Slashdot Mirror
IPCC Climate Change Report Calls For Urgent Action To Phase Out Fossil Fuels (bbc.com)
The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued a report that says global temperatures are heading towards 3 degrees C, and that the original goal of keeping the rise under 1.5 degrees C will require "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society." While the window of opportunity is not yet closed, the prospect looks unlikely and hugely expensive. BBC reports: The critical 33-page Summary for Policymakers certainly bears the hallmarks of difficult negotiations between climate researchers determined to stick to what their studies have shown and political representatives more concerned with economies and living standards. Despite the inevitable compromises, there are some key messages that come through loud and and clear. "The first is that limiting warming to 1.5C brings a lot of benefits compared with limiting it to 2 degrees. It really reduces the impacts of climate change in very important ways," said Prof Jim Skea, who is a co-chair of the IPCC. "The second is the unprecedented nature of the changes that are required if we are to limit warming to 1.5C -- changes to energy systems, changes to the way we manage land, changes to the way we move around with transportation."
"Scientists might want to write in capital letters, 'ACT NOW IDIOTS,' but they need to say that with facts and numbers," said Kaisa Kosonen, from Greenpeace, who was an observer at the negotiations. "And they have." The researchers have used these facts and numbers to paint a picture of the world with a dangerous fever, caused by humans. We used to think if we could keep warming below 2 degrees this century then the changes we would experience would be manageable. Not any more. This new study says that going past 1.5C is dicing with the planet's liveability. And the 1.5C temperature "guard rail" could be exceeded in just 12 years in 2030. We can stay below it but it will require urgent, large-scale changes from governments and individuals, plus we will have to invest a massive pile of cash every year, around 2.5% of global GDP, for two decades. Even then, we will still need machines, trees and plants to capture carbon from the air that we can then store deep underground. Forever! In order to get to 1.5C, the report says the following will be necessary: Global emissions of CO2 need to decline by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030; Renewables are estimated to provide up to 85% of global electricity by 2050; Coal is expected to reduce to close to zero; Up to 7 million sq km of land will be needed for energy crops (a bit less than the size of Australia); and Global net zero emissions by 2050. As if this wasn't demanding enough, the report says that to limit warming to 1.5C, it will involve "annual average investment needs in the energy system of around $2.4 trillion" between 2016 and 2035.
If the planet reaches 2C of warming, coral reefs would be almost entirely wiped out and global sea-levels will rise around 10 centimeters more. "There are also significant impacts on ocean temperatures and acidity, and the ability to grow crops like rice, maize and wheat," reports The Guardian.
Further reading: Major Climate Report Describes a Strong Risk of Crisis as Early as 2040.
"Scientists might want to write in capital letters, 'ACT NOW IDIOTS,' but they need to say that with facts and numbers," said Kaisa Kosonen, from Greenpeace, who was an observer at the negotiations. "And they have." The researchers have used these facts and numbers to paint a picture of the world with a dangerous fever, caused by humans. We used to think if we could keep warming below 2 degrees this century then the changes we would experience would be manageable. Not any more. This new study says that going past 1.5C is dicing with the planet's liveability. And the 1.5C temperature "guard rail" could be exceeded in just 12 years in 2030. We can stay below it but it will require urgent, large-scale changes from governments and individuals, plus we will have to invest a massive pile of cash every year, around 2.5% of global GDP, for two decades. Even then, we will still need machines, trees and plants to capture carbon from the air that we can then store deep underground. Forever! In order to get to 1.5C, the report says the following will be necessary: Global emissions of CO2 need to decline by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030; Renewables are estimated to provide up to 85% of global electricity by 2050; Coal is expected to reduce to close to zero; Up to 7 million sq km of land will be needed for energy crops (a bit less than the size of Australia); and Global net zero emissions by 2050. As if this wasn't demanding enough, the report says that to limit warming to 1.5C, it will involve "annual average investment needs in the energy system of around $2.4 trillion" between 2016 and 2035.
If the planet reaches 2C of warming, coral reefs would be almost entirely wiped out and global sea-levels will rise around 10 centimeters more. "There are also significant impacts on ocean temperatures and acidity, and the ability to grow crops like rice, maize and wheat," reports The Guardian.
