
Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target - 23throwaway23
https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/press-release/cut-global-emissions-76-percent-every-year-next-decade-meet-15degc
======
hn_throwaway_99
I think it should be somewhat obvious that it will be impossible for us to
avoid the absolute worst of global warming. Humans simply don't have the
capability to act in the coordinated, political way that is necessary. Somehow
holding out hope that we'll all come to our senses and things will change is
like holding out hope that we'll never have any wars again. It is just not
compatible with human nature.

I'd love it if I were wrong, or if someone can change my mind, but in a world
where we have never had as much access to information, large swaths of the
population don't even believe global warming is _real_, let alone something we
should do something about.

We should just start planning for the worst case scenarios, because they are
going to happen regardless.

~~~
john_moscow
I'm not sure how many people are skeptical about the global warming itself,
but there are definitely good reasons for skepticism about the proposed
political solutions. I have yet to see a quantifiable and accountable proposal
in a format "let's allocate $X billion, implement measures A, B and C, so with
the probability of Y%, the point where Earth becomes uninhabitable due to
global warming will shift by N years into the future". Instead far too many
people who haven't tried running even a lemonade stand, are talking about
raising billions by taxing things most of us enjoy with a very hazy
perspective of having some great outcome way past their own political
lifespan. Given that everyone else manages to cooperate in a completely
unprecedented way.

To give an example, I personally hate commuting and believe that spending
hours sitting in traffic every day is a major waste of time. However, if a
politician came by and promised to raise gasoline prices by 50% in order to
invest $X billion into WeWork so that they could solve the commute problem
once and for all, I would never have voted for them. Not because I love
commuting, but because I don't believe this will solve the problem at all,
given the track record of WeWork. Of course, people with a financial interest
in WeWork would gladly label me a commutist and would try to make sure my
arguments are not heard.

There are plenty of ways to reduce the emissions that are much easier to
quantify and implement: making nuclear power safer, improving biodiesel, even
a national standard for replaceable EV batteries so you could switch one out
not much slower than filling in a gas tank. But instead we keep hearing the
original sin [0] rhetoric on how we should eat less, not buy a big house and
give up on having kids.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin)

~~~
kilotaras
> However, if a politician came by and promised to raise gasoline prices by
> 50% in order to invest $X billion into WeWork so that they could solve the
> commute problem once and for all,

Than you should like carbon fee and dividend scheme[1]. Tax emissions, divide
equally between all citizens. The end result is unchanged populations spending
power, but redistributed towards less carbon-intensive products.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend)

~~~
john_moscow
That would mean taxing most productive or enjoyable activity (raising kids,
going to business trips, fine dining) and rewarding depressive low-carbon-
footprint sitting in front of the TV and waiting for death. I would rather
spend that money subsidizing greener alternatives to common CO2 sources (e.g.
EV subsidies), but that's already being done.

------
maxharris
I searched for 'nuclear' on that page, and found no mention of the word at
all. Whatever you might think of nuclear energy, I don't think such a drastic
energy cut is even possible to implement without it. (After all, I see little
point in cutting CO2 emissions in the US if people in other countries emit an
amount equivalent to whatever gets cut here.)

~~~
cogman10
The time for nuclear has passed (at least fission. Fusion may still be a good
future energy source).

I say this because the cost of building a new nuclear plant is more expensive
than wind and solar.

Nuclear might still be a good solution for northern and southern habitats.
But, at this point, where most pollution is produced, solar and wind are
viable.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source)

With all that said, the real viability of renewables is partially going to be
determined by storage costs. Nuclear doesn't really solve the storage problem
though (it is a base load only power source). Eventually in order to hit a
7.6% reduction goal we'll have to phase out natural gas peaker plants. To do
that, we need storage.

