It is always interesting to see graphs like this, I am curious how much something like a new green deal would move the 2100 temperature line. A common argument against it is that everything depends on China and India. I don't suspect this is true. The USA is one of the highest per capita emitters, it doesn't seem right that we would get to live like that while we take away resources from these other countries who are not as capable of switching over.
At least we should get to a point where we all have equal per capita emitters, preferably we should be investing in the technology that would allow them to never have to use carbon-emitting technologies and even potentially profit off them.
I think Otherlab's analyses talk about this a little:
The Green New Deal: The enormous opportunity in shooting for the moon. https://medium.com/otherlab-news/decarbonization-and-gnd-b8d... (electrifying everything with clean generation will reduce energy needs by half even without any changes in lifestyle)
> A common argument against it is that everything depends on China and India.
This is true though. If you're concerned about absolute fairness, then yes, it makes sense that China should be able to emit as much as the US and Europe does per capita.
But if you care about the environment, then this is a disastrous idea.
The US needs to continue to reduce its carbon output, and China needs to dramatically slow it's increase in carbon output.
Remember, when the US and Europe industrialized, renewables were nonexistent (other than hydro) -- so I think it's fair to expect China and India to leapfrog fossil fuels as much as possible. They've leapfrogged the west on many other technologies -- like telecom and transportation -- so why not energy?
However, correlate per capita emissions with per capita economic output and the calculus changes. The US also has one of the highest per capita economic outputs of the world. Suggesting that a million people in Yemen (producing very little) should have the same CO2 allowance as the US is just strange. The question isn’t about per capita output of CO2, but of per capita economic value created from that output. If a Yemeni farmer outputs x and an American farmer outputs 10x, but the American farmer is producing 15x the amount of food, we that means that 10x CO2 is a net gain, because we are getting significantly more food per x output. That would mean the Yemeni farmer should produce less CO2 since they are using it so inefficiently compared to an American farmer. In other words, fossil fuel buses produce more pollutants than a car, but they move move dramatically more people per unit of pollution. Suggesting per capita CO2 should be equal across the world is saying that a bus should emit the same as a car, despite a bus being more efficient per passenger than a car.
The problem is that most people will look at them, quickly find "another" large source of CO2 emissions (be it another country, another industry), point fingers and say "it's them!" without doing anything else. Which in the long term (as in, our children and grandchildren will suffer) will destroy our planet.
A thought I had the other day, that sort of fits in the context of what you're saying, but probably not completely:
It's interesting to step back and consider how the current Climate Change narrative is similar to the universal theme of "We offended God, so now he is punishing us."
Not really sure what the implications of that are, but seems like something that could be harnessed either for good or ill.
It's super depressing to see the acceleration of coal energy in 2000. Despite the rise of renewables, they haven't even been able to keep up with the rise of coal!
And the vast majority of it comes from energy production! Electric cars don't solve the problem if we are switching from high-efficiency gas engines to coal-fired electric.
While renewables are awesome and we should do everything we can to support their growth, they have a major problem (which is why they currently can't replace fossil fuels). Renewables are not constant energy providers and they cannot scale to demand (either up or down). The best bet with them is batteries. But that means that you have to produce at minimum enough to fulfill a full day's worth of energy demands within the time period they operate (solar: day, wind: windy parts of day, etc). Worse, tomorrow might be rainy, so you have to provide more than a few days. Unfortunately this problem is frequently left out. (And yes, we should also majorly be funding research into new batteries)
This is actually why people argue for nuclear. Not because they (we) want to replace renewables, but we want to replace fossil fuels. They compete in different areas. The more renewables you have (and battery tech) the less nuclear you need. But there still has to be something in the system to load balance and scale to demand. Because renewables currently can't tackle this problem we end up building more coal and natural gas plants (which are cheap! But they get much more expensive than something like nuclear once you price in emissions and health effects).
>Bitcoin’s electricity usage is enormous. In November, the power consumed by the entire bitcoin network was estimated to be higher than that of the Republic of Ireland. Since then, its demands have only grown. It’s now on pace to use just over 42TWh of electricity in a year, placing it ahead of New Zealand and Hungary and just behind Peru, according to estimates from Digiconomist. That’s commensurate with CO2 emissions of 20 megatonnes – or roughly 1m transatlantic flights.
