" while China eats their lunch. Norway shows they way here imho, as they have reached their 2025 deadline of only new EVs being sold. Battery manufacturing is needed, as much as possible, batteries are the future of anything not seasonal storage. We did not leave the stone age because we ran out of stone, but because we found something better. This applies to renewables, EVs, batteries, etc as well, the problem is mostly solved, it is a matter of making the machine go faster is all. We need enough low carbon energy to replace everything fossil today (account for the orders of magnitude efficiency gains versus thermal generation, so not a 1:1 replacement needed), future energy growth, and energy needed to sequester 100+ years of emitted carbon. The exponential growth of solar power will change the world - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40746617 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40746617 - June 2024 (the Earth collects enough solar radiation in less than an hour to power humanity for a year)
- KptMarchewa 2y ago> China is rapidly decarbonizing, India is right behind, it is the US you have to convince to move faster (coal plants are rapidly on their way out, but US consumers prefer ICE pickups over EVs, and LNG exports must be prevented and substitutes found [carbon footprint determined to be substantially higher than coal]). IDK, does not look that way: https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/ https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/ https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/india/ https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/india/ https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/usa/ https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/usa/ https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/eu/ https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/eu/ At best China will stay the same, India will increase emissions, meanwhile both US and EU emissions will significantly drop.
- 2y ago
- throawayonthe 2y ago[dead]
- hn1986 2y agoWon't make a difference if the leaders (Trump) doing even believe in climate change.
- whamlastxmas 2y agoTrump believes in it despite some past assertions around the narrative around climate change being silly, which to be fair, can be at times. He does dismiss it too much though and clearly promotes corporate greed and profit for others over environmental issues
- bamboozled 2y agoPoliticians: "WhY ArEn't yOuNg pEoPlE HaViNg kIdS?!"
- spwa4 2y agoI somehow doubt global warming is the problem. Average apartment size, average income, ie. "the economy" is going to provide an answer much more than global warming will.
- bamboozled 2y agoClimate change will wipe trillions from the economy between now and 2050, so you'd have to assume some of what you describe is related and the negative economy impacts are already real. What do you think the hit to the tech sector will be from the fires in California?
- pjc50 2y agoI don't think the tech sector will be hit that badly, the push to increase energy consumption by making everyone use AI won't slow down. Most of tech is physically closer to SF than LA. Hollywood is being significantly affected though.
- bamboozled 2y agoIt has an impact, even if its just a distraction. I have friends who had family seriously affected by the fire that work in major tech companies who are taking time off to help out etc. I wasn't trying to suggest it's a major financial hit to the tech industry in California, but every event climate change linked extreme weather event like this does have a negative impact on output and profits.
- whamlastxmas 2y agoI have met many millennials in life that have multiple reasons for not having kids, but climate change has been a top reason for some of them
- aboardRat4 2y ago[flagged]
- andrewstuart 2y agoI wish the climate deniers who helped get us here had to pay some price.
- t0bia_s 2y agoSounds like some kind of fascist slogan.
- nojvek 2y agoWhat amazes me is that FL is hit the hardest from Hurricanes yet the overwhelming view is that climate change is a haux. The words "climate change" are banned from all official govt docs and communication. Big gas guzzling cars and utility companies building in more gas generators and hiking prices. Yes there is some solar, but it's <5%. I doubt much will change in next 4 years. Trump and Republicans are very pro carbon fuels.
- t0bia_s 2y agoArticle full of Hume's guillotine, like most articles about climate and weather. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
- defrost 2y agoThermodynamics isn't a system of morality.
- t0bia_s 2y agoSure, if you skip what should we do/don't.
- defrost 2y agoGive a few specific examples from the article. Should be easy if it's "full of them".
- t0bia_s 2y agoRight first sentence: "The planet has moved a major step closer to warming more than 1.5C, new data shows, despite world leaders vowing a decade ago they would try to avoid this." "We must exit this road to ruin - and we have no time to lose," he said in his New Year message, calling for countries to slash emissions of planet-warming gases in 2025." "Last year's heat is predominantly due to humanity's emissions of planet-warming gases,..." "The 1.5C figure has become a powerful symbol in international climate negotiations ever since it was agreed in Paris in 2015, with many of the most vulnerable countries considering it a matter of survival." Many more across article...
- Timon3 2y agoMaybe I'm missing or misunderstanding something, but isn't this a criticism you can levy against most news articles that describe events? These seem to be factual descriptions as well as descriptions of ought-statements and -positions taken by related people and groups of people, which is the same case for articles about inflation, or social statistics, or pretty much anything else.