We certainly shouldn't be decommissioning nuclear plants in favor of
renewables. I just don't think the time to build new nuclear is here. The
cheaper and faster solution is new renewables.

~~~
DennisP
The cheapest option is probably to build nuclear to the level that meets
minimum demand at night, and solar for everything on top of that, with just
enough storage to even out the remaining discrepancies.

Storage is quite a bit more expensive than nuclear, and while the cost is
dropping it has a long way to go. At the same time, new nuclear technologies
like molten salt reactors could well drop the price of nuclear. For that to be
a factor, we'd likely have to get more aggressive with licensing new nuclear
technologies; i.e. we'd have to treat climate change with the urgency it
deserves.

Here's a Lazard report on levelized cost of storage:
[https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2019](https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2019)

~~~
g_sch
This is a great point - solar/wind and nuclear are, as the grid currently
works, not drop-in replacements to each other, but complements. Nuclear
provides base load (because it's difficult and slow to ramp a nuclear plant up
or down), Wind/solar provides as much daytime load as practical, and meeting
any remaining demand (especially peak evening demand) will require a peaking
source that can dynamically be ramped up or down to meet demand.

The optimist in me believes that we'll eventually get good enough at solving
the unit commitment problem in the energy grid that we'll reduce the need for
carbon-intensive peaking sources and eventually even eliminate nuclear power.
But we're not there today.

~~~
08-15
Nuclear ramps just fine. French nuclear plants reportedly ramp routinely
between about 50-100% capacity, so this isn't just theoretical. Going from
full power to less than about 40% tends to run you into a Xenon pit, which
causes a two day shutdown, but fortunately nighttime load is roughly half of
daytime load, so this point is moot.

~~~
DennisP
Here's a source to back up that claim:
[https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featureload-
following-c...](https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featureload-following-
capabilities-of-npps/)

------
ng12
I don't understand why globalism rarely, if ever, factors into the debate. It
boggles my mind that if I walk down to the drug store to buy a toothbrush that
toothbrush was likely made in a Chinese factory, shipped across the Pacific
ocean in a diesel-spewing container ship, and then driven a good thousand
miles in an 18-wheeler. It seems like a _tremendous_ waste of energy for
something that could be made locally for cheap.

~~~
skummetmaelk
Here you seem to be blaming globalism for failing to account for the true
price of a product. The product should be cheaper if made locally because
transport costs are reduced. At the moment transport is extremely cheap
because there is no significant cost to producing emissions. If appropriate
carbon taxes were added you would see such products being made more locally.

~~~
ng12
> Here you seem to be blaming globalism for failing to account for the true
> price of a product.

Fair, but in my mind this is why globalism is a thing -- because it doesn't
account for the exploitation of human labor and lack of regulation. If it did,
there would be no reason to ship a few dollars of plastic from China to the
USA.

~~~
DubiousPusher
I think you're right. Our current form of global trade can only exist by
exploiting a kind of lawlessness that comes from being able to distribute owns
company beneficially across uncoordinated governmental regions.

------
gorpovitch
I don't think I've ever seen this here :

[https://theshiftproject.org/en/home/](https://theshiftproject.org/en/home/)

It's a think tank working on handling the climate crisis with excellent,
pragmatic, efficiency-focused studies, without ideologies or dogma. They have
recently been known to put some numbers on the CO2 emissions caused by the
digital industry, that is less visible but very real (4 percent of total
emissions, 4x more than air travel!)

They have Jean-Marc Jancovici in the management, who also founded Carbone 4 -
a consulting firm working on enabling companies to make their transition to a
carbon-neutral world. He's an original figure among ecologists in France
because he pleads in favor of nuclear energy in France, to avoid emitting CO2
(it's mainly thanks to nuclear energy that France emits 7 times less CO2 for
the same amount of electricity produced compared to the OECD). I highly
recommend his conferences.

------
nabla9
According to EIA global emissions are growing and predicted to grow through
2035. In 2035 global emissions are 40% higher than today.

When the developed world can gradually reduce CO2 emissions, China, India and
the rest of the developing world will continue to increase emissions.