Carbon dioxide and temperature are linked. 1650 was the height of the Little Ice Age [0]. Lots of interesting theories and research, e.g. [1], for the specific carbon dioxide drop.
> 1.5°C consistent: there are a range of emissions pathways that would be compatible with limiting average warming to 1.5°C by 2100. However, all would require a very urgent and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions.
Is this polite data analyst-speak for "We're fucked"?
It's polite data analyst speak for, "We need immediate and globally-coordinated _radical_ action" (action being the key term) Edit: We're not fucked yet. Apotheosis of hope.
Climate aside, doesn't the increase of CO2 from 280PPM to 400PPM not have a substantial impact on the respiration of trees and animals? 42% increase of poison to animals has no meaningful impact?
I'm not sure about other animals, but 400ppm is a long way away from toxic for humanity. Poorly ventilated indoor environments can easily hit 1200-1500ppm. You've got to hit 70,000 to 100,000 ppm before you start running the risk of coma and death.
Interestingly some studies indicate that 1200ppm and higher might confer some mild cognitive impairment, even if it's a long way away from fatal. This has been used glibly to explain the poor decisions made in office rooms, but one does wonder what happens to humanity if global emissions make us slightly dumber.
At 400 ppm CO2 is only 0.04% of the total atmosphere. Increasing from 0.028% to 0.04% is a 42% increase, but 0.04% is too low to directly poison plants.
The climate change effects will be a problem long before plants and animals start getting poisoned by it.
>the people pushing the green new deal are doomsday Sayers predicting "crisis" in 12 years.
They are saying we have 12 years to drastically reduce carbon emissions. If we don't the results of which will be seen in the following decades. I would expect NASA would agree with this just like every other reputable scientific organization.
From the Article: The researchers point out that the gain in greenness seen around the world and dominated by India and China does not offset the damage from loss of natural vegetation in tropical regions, such as Brazil and Indonesia. The consequences for sustainability and biodiversity in those ecosystems remain.
> they are more religious than some religious people about their science.
There is no correlation between people concerned about high estimated damage using the current best effort science (warming of 3-4'C) and dogma without evidence.
If you have evidence to the contrary you will have definitely earned that Nobel prize and million bucks.
> C.1. In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 (40–60% interquartile range), reaching net zero around 2050 (2045–2055 interquartile range).
This report came out in late 2018. As of the publishing of this report, in order to keep global average temperature increase under 1.5°C, CO2 emissions must fall to 45% of 2010 levels in 12 years.
There has been a predictable amount of misstating what this report actually says by environmentalists with poor reading comprehension, and a similar amount of bad-faith readings and intentional obfuscation by climate science deniers, but in any case, this is the source of the "12 years" figure that's been going around.
Nobody is "predicting doomsday in 12 years", but you can set your clock by the outpouring of bad faith "I Told You So"s that will occur in October of 2030 when the world has not ended.
Of course, it's greener, plants are made from carbon. What you don't realize is that the biosphere puts as much carbon back in the atmosphere from respiration and fire as it puts in. In other words, it's greener but there are also bigger fires. Also, it's greener for now, but temperatures are changing so fast now that likely most plants won't keep up.
[+] [-] frankbreetz|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Glench|6 years ago|reply
The Green New Deal: The enormous opportunity in shooting for the moon. https://medium.com/otherlab-news/decarbonization-and-gnd-b8d... (electrifying everything with clean generation will reduce energy needs by half even without any changes in lifestyle)
How do we decarbonize? https://medium.com/otherlab-news/how-do-we-decarbonize-7fc2f... (A fairly balanced take on how realistic various solutions are, from engineering, policy, and economic perspectives)
[+] [-] nostromo|6 years ago|reply
This is true though. If you're concerned about absolute fairness, then yes, it makes sense that China should be able to emit as much as the US and Europe does per capita.
But if you care about the environment, then this is a disastrous idea.
The US needs to continue to reduce its carbon output, and China needs to dramatically slow it's increase in carbon output.
Remember, when the US and Europe industrialized, renewables were nonexistent (other than hydro) -- so I think it's fair to expect China and India to leapfrog fossil fuels as much as possible. They've leapfrogged the west on many other technologies -- like telecom and transportation -- so why not energy?