Further reading: Major Climate Report Describes a Strong Risk of Crisis as Early as 2040.
So they recommend people to use trains, fly less and use video conferencing. When they all flew to South Korea for their conference..
"All animals are equal, and some animals are more equal than the others."
The only rational conclusion is that the world is being run by complete anti-social psychopaths
Sorry, but that is just a populist opinion. The other possible rational conclusion is that things are not as simple as they appear to you. Which do you think is more likely?
And in this case I can tell you why it is not that easy. Change costs money and shifts prosperity. Big changes do this on a large scale. Now, everyone wants what is best for this world, but everyone is also looking out for number one. That is not something to blame people for. It is inherent to human nature, driven by millions of years of evolution.
The obvious consequence is that in the only way to resolve this peacefully, being negotiation, people are going to play a game of chicken. The one who blinks last wins. Again, just human nature.
You may not like it, but it is hardly fair to blame people for this. And in case you think you are not part of the problem yourself: Lets discuss one aspect of this. How we are going to fund the huge upfront costs for a new energy system?
Money can only be spent once, so which costs are we going to cut? Reduce your grandparents pension maybe? Or maybe increase your taxes? double your energy bill for the next 30 years? Outright make it illegal for you to own a gas guzzler of a car?
Unless you will roll over and accept these measures quietly, you are just as much part of the problem as everyone else.
As of today, the only clean air scalable tech that can replace coal and gas plants is nuclear.
But unfortunately, many have decided they'd rather fight against nuclear than reduce our emissions. Thanks to those folks, we've already lost the battle.
That's great; I fully support the efforts of anyone who decides to take themselves out of the gene pool. More room for my offspring.
So you mean the stupids have taken control, so neither the rational nor the emotional discourse are working. Conclusion: we are doomed. My hope is that within Trump's supporters there are still some that will listen by either kinds of arguments, such that the rational discourse finally prevails.
Yeah, and you also suppress speech, political parties, and imprison people for saying mean words, and ignore criminality committed by particular racial/ethnic groups. It's sure working out well. But let's be realistic, because those limits on the funding of political parties work out about as well as nothing. See the most recent bit where several left wing parties, in various EU countries which held power loosened fundraising rules in order to get more money from corporate donors, then re-tightened the rules after public outcry...and the fact they were about to lose the election.
Look at emission limits on cars, surely if big oil and car manufacturers were running things those wouldn't exist.
Possibly, but that hasn't happened. Yet we can see the "allowances" given to cities and businesses because they allow a financial trade off into the government coffers. Like dumping fresh water out of reservoirs during a drought, or allowing cities to dump raw sewage into rivers(by paying a fine) but causing downstream cities to halt intake because they can't treat it, or allow companies to overfish as long as they pay a fine on each catch in treaty violation. Looking at you EU, and your abuse of fishing treaties. Something that even China is doing a better job on.
Om, nomnomnom...
Hardly, and depending on context "the EU" isn't even one single entity. But none the less, there are things that the EU does better than the US, and vice versa. Discussing them and learning from each other is a good thing, no?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Wow, 640 kg is a lot. So you think that it's acceptable to fill two bathtubs with jet fuel and setting them on fire for entertainment?
The guy commuting by car is bad too and he needs to use a different transport or live closer to work even if this means living in a smaller space. You can't justify a bad activity by comparing to another bad activity.
Kavanaugh was elected because he was a highly qualified justice, and the claims against him had zero corroboration - and in fact, the claimants (all of them) consistently changed their stories. The only idiots were the ones who chose to continue to believe the claims in such case.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Solar Reserve have some great low externality base load solar power stations.
It won't work. It can't work. I say this because it uses the same materials for the salt and piping as molten salt nuclear reactors and I've been told the salt will simply eat through the pipes and all you will have is an expensive mess.
Let's assume this solar salt thermal storage technology does work, then molten salt nuclear reactors will work. Research in one molten salt technology is directly applicable to the other. If these solar thermal plants gain any traction and prove the technology on molten salts then molten salt nuclear reactors will soon follow.