~~~
irrational
Basically, the western world went through their development cycle (aka the
industrial revolution) and now the rest of the world wants to catch up. Of
course, when we say they shouldn't because of climate change, they say "You
had your chance to pollute and develop, now we get to do the same thing."
Frankly, I find it difficult to argue with them. The only sensible thing to do
is for the Western world to reverse back to where we were prior to the
industrial revolution and ask the developing nations to do the same - no
technology above a horse drawn plown and horse drawn wagons, everyone reverts
to being in the agriculture business or supporting the agriculture business,
no cars, no planes, only wind powered sailing ships, no rockets, no computers,
etc.

Since that won't happen - we are royally screwed.

~~~
foobiekr
I feel like I just don't understand the claim that the developing world should
be allowed to have higher emissions.

If we could go back in time and the US had the option at the time of using
today's technology, and they chose not to, we would condemn them.

~~~
tzs
> I feel like I just don't understand the claim that the developing world
> should be allowed to have higher emissions

Pick some maximum acceptable total level of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Fair
would be for each country to be allowed to emit greenhouse gases up to the
point that their share of the total in the atmosphere is equal to that total
acceptable level divided by the country's population.

Even if you decide to pick a pretty high acceptable total, you'll find that
the US is already way over its share, and the developing world countries are
all way under their shares. The US has emitted about 8 times as much total as
India, for example, and about 4 times as much total as China.

Fair, then, is either for (1) the US to not only cut emissions to zero, but to
also implement massive carbon capture to get its cumulative emissions back
down to its fair share, so that developing countries can use their fair shares
for development, or for (2) the US and other developed countries to kick in to
pay for the developing countries to build green infrastructure so that they
can develop without making use of cheap non-green energy.

The Paris Agreement includes provisions along the lines of #2.

~~~
foobiekr
The per-capita argument only makes sense if one expects the carbon footprint
of the citizenry to be relatively equal. What this creates, instead, is that
in really large countries the allocation will be taken by the people living
really energy-intensive lives while letting the bulk of the population live
poorly.

The other problem is that this incentivizes population increases since energy
is the limiting factor for a developed nation's GDP and they can effectively
raise their limit by having more children. That's not a good thing either and
goes directly against the fertility declines that are about the only good news
we have.

Per capita is one way to slice it, but it's not the definition of "fair."

------
wazoox
To stay under the 2°C limit, we need to cut emissions by 4% per year. It
happened exactly twice in the past century: at the worse of the great
depression in 1932, and after the annihilation of Germany and Japan in 1945.

------
PaulHoule
We're close to the tipping point for geoengineering.

Elites don't want to stop global warming, they've spent billions of dollars
trying to stop a response to global warming.

Ordinary people say they want to do something about global warming but if it
inconveniences them such as an increase in gas taxes, they will riot in the
streets. (See the Yellow Shirts in France.)

The conspicuous inability of governments to make elites feel a little pain
(Macron and the wealth tax) means that governments have no legitimacy with
which to demand sacrifices from anybody else. Thus you see "last straw"
rebellions just about anywhere when there is an unpopular change, say a 4%
increase in subway fares.

With geoengineering you only need to scrape together a few billion a year
which could be done by a small group of elites or governments (if Bloomberg
didn't waste his time and money and reputation running for pres he could do
it...)

The best part of it is that a credible threat to Geoengineer might solve the
collective action problem for other interventions:

[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0102-0](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0102-0)

As for all the reasons why geoengineering is seen as a "cop-out" note that if
it's really an extinction worth rebelling about, then we have to use "all
means necessary" and that includes solar radiation management.

------
blondie9x
To all, because governments have mostly failed us on quick action I created a
climate pledge. It is open to feedback but I think starting with individual
commitments and sustainable lifestyles will help us move society forward as a
whole.

Governments are not moving quickly enough on climate change with small
incremental changes over time. However, people and organizations who champion
these efforts can pressure governments to drive faster change.

Climate Pledge

To protect humanity now and for the future of our posterity I am committing to
the following.

\- I pledge to limit eating red meat. I will restrict intake of cows and lambs
etc.

\- If I choose to have children, I will have 2 or less.

\- I will try to use cycling or mass transit options whenever possible and to
participate in efforts to expand transit.

\- I will restrict flying to only when necessary and try to limit flying to
only when no other choice is available. If I do fly I will try to offset all
emissions.

\- I will try my utmost to conserve energy and minimize use of heating and
cooling appliances.

\- I will try my best to limit energy use to renewable sources when I have the
choice. When I cannot choose I will fight for the ability to have this choice.

\- I will try to help those close to me understand these choices and the need
for those able, to also join the pledge.

\- I will only consume what I need. I will not perpetuate extravagance and
will only support companies who champion sustainable efforts.

\- I will do my best to strive for and support sustainable and minimalist
technology.

\- I will stay involved in the public discourse on environmental issues and
stay engaged on efforts to mitigate climate change.

