Slashdot Mirror
IEA Warns of Irreversible Climate Change In 5 Years
iONiUM writes "As a follow up to the previous slashdot story, there has been a new release by the International Energy Agency indicating that within 5 years we will have irreversible climate change. According to the IEA, 'There are few signs that the urgently needed change in direction in global energy trends is under way. Although the recovery in the world economy since 2009 has been uneven, and future economic prospects remain uncertain, global primary energy demand rebounded by a remarkable 5% in 2010, pushing CO2 emissions to a new high. Subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption of fossil fuels jumped to over $400bn (£250.7bn).'"
Actually, a carbon tax might work, if it applies to imported goods as well. Of course, China would scream bloody murder.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
we are past the point of the last Irreversible claim... and the one before that... and the one before that...
It's not "almost all China". That's completely retarded.
It's not the rate that CO2 output is increasing that is the problem, it's the level of CO2 output. China only recently surpassed US in level.
Worse than that though, it's not just a yearly output that's the problem, but decades worth of output, because CO2 stays around in the atmosphere for a very long time.
Check out this chart from a recent slashdot story: http://planet3.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/cdiac.gif
Compare the area under the graph of the US relative to the area under China.
It's more appropriate to say "It's almost all US" at this point. China, having produced less CO2 in the past decades but now producing more, has only just started to catch up. It's got a long way to go.
That said, with the US not slowing down and China racing to catch up, if their rate of production keeps up then things are going to get a lot worse a lot faster. However you spin it, rate of CO2 production by the US is not sustainable, whether they're producing most of the world's CO2, or (worst case) if their dangerously high levels are only a small fraction of it. In the latter case, in the future the US would be making things generally worse, while China might be rapidly endangering the planet, but that hasn't yet happened and it still wouldn't make the problem "almost all China".
Why do people always think that reducing the population requires some sort of genocide? You realize it's also possible to just have a birthrate below replacement level? Soylent Green entirely optional.
I don't think we're at the carrying capacity of the Earth yet, but I think Homo sapiens are the only species so far that will be capable of artificially surpassing the carrying capacity for a short amount of time which will lead to a period of...genocide, at least in some localized populations who aren't lucky enough to have a strong government with a powerful military. So by not addressing the problem now in a humane way we might end up having exactly what you fear.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
How about hormonal birth control? Condoms? Education? Empowering women? Whenever someone speaks about dealing with population control out come the sado-masochist fetishists who project their worst fears (or fantasies) on what's actually being said. No one is suggesting any of the things you first mentioned, you don't contribute anything by bringing those things up.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Let's face it, CO2 emissions will drop as soon as we run out of fossil fuel. And not a minute before that. There are no two ways about it. On the whole we are a greedy kind of breed and we will always rationalise reasons for doing the wrong things. So we'd better get used to this.
... Repeat until oil is finished. Expect a fluctuation in oil price in the near years to come.
Viable alternatives to fossil fuel will emerge as soon economics allow this. Remember when oil prices boomed a couple of years ago? Suddenly all kinds of research boomed as well. But the oil price all of a sudden stabilised to a level we perceive as fine and dandy.
I don't believe in a well organised conspiracy of oil producing countries as that would require much more intelligence and cooperation than portrayed by any kind of existing governing body. Instead I believe that almost everyone in the energy market is acting in the best possible interest of their limited awareness. Oil prices rise, alternative research boosts, oil prices drop, alternative research slows down,
I don't see developments going in any other significant direction in the current way the world is governed. And I don't expect world government to change any time soon. Who or what would be powerful, charming and effective enough to change mankind's nature? It would require a disproportional amount of concentrated power to achieve such a thing, which after having saved our civilisation will inevitable start at exploiting it.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
No, he is saying that a country with 5% of the world's population is responsible for a disproportionate 25% of emissions, and should try and mend their ways.
Actually if you would put the tax in ratio with the population, the US would scream bloody murder
I disagree that the carbon tax "bones the economy on a grand scale". I also disagree that we "fucked the future of the country".
Could you provide any information (e.g studies predicting a significant decrease in GDP, standard of living or any other reasonable measure of progress) to support this claim?
I agree that the carbon tax in Australia won't make much of a difference. But of course we can look at each individual in the world and say their individual actions won't make much of a difference. It would be unreasonable to use this as a reason to take no action.
Without a carbon tax, industry has no incentive to reduce their emissions. With a carbon tax, they have a small financial incentive to do so. Therefore they will pick the lowest hanging fruit to save some money, in the process lowering their emissions. While there is still low-hanging fruit (e.g. now, coming from where there's no incentive not to emit CO2), a carbon tax can reduce a nation's emissions without forcing large changes in how things are done.
I vaguely remember that a month or two ago, a mine in Queensland (possibly the one owned by the Indian who threatened to pull out of Australia if the carbon tax went through) worked out how to reduce their emissions by 30%.
The other effect is that the added cost of coal power due to the carbon tax/trading scheme makes gas somewhat more financially viable and renewables significantly more financially viable.
It's a very neat theory, and it's easy to see how it will affect businesses either gently (with a low price on carbon) or eventually reshape industries (with a high price).