[+] [-] perfunctory|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] black6|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] briandear|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jwr|6 years ago|reply
The problem is that most people will look at them, quickly find "another" large source of CO2 emissions (be it another country, another industry), point fingers and say "it's them!" without doing anything else. Which in the long term (as in, our children and grandchildren will suffer) will destroy our planet.
[+] [-] war1025|6 years ago|reply
It's interesting to step back and consider how the current Climate Change narrative is similar to the universal theme of "We offended God, so now he is punishing us."
Not really sure what the implications of that are, but seems like something that could be harnessed either for good or ill.
[+] [-] legitster|6 years ago|reply
And the vast majority of it comes from energy production! Electric cars don't solve the problem if we are switching from high-efficiency gas engines to coal-fired electric.
[+] [-] perfunctory|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] godelski|6 years ago|reply
This is actually why people argue for nuclear. Not because they (we) want to replace renewables, but we want to replace fossil fuels. They compete in different areas. The more renewables you have (and battery tech) the less nuclear you need. But there still has to be something in the system to load balance and scale to demand. Because renewables currently can't tackle this problem we end up building more coal and natural gas plants (which are cheap! But they get much more expensive than something like nuclear once you price in emissions and health effects).
[+] [-] minikites|6 years ago|reply
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/17/bitcoin-e...
>Bitcoin’s electricity usage is enormous. In November, the power consumed by the entire bitcoin network was estimated to be higher than that of the Republic of Ireland. Since then, its demands have only grown. It’s now on pace to use just over 42TWh of electricity in a year, placing it ahead of New Zealand and Hungary and just behind Peru, according to estimates from Digiconomist. That’s commensurate with CO2 emissions of 20 megatonnes – or roughly 1m transatlantic flights.
[+] [-] usrusr|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] roter|6 years ago|reply
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2769
[+] [-] yboris|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] temp99990|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ForHackernews|6 years ago|reply
Is this polite data analyst-speak for "We're fucked"?
[+] [-] mikelyons|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rayiner|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ralusek|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] village-idiot|6 years ago|reply
Interestingly some studies indicate that 1200ppm and higher might confer some mild cognitive impairment, even if it's a long way away from fatal. This has been used glibly to explain the poor decisions made in office rooms, but one does wonder what happens to humanity if global emissions make us slightly dumber.
[+] [-] jlarocco|6 years ago|reply
At 400 ppm CO2 is only 0.04% of the total atmosphere. Increasing from 0.028% to 0.04% is a 42% increase, but 0.04% is too low to directly poison plants.
The climate change effects will be a problem long before plants and animals start getting poisoned by it.
[+] [-] NotPaidToPost|6 years ago|reply
Overall it's good for plants though this is more than offset by the downsides.
[+] [-] fearai|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] cblades|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frankbreetz|6 years ago|reply
They are saying we have 12 years to drastically reduce carbon emissions. If we don't the results of which will be seen in the following decades. I would expect NASA would agree with this just like every other reputable scientific organization.
[edit] Formatting
[+] [-] frankbreetz|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aplummer|6 years ago|reply
There is no correlation between people concerned about high estimated damage using the current best effort science (warming of 3-4'C) and dogma without evidence.
If you have evidence to the contrary you will have definitely earned that Nobel prize and million bucks.
[+] [-] beatpanda|6 years ago|reply
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/summary-for-policy-makers/
> C.1. In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 (40–60% interquartile range), reaching net zero around 2050 (2045–2055 interquartile range).
This report came out in late 2018. As of the publishing of this report, in order to keep global average temperature increase under 1.5°C, CO2 emissions must fall to 45% of 2010 levels in 12 years.
There has been a predictable amount of misstating what this report actually says by environmentalists with poor reading comprehension, and a similar amount of bad-faith readings and intentional obfuscation by climate science deniers, but in any case, this is the source of the "12 years" figure that's been going around.
Nobody is "predicting doomsday in 12 years", but you can set your clock by the outpouring of bad faith "I Told You So"s that will occur in October of 2030 when the world has not ended.
[+] [-] mempko|6 years ago|reply