~~~
magnamerc
I don't want to discourage you, because everything counts, but I think the
real problem with climate change isn't in the West, it's in the rest of the
world. The West had the luxury of using cheap carbon in the early 20th century
to industrialize and build out infrastructure. India and countries in Africa
haven't had that luxury, therefore they are going to use as much carbon as is
necessary to industrialize. It would be hypocritical for Westerners to
criticize them for it. The only way to change that is if Western countries
governments actively exported low-carbon tech to help them leap-frog a
centralized power distribution network and go straight to in-situ
decentralized power generation without it affecting their rising quality of
life. This is a societal, market economics and technological problem. Cutting
out meat won't help nearly as much as developing lab grown meat will. Rather
than attempt to change individual behaviors, we should strive to make low
carbon technologies that align with existing behaviors.

~~~
RockIslandLine
"It would be hypocritical for Westerners to criticize them for it."

I'm not fully convinced. When you know better, you do better. And we now know
better.

"A did a stupid thing to achieve X result, therefore B must be allowed to do
the same stupid thing" is not a great argument.

There's more than one way to create economic value.

~~~
magnamerc
In countries like the DRC or Nigeria, with large oil and natural gas reserves,
who are we to tell them that they can no longer exploit those reserves for
their benefit? If we don't want oil and gas to be extracted for wealth, then
we need to force market dynamics in such a way as to make the exploitation of
oil and gas unprofitable worldwide. We have zero moral authority on dictating
what these countries can and cannot do with their own resources

------
markkat
Over the last 40M years, when CO2 was at current levels (400ppm), sea level
was +9 to +31 meters higher. We need to reduce to 280ppm to start rebuilding
ice.

[https://www.pnas.org/content/110/4/1209](https://www.pnas.org/content/110/4/1209)

Coastal cities are going to move.

~~~
eanzenberg
This is not representative by current trends nor simulations (which themselves
have huge error bars)

~~~
markkat
Do you have a citation for current simulations?

The +9m to +31m isn't from simulations. It's from ice core sample and sediment
analysis.

~~~
eanzenberg
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12808-z](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12808-z)

"Most estimates of global mean sea-level rise this century fall below 2 m."

------
LinuxBender
Is there a chart that shows the progress each nation is making year over year
to cut emissions?

~~~
altacc
The problem with country by country analysis is that people turn it into an
excuse not to do anything. "Why should the US/EU do anything if China is just
going to keep polluting." Countries should be focusing on what they can do
themselves, as well as globally, and be leaders, not laggards.

~~~
rossdavidh
Yeah, but I have the sneaking suspicion that the countries which have
"committed" to meeting these goals, may not actually in fact be cutting their
emissions any better than the rest. Seeing some country vs. country data on
that, would help.

Also, looking at which countries _are_ having the most success (if any), would
help to show which strategies work better than others (e.g. the nuclear
debate).

~~~
altacc
Very good point, transparency can be beneficial. Countries and their
politicians are constantly making promises and commitments which they fail to
live up to.