I agree that the carbon tax in Australia won't make much of a difference. But of course we can look at each individual in the world and say their individual actions won't make much of a difference. It would be unreasonable to use this as a reason to take no action.
I don't know who said it but - It's like seeing a truck coming at you from a distance, do you start calmly taking one step at a time towards the curb, or do you wait until the last minute and then dive into the gutter?
Personally I'm strongly in favour of this small step despite the fact I'm in the tax bracket that gets zero compensation. In principle I would like to see a situation where the cost of dumping shit on to the commons is greater than the cost of proper disposal.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Your faith in science is excellent. However, you're basically saying it is somehow easier to collect a vastly dispersed gas rather than to stop producing it.
Climate control engineering is far far beyond human capacity in time to solve this. The things that are well within our power are utility-scale solar thermal power and electric automobiles. These simple, existing technologies are completely sufficient. They just need to be built. To do so will have far less risk and lower cost than fanciful planet-sized umbrellas and other science fiction dreamery.
More importantly, when someone builds them, you can believe it, unlike when someone tells you they are going to research climate control, "clean coal", or other distractions. Don't believe anything but real action.
Buy wind power (at a premium) RIGHT NOW. Contact your electricity provider and ensure they too are taking it seriously. You can act now. It's only 20% or so extra in Australia (and expect that gap to close with the Carbon Tax).
Or do nothing and be a pathetic loser.
No, mon ami, it is almost all US. In fact, about 25% of world greenhouse emissions, more than any other nation, even if weighted by economic activity.
The map you linked to was data from 2002, with some data from 2004. Go ahead, download the linked data and look for yourself.
In the meantime, China has been growing economically at an incredible clip, and lots of their energy comes from coal. They have surpassed the United States, and with a billion+ people moving from agriculture to Western lifestyle, are going to dwarf whatever the United States does in the future.
Beware of any statistics presented in English, for the publishers have an obvious incentive to skew the output for political reasons.
Beware of your own biases. English is the world's de-facto common language between countries. It's not like you're going to get unbiased data from China government newspapers.
I fear so too. We have such fools leading our nations and large corporations. Trolls like Rupert Murdoch are deliberately confusing the public, sowing doubts about science itself, not only climate science, and telling outright lie after lie. In 1993, I personally heard a speech from the CEO of Lennox to employees in which he said that 1) he didn't believe in global warming, but 2) if global warming was real, then good, because it would be good for Lennox's business of selling more A/C's! (He also complained that he would have made more money in the stock market than he made having it all tied up in Lennox, implying that the employees didn't work hard enough or something, but for the sake of everyone's jobs, he stayed with the company. What a guy!) They ought to be our best and brightest people. They evidently believe they are, the way they carry on. But they don't seem to understand something basic that separates children from adults, which is that you can't make problems go away by ignoring them. They've done worse. They've actively worked to deny everything, actually spent money that they are so greedy to have, on propaganda dressed up as science. What the hell! We have a huge, huge leadership problem. In Lennox's case, I know that CEO inherited the company. He didn't win his position on any sort of merit at all. He was the son of the previous leader, that's all.
What a bunch of lying, smug, lazy hedonists. Every generation can use a challenge, to keep life from becoming too easy and boring. We ought to embrace this problem. We could solve it. The US didn't go AWOL for WWII, didn't chicken out and let Japan grab half the Pacific, didn't leave the Brits to the Nazis. We demonstrated to the world that democracy is superior to fascism. Now we call them the Greatest Generation. If Rupert Murdoch had been a media mogul then, I can imagine he'd have spewed ridiculous pro-Nazi propaganda, maybe suggest that the US ought to cut a deal to sell Hawaii to Japan in exchange for peace. Solving global warming doesn't require the sacrifice that war did. Yet, we're running away from it. We don't deserve to stay #1 with that attitude. Our parents would be ashamed. All the work and sacrifice they did so we'd have a better life, and this is how we repay that.
So, we won't do enough to address this problem, not until it's far too late. Greenland will melt, and maybe western Antarctica will too, most of Florida and Bangladesh will drown, and the Netherlands may find it impossible to raise the dikes high enough. Then we'll engage in recriminations as we fight over higher ground and food. There will be war, maybe even WWIII and use of nuclear weapons. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
So what you're saying is that if a glacier moved through Manhattan it wouldn't be a problem. I mean hell, there used to be glaciers in Manhattan all the time, why the big fuss *now*?
The reason your argument is 'fucking stupid' and not just 'stupid' is the same reason that having a volcano erupt under you is quite different in every single way from a volcano having erupted where you're standing 100k years ago.
I mean shit son, not that long ago Japan was entirely under water, who gives a shit about a little wave?
I would like to see that argument in a court of law. "Your honor, members of the jury, I don't see what the fuss is all about. Yes a bulldozer drove through Xenobyte's home but only 10 years ago that was an empty lot! That lot has seen far greater changes in the last 100 years than last Tuesday. So who's to say that humans are responsible for driving that bulldozer through his living room? Why, 1,000 years ago huge glaciers would have driven through his living room."