There's a big difference though between these molten salt technologies, nuclear power doesn't need sunny skies to provide power. The claims of being able to provide power through the night is not what I'm talking about, I mean that the nuclear reactor can run where it cannot ever see the sun. This can be above the Arctic Circle. This can be underground. This can be under the sea. On the moon. On Mars. These solar power collectors need land, and lots of it, for collecting the sun while nuclear does not. I've heard people claim these collectors can be on rooftops or the land underneath can be used for other purposes. I won't dispute this. I only say that the same applies to nuclear power, it can be put underneath anything. It can be under an airport, a military base, or a bunch of solar collectors. Land use is effectively zero for both but the power output per area is very low for solar but nearly unlimited for nuclear.
The only rational conclusion is that the world is being run by complete anti-social psychopaths who actually want such an outcome, otherwise it would be done already. The excuses are less and less believable every day.
That's not the only rational conclusion. Another is that the politicians that keep talking of our impending doom unless we do something don't believe their own words. If the powers that be in government believed that if CO2 output from human activity was not reduced dramatically now then they'd be pulling out all the stops on low CO2 energy regardless of the form it took.
Here's an example, the US Navy wanted some new nuclear powered warships. The Navy already has nuclear powered submarines and aircraft carriers but the use of nuclear powered destroyers and cruisers ended in the 1990s. The Navy wanted new nuclear powered cruisers because they offer advantages beyond simply not burning oil and contributing to the CO2 in the air, such as increased range and the ability to keep fighting without have to take on fuel from a much less battle capable oiler. Congress denied this as a matter of costs. Another example the US Coast Guard wants... that's not right, NEEDS new ice breakers to service scientific missions in Antarctica and to keep shipping lanes open for communities in Alaska, communities including military bases and their families. Congress won't replace the aging and continually in disrepair oil fired ice breakers with nuclear powered versions. Military bases domestically and around the world need reliable power that is not subject to the whims of foreign supplies of oil. Past administrations put up fragile solar collectors and windmills that interfere with radar used to detect incoming missiles and aircraft.
If these people were serious about solving the problems of reducing CO2 output, providing for energy independence, and assuring the military is effective in defending our national interests, then they'd be building nuclear powered ships and putting nuclear power plants on military bases, airports, seaports, and other vital facilities.
Perhaps I'm merely arguing the powers that be are a different kind of sociopath, they don't want to solve the problems but merely appear to be working towards those ends. This means a series of half-assed "solutions" that on the surface appear to be a means to make things better but in the
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Kavanaugh was elected because he was a highly qualified justice,
Highly qualified to suck corporate cock, anyway.
and the claims against him had zero corroboration
Fail, fail.
and in fact, the claimants (all of them) consistently changed their stories.
False.
The only idiots were the ones who chose to continue to believe the claims in such case.
Yeah, you're not an idiot, you're just morally bankrupt.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
now simply background noise
Their doom and gloom warnings have always been about the distant future, and they continue to be. This isn't about people proclaiming the end of the world is near, and then the date passes with nothing happening. The claims they have made about the near-time have actually come to pass - actual observed global warming is well within the predictions made by their models. There is no reason to doubt that they will get less accurate with time and refinement.
having been adjusted and interpolated time and again
Of course it's been adjusted and interpolated - how else to you normalize inputs from more than one source? They don't have perfect data; it's all observational science. They don't have lots of earths to experiment on, or the ability to jump back in time with proper instrumentation.
each one passes without the world ending
Provide even a single example of this.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
in the larger fight between those who believe in Complete Government Control and those who believe in Individual Freedom.
Is there no one in between those two world views? Why is politics always a fight between extremists with voices of reason being excluded from the contest? Climate change should have nothing to do with politics, except that so money have placed their political fortunes on denying climate change.
This hasn't been about oil in a long time. Biggest offender by far is coal. Coal is cheap, efficient and reliable. As long as you don't give a fuck about what happens to some people on the other side of the planet, it's great.
Which is why many developing countries are building it up en masse. So the real question is "how many East Asians and Africans are you willing to enslave and/or massacre to get the coal power generation down?"
Because the answer probably is "not nearly enough" if you're a person with even a shred of humanism.
It's easy to have low gulag prisoner rates when most people simply die in the gulag(dead bodies don't count, and it keeps the ledgers clean). That's coming from someone who's grandfather spent 20 years in one for refusing to give his cows to "the state" oh and they demanded he provide the same next year.
Om, nomnomnom...