
Drawdown: The most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse Global Warming - biz84
http://www.drawdown.org/
======
freshhawk
So zero political solutions here? Just a list of technological aspects of a
solution?

How can people not know that the problem here is _getting people_ to do
something, it is definitely not that we don't know what to do which is a minor
problem in comparison.

What about a group who have starving children and will clear-cut a forest to
feed them no matter what agreements are in place? How much violence is used to
enforce this plan and how is it organized? How are these projects funded,
where does the money come from and what is done with those who are powerful
and won't cooperate?

It is hard enough to get international cooperation now, and as climate related
refugee problems multiply exponentially it will not get easier. Technocrats
are not saving us here.

~~~
colordrops
Doesn't it seem though that politics is a deadlock, with nations playing a
game of chicken that has no winner? It's a case of the tragedy of the commons.
No power broker is going to sacrifice their economy or political backers
enough to make a difference, as there would always be someone else with a more
short term view take advantage of their temporary weakness.

It seems that there is no feasible solution other than technical, however
unlikely a technical solution is.

~~~
yulaow
The problem is that the economical background of our society is based on
exploiting all resources and pushing the limits of the society itself (both
with high reproduction rates and in mass production of goods).

If we want to change the climate situation, we first need to change the whole
economic system and related political measures.

~~~
guscost
Speaking more as an engineer than as a contrarian here: If that's your plan,
you're going to fail at it.

~~~
freshhawk
That's definitely what Kings used to say. And chieftains of hunter/gatherer
tribes before them.

------
acidburnNSA
Nit picking on one issue: Nuclear. I'm glad they at least listed it as a
solution but I feel that there's way too much agenda in here that isn't based
on the science.

 _It has potential to avoid emissions, but there are many reasons for concern:
deadly meltdowns, tritium releases, abandoned uranium mines, mine-tailings
pollution, radioactive waste, illicit plutonium trafficking, and thefts of
missile material, among them._ [1]

Nevermind:

* that >60% of the carbon-free electricity in the USA comes from nukes right now,

* that by displacing air pollution, nukes worldwide have saved 1.8 million lives and prevented 65 billion tonnes CO2-eq [2]

* that nobody died or is expected to die from radiation at Fukushima

* that uranium enrichment is by far the easiest way to illicitly traffic weapons materials (which can happen without any nuclear power)

* that Hanford was a cold-war nuclear weapons facility that did not prioritize waste storage, and that it was totally unrelated to commercial power generation

The capabilities of nuclear energy to thwart climate change are real and
gigantic. Getting costs down would help, and the Koreans have been doing an
amazing job at that. The French electrified their whole country with nukes in
10 years by standardizing designs and that's been wildly successful. This
solution should have said something like: "If we can standardize a safe Gen
III+ reactor and get costs down, nuclear can and will grow as our climate
champion."

[1]
[http://www.drawdown.org/solutions/energy/nuclear](http://www.drawdown.org/solutions/energy/nuclear)
[2]
[http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es3051197](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es3051197)

~~~
rdsubhas
Coal, gas, etc increased global warming - but we are talking about timescales
of <100 years (sometimes <50) to reverse those changes with appropriate
action. Nuclear is not like that, it takes thousands of years (plutonium-239
has a half-life of 24000 years) to undo or cleanup anything related to
nuclear. When we started with coal/oil/gas/etc - we didn't know at that time
about these side effects. Now the same could be said about nuclear as well. If
radioactive material 10 times the size of chernobyl fallout [1] was released,
would that mean the perpetual end of earth, possibly leading to a worse than
climate-change kind of scenario? That's why countries like Germany have
started shutting down nuclear power plants. Its like favoring a known evil
rather than an unknown devil.

Note: I'm neither a proponent or opponent of nuclear energy.

1:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#National_an...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#National_and_international_spread_of_radioactive_substances)

~~~
acidburnNSA
I think you're right that that's what people are concerned about. I'd mention
that we have 17,000 reactor-years of commercial experience over the past 7
decades in nuclear. We understand the risks fairly well, though admittedly we
are still learning. It is clear that nuclear reactors net save millions of
lives over fossil-fuel alternatives. 10x Chernobyl fallout would be very bad
but it would be nowhere near the global warming predictions we're seeing.
Additionally, Chernobyl was a bad design without a containment running a risky
experiment with safety systems turned off. The 4 reactors at Fukushima got hit
with a huge earthquake and tsunami and no one died from their failure, and we
know from models that no one will die from the radiation that was released.
It's exceedingly unlikely that modern reactors would go Chernobyl, much less
10x Chernobyl.

Germany has turned away from clean-air nuclear energy and replaced it with
brown coal and more clean-air renewables but that's costing them a lot [1].
That's expensive fear, and only feasible for the richest of nations.

