
Committed emissions from existing energy infrastructure jeopardize 1.5 °C target - 23throwaway23
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1364-3.epdf
======
std_throwaway
There's lots of faulty reasoning going around society:

* There is no climate change.

* The temperature charts are rigged.

* Scientists conspire to get more funding.

* Dissenting opinions are suppressed by the mainstream.

* Taxing CO2 is a way to control the economy and stifle growth.

* CO2 is actually good for plants.

* CO2 does not cause climate change.

* If there is climate change, CO2 is only a minor contributor.

* Humans do not cause CO2, nature does that.

* Climate change is not caused by humans.

* Climate change is not bad.

* If it is bad, there is nothing we can do.

* It's only bad for other people.

* It will only hit us hard in the far future.

* We cannot make compromises in our lifestyle or risk our economy.

* We have invested much too much in fossil fuel technology to give it up.

* Renewable energy is not feasible. It's a joke. Don't even think about it.

* Solar cells cost more energy than they produce.

* Batteries produce lots of CO2 during production.

* Windmills will never harvest the energy that was needed to produce them.

* Our electric grid will fail if we add too much renewable energy.

* We cannot store enough electric energy.

* Renewables can never work because they cannot produce energy on demand.

* Even if renewables were feasible they would be too expensive.

* Why don't we just build more nuclear plants?

* Thorium will save us in time, so no hurry.

* Fusion is only 30 years away, so why invest in renewables?

... this is only what came into my mind spontaneously and some points are
really hard to argue, especially with non-technical people who do not see
scientific facts as something solid but something that can be negotiated.

~~~
pojzon
You forgot about:

"Oil industry is totally _not_ lobbing against any movement that could bring
us closer to the solution"

~~~
pdonis
What you call the "oil" industry is really the energy industry, and they
really don't care which way things go as far as climate policy is concerned.
They're set up to make money either way. Who do you think all those government
grants for "renewable energy" research go to?

~~~
lozenge
They absolutely care. If renewable energy catches on, the values of their oil
reserves will plummet. That's why they continue to fight against any reduction
of emissions.

~~~
pdonis
_> If renewable energy catches on, the values of their oil reserves will
plummet._

Not when everyone realizes all the other alternative uses for petroleum
besides burning it, many of which are _more_ valuable than burning it.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
The value of the uses has nothing to do with the value of the petroleum. If we
stop burning it, demand falls off and the price drops. Dramatically, because
if we stop burning it then we have way more than enough for all the other
uses.

That's actually the primary reason we need a carbon tax -- if we make any real
progress toward replacing oil in some other way then the partial progress
causes the price of oil to fall and interfere with additional progress.

------
perfunctory
I know that there are many climate depressed people on this forum, frustrated
by the fact that nothing is being done and, at the same time, under the
illusion that they themselves cannot do much about it.

Yes you can.

Eventually, the solution will have to come from the government. But the
government won't act unless we demand it.

\- Change your lifestyle. Less flying, driving, meat. More non-electronically
powered forms of play.

\- Divest fossil. Invest renewable.

\- Most importantly, get away from keyword and join other people. e.g.
[https://xrebellion.org](https://xrebellion.org)

~~~
shanxS
> Eventually, the solution will have to come from the government.

I see your argument, but not sure if I agree with this part.

If we/entrepreneur/engineers can figure 2 things: 1\. Figure the engineering
problem which would be something along the lines of: a. consume CO2 from air
and use product something else b. bring alternative sources of energy at part
with fossil fuels c. etc. 2\. Figure a way to provide it as a service so that
people can pay for it.

We can fix it. Still doable without hoping for governments to come and bail
us.

~~~
perfunctory
This could have been a valid argument 30 years ago. We simply don't have time
for "Figure the engineering problem" any more. We are at the point where we
need firefighters, not fire safety consultants.

~~~
shanxS
> We simply don't have time for "Figure the engineering problem" any more.

Honest question, how do you prove this?

Here are my arguments against the motion:

1\. 30 years ago we did not have internet. Now most of us have access to vast
amount of technical data

2\. 30 years ago stakes were not high enough. Now next generation is about to
see very high impact.

3\. 30 years ago most of the tech that we have now were still in research (ML,
cheap computers, availability of funds etc)

Now let's assume you are right, we are out of time. Then following is my
argument: Attempting to fix our ecosystem is worthy goal nonetheless and
instead of expecting "them" or "government" or "billionaires" to bail us out,
I'd rather have us take the responsibility. In worst case, it'll be a
adventure and will be worth it.