------
jesperlang
Isn't this ultimately going to end up being a rationing issue? OK, rationing
it's a forbidden word today but maybe we could have carbon credits divided by
person and they are free to use them however they want. Even trade them to
others. I know this is _super_ simplified but perhaps we need to start
thinking in those terms sooner or later?

~~~
nathanaldensr
Who is "we?" Almost every human alive will not willingly accept a quality of
life reduction on the scale most people here seem to assume can just...
happen. The only way it happens is via brutal dictatorship.

------
makerofspoons
In terms of emissions we are tracking right along RCP 8.5, the worst case
emissions scenario: [https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-the-high-emissions-
rcp...](https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-the-high-emissions-
rcp8-5-global-warming-scenario)

------
jahaja
Unfortunately, it feels like too many people in power would rather go down
with the ship than change their ways. Since that would threaten their current
privileges.

------
algaeontoast
Good thing China has increased co2 emissions from coal equivalent to the
current co2 output of all of Europe.

The US can do better, but China and much of the developing world isn’t exactly
helping.

------
DubiousPusher
I know change is slow but I can't help but feeling this goal is unattainable.
In my own very environmentally concious state two versions of a carbon tax
failed (one libertarianish leaning the other more green new deal like). France
utterly rejected a climate focused gas tax. With fairly liberal populaces
rejecting the economic commitment to addressing climate change It's become
very hard to imagine how we'll ever get sufficient numbers of international
polities with more conservative leaning voters to ever agree to do something.

------
ape4
So we're all in trouble, I guess.

------
verdverm
Or create sequestration systems so the net is that? Or would the numbers
change?

~~~
astrodust
Trees. You're talking about trees.

~~~
altacc
Trees seem to be the solution of the day but, cynically, it seems to be a
smokescreen in that some people are promoting this as the solution to climate
change. No amount of tree planting is going to solve long term climate change,
so it should be seen as one action amongst many. The focus on tree planting
shifts the focus away from the action needed to reduce carbon emissions. It's
a bit like building an extension to your house whilst the house is on fire.
It'll catch up eventually.

~~~
rossdavidh
"No amount of tree planting..." is a strong statement. Not "we won't do
enough", but "No amount..." will work? I find that hard to imagine. Is there a
reason you say this?

~~~
altacc
Two reasons: trees are part of a carbon cycle, most of the carbon returns to
the atmosphere eventually, and we don't have an infinite sized planet to keep
planting forests at the same rate which we're producing CO2.

New growth forests are good at capturing carbon short term, but established
forests aren't as good as the rate of growth is slower and there is more tree
decay & decomposition of organic matter releasing C=2. In some places, and
more common due to climate change, a forest fire will sweep through a forest
and undo all that carbon capture.

If we use trees for fuel it is closing most of the cycle for that carbon, less
ancillary fuel use for harvesting, producton & transport, but that doesn't
solve the production from other sources. If we use wood for building &
materials then the carbon capture is longer, but that's a small fraction of
the CO2 capture needed.

~~~
astrodust
Natural forest fires have a fairly minimal impact on old-growth forests and in
some cases are even necessary for them to function properly (e.g. some
pinecones will only open when burned). The underbrush and younger trees burn
off, the older trees are largely unaffected.

What most people don't realize is the trees that exist today are all "new", as
in are less than a few hundred years old. The trees that were cut down in the
18th and 19th century are unlike anything you'd see today. Far, far bigger and
longer lived, on time-scales that we're really not used to dealing with.

These capture carbon and store it for hundreds of years. When they die they
will decay and be recycled back into the forest floor and soil, not
necessarily burned off and released as CO2.

Sure, a half-hearted tree-planting effort is not going to solve the problem,
but a more ambitious reforestation plan with an emphasis on carbon-
sequestering trees instead of those trees intended to be harvested every 20-40
years could make a huge difference.

------
daenz
If only some authoritarian would rid us of these meddling emissions!

------
larnmar
What are the error bars on those numbers?