Side note: Long half-life doesn't necessarily correlate with problems after an
accident. It's actually the short half-life stuff that is biologically
concentrated (Sr-90, I-131, Cs-137) that can cause the biggest issues. For
instance, Uranium-238 has a 4.5 billion year half-life and it's not a
radiological hazard (this just means the energy comes out really slowly).

[1] [http://fortune.com/2017/03/14/germany-renewable-clean-
energy...](http://fortune.com/2017/03/14/germany-renewable-clean-energy-
solar/)

------
mchannon
Let's assume that for a moment all their numbers are correct (it's a huge
assumption) and let's also assume that they will all be achieved (cough).

Their numbers add up to approximately 100% of 2017 annual fossil fuel
emissions.

That means that all of the excess CO2 currently in the atmosphere is beyond
the reach of the combined 80 solutions they propose. Greenhouse gas production
rates continue to increase (Earth has plenty of semi-natural processes of its
own that are only starting to be triggered). You can't double-count these 80
solutions, so they're inadequate to even stop the growth.

"drawdown" seems a misnomer. There's no reversal here, only a slowdown.

This is the most challenging engineering problem ever to confront mankind, and
we haven't risen as a species to meet it.

Now, time to get back to the latest ICO, because some things are important.

~~~
spenrose
"Let's assume that for a moment all their numbers are correct (it's a huge
assumption)"

The entire framing of their approach is to only consider peer-reviewed
literature -- holding themselves to the highest standard we have, the one most
free of "assumption." It is rhetorically deceptive to open by characterizing
them as making assumptions.

~~~
freshhawk
Only if you discount the evidence that we are almost always optimistic about
these things at this stage of the research.

Anyone good at doing high level policy accounts for the fact that you always
need a lot of margin for optimistic error when combining multiple solutions.

~~~
spenrose
Citation please. Bonus points for noting the irony that you are criticizing an
impeccably supported work with sweeping (but unsupported) assertions.

------
breck
Table of the top 100 solutions:

[http://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-
rank](http://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank)

------
throwawayjava
I think the most interesting way to sort this data is not by "total
atmospheric reduction" but rather by "savings". I.e., where do the economic
and ecological incentives align?

EVs and Wind & Solar are unsurprising gold/silver/bronze winners.

District Heating is an interesting idea I had never thought of. And it
synthesizes well with other top winners outside of the energy production
space, most of which boil down to "improved density and less moving around".

IMO these are all big wins from a lifestyle perspective as well, all other
things equal (of course, not all other things are equal in most places --
schooling, safety, etc.)

------
nostromo
I hear often that educating girls will curb population growth in poor
countries.

Has anyone actually proven that this is a causative relationship and not
correlative?

~~~
jacalata
Yes [https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/11/the-relationship-
betw...](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/11/the-relationship-between-
womens-education-and-fertility/)

------
Aloha
I think trying to argue specifically about climate change in the US at least -
is dead - politics as such prevent the scope of change needed - that said - we
as a planet should work more on sustainability - there are technological and
cultural solutions that can be put in place, (mostly by private industry) to
make the way we consume our planets limited natural resources more
sustainable.

Carbon as far as I'm concerned has turned into a straw man preventing us on
working on the larger (and more complex) problem of sustainability.

I think another thing to consider for a moment is, if we want a "western"
standard of living for all people living on this planet, we either need less
people, or we need to figure out how to use the limited resources we have a
lot more efficiently.

Humans in the end will adapt to a warmer planet - the range of habitable
places however may change - this says nothing to the other animals living here
- they're not so lucky.

~~~
dboreham
Fewer people.

------
colordrops
It only covers two types of solutions, reducing carbon emissions and carbon
sequestration. What about more extreme or dangerous solutions such as weather
manipulation and reflecting solar energy through materials in orbit?

~~~
photon-torpedo
They are dangerous, as you say. If you had to choose between global warming
and a new ice age, what would you prefer?

------
zitterbewegung
My personal thought is to make a geoengineering company to perform carbon
sequestration. At first you would figure out how to grow large amounts of
switchgrass and or algae using some type of automated planting either in
deserts or in the ocean. Then start breeding or make GMO plants that would
more efficiently sequester carbon. Also, try to make other systems that would
lower temperature like a space based shade or changing the albedo of the
ground or atmosphere .

~~~
fooker
Doesn't seem this stands to make money, so not many people will be interested.

~~~
atemerev
We humans are really inventive in ways of making money. Bringing more
unhospitable lands back to sanity? Allowing for more consumption without the
need to curb lifestyles? A lot of money can be made from here.