~~~
perfunctory
Hm, I don't think we are actually in much of a disagreement. Maybe you are
misreading my comment. When I say "Eventually, the solution will have to come
from the government" I don't mean that we should just sit around and wait for
the government to "bail us out". Of course we should all do what we can. And
of course we should invest in R&D and develop new technologies.

But I don't have any illusion that 100% of people will suddenly (voluntarily)
stop flying or consuming unnecessary crap. Or that "free market" will somehow
solve the problem all by itself. We need a WW2 level of economic and political
mobilisation. But that won't happen by itself. We need to make it happen. And
the best way to do it at this stage I believe is radical activism (e.g.
[https://xrebellion.org](https://xrebellion.org)). And we know from history
that it works. Think about civil rights movement etc.

~~~
shanxS
I guess I misread your comment. I agree that most of the people will not
change their habits and we need to engage our governments too.

------
shanxS
Why is this news? Did anyone expect otherwise?

~~~
CuriousSkeptic
I’m genuinely curious about the answer to this question. It’s confusing me
that the impression from any scientific source is that 1.5 is long gone, 2.0
is a pipe dream and any likely scenario is far higher, and that is if we start
to implement drastic measures right now. Yet even the most hardcore “green”
politicians talk about the issue as if we can drag our feets another decade or
two with minimal impact on current generations. Why the big gulf here?

~~~
xyzzyz
Because most people have heard the scaremongering about global warming for
decades already, and nothing that requires a total realignment of the economy
and society hasn't happened yet (and no, some heatwaves and some extra
hurricanes are not a big deal enough to make people care). Politicians
understand that nothing serious will happen in their lifetimes either, and
scientists, when asked, don't paint nearly as bleak picture of the warming as
the activists suggest.

Look at the most recent IPCC report: the predicted sea level rise by 2100 is
below 1 meter with 95% confidence, and the economic cost of global warming is
predicted to be at only a few percent of global GDP. Sure, we'll need to build
a few sea walls here and there, rebuild a few more houses destroyed in
hurricanes, shift cultivation from the newly-desertified areas to the areas
where the climate change increases precipitation, but that's not a disastrous
outcome that we need to avert by spending huge amounts of effort right now. Of
course, if you support yourself by back-breaking subsistence farming, these
things would in fact be a disaster for you, but this is a problem for poor
people in poor places very far from developed countries. We (both society and
the politicians) don't care much about their plight today, and we won't care
about them in future either.

That's why hardcore "green" politicians don't push the society for some
serious change: because there's not much need to do so in developed countries.
People wouldn't like the change, because it would make their lives clearly
worse, while doing nothing won't make it significantly worse. Some people
though like the mood affiliation brought by "green" people fighting for
"climate", which is why the green politicians only need to hit those notes in
their hearts to get the support. Making real change is optional.

~~~
CuriousSkeptic
This was my understanding until a few weeks ago. But reading up on the subject
paints a different picture. With the non-linear changes likely to be hit soon.
Things are going to get serious for us too, and likely noticeably so within
the next decade.

~~~
xyzzyz
Where did you read about these non-linear changes? Do these represent the
climate change consensus, like e.g. IPCC?

~~~
CuriousSkeptic
To be honest I’m extrapolating a bit based on my own understanding of complex
systems, and how the IPCC report things vs, how individual scientists
interpret things, and how scientists tend to report things. But when reading
IPCC watch out for language about “safe predictions” (linear extrapolations
from historical data based is kind of safe, since it’s easily quantifiable,
model based on uncertain non-linear changes in unprecedented conditions are
less safe, so official reports are wary of quantifying things beyond hand wavy
descriptions.

This YouTube channel was suggested here on HN a while back, and has been
interesting to follow:
[https://www.youtube.com/user/PaulHBeckwith](https://www.youtube.com/user/PaulHBeckwith)