------
atemerev
Sorry, this is all flawed. Just an agenda of constraining ourselves and
limiting human influence. Won't work. We humans are inherently driven to
expand and use more and more energy for our needs. This is a given. Any
solutions trying to ignore this are doomed.

What we need is technological solutions to _reverse_ global warming effects.
Like iron fertilization of oceans.

------
cousin_it
No geoengineering?

~~~
tim333
Yeah not sure about geoengineering but if you look at global CO2 emission and
absorption, man made emissions are still small compared to nature - see this
in giggatons
[https://static.skepticalscience.com/images/Carbon_Cycle.gif](https://static.skepticalscience.com/images/Carbon_Cycle.gif)

From a practical point of view if you want to absorb huge amounts of CO2
finding ways to influence the natural processes might be the way.

(pic from [https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-
natu...](https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-
emissions.htm))

------
diafygi
Howdy! I work in cleantech, and I guess it's that time again for a what-can-
you-do-about-it post :)

To start, here's my favorite climate change joke: "They say we won't act until
it's too late... Luckily, it's too late!"

==So what can you do about it?==

The biggest thing this article doesn't say that is most relevant to the HN
audience is that you can work at a new energy technology company! Our
industries are out of the R&D stage and are currently focused on scale and
growth[1], and we need as many smart people as we can get. There are lots of
companies hiring software engineers (including mine).

==How do I find a job fighting climate change?==

I'd recommend browsing the exhibitor and speaker lists from the most recent
conference in each sector (linked below). Check out the companies that
interest you and see if they are hiring.

    
    
        * Energy Storage[2][3]
        * Solar[4][5]
        * Wind[6]
        * Nuclear[7]
        * Electric Utilities[8][9]
        * Electric vehicles[10]
    

Also, if you're in the SF bay area, I'd recommend subscribing to my Bay Area
Energy Events Calendar[11]. Just start showing up to events and you'll
probably find a job really quickly.

[1]: [https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/22/energy-is-the-new-new-
inte...](https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/22/energy-is-the-new-new-internet/)

[2]: [http://www.esnaexpo.com/](http://www.esnaexpo.com/)

[3]: [https://www.greentechmedia.com/events/live/u.s.-energy-
stora...](https://www.greentechmedia.com/events/live/u.s.-energy-storage-
summit-2016)

[4]: [https://www.intersolar.us/](https://www.intersolar.us/)

[5]:
[http://www.solarpowerinternational.com/](http://www.solarpowerinternational.com/)

[6]: [http://www.windpowerexpo.org/](http://www.windpowerexpo.org/)

[7]: [https://www.nei.org/Conferences](https://www.nei.org/Conferences)

[8]:
[http://www.distributech.com/index.html](http://www.distributech.com/index.html)

[9]: [https://www.greentechmedia.com/events/live/grid-edge-
world-f...](https://www.greentechmedia.com/events/live/grid-edge-world-
forum-2016)

[10]: [http://tec.ieee.org/](http://tec.ieee.org/)

[11]: [https://bayareaenergyevents.com/](https://bayareaenergyevents.com/)

~~~
kelnos
I have a background in electrical/computer engineering, but much of that has
faded from memory. For the past 15 years I've been a software developer,
starting out in the embedded space, and today working on cloud telecom. I feel
like I don't have the background or domain knowledge required to break into a
career in clean energy, though it's a space that interests me a lot (both
intellectually, and because of survival-of-the-species reasons). Do you have
any suggestions how I might break into this field, beyond attending the events
you listed (or is that enough?)? Is there a need for my skills more or less
as-is, or am I looking at a steep learning curve and more "entry-level"
positions until I can train up?

~~~
spenrose
You sound like an excellent candidate for an SWE position at quite a few
cleantech companies "as-is".

------
johnmarcus
I stopped at "telepresence". This is silly, and as published as a pay for
book, I suspect it will actually cost the environment more from it's printing
and shipping than the influence it will have to make a change.

------
0xbear
Before proposing multi trillion dollar plans it'd be good to figure out how to
model cloud cover and the effects of the oceans.

~~~
spenrose
This comment constitutes gaslighting. The primary expression of climate change
science, the IPCC, has been based on models which incorporate cloud cover and
oceans for decades. Here is the first sentence of their landing page on
models:

"Numerical models (General Circulation Models or GCMs), representing physical
processes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and land surface, are the most
advanced tools currently available for simulating the response of the global
climate system to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations (criterion 1 -- see
list here)."

[http://www.ipcc-data.org/guidelines/pages/gcm_guide.html](http://www.ipcc-
data.org/guidelines/pages/gcm_guide.html)

~~~
0xbear
Read a bit further in the page you've linked.

