
Committed emissions from existing energy infrastructure jeopardize 1.5C target - emptysands
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1364-3
======
watertom
Global population keeps growing, developing countries keep developing, we
can't even slow the growth let alone reduce.

The amount of methane released from the thawing permafrost is much higher than
expected as is the amount of CO2, and the amount of nitrous oxide being
released is about 12 times higher than expected and nitrous oxide is almost
300 times more impactful than CO2. Oh, if you haven't heard the permafrost is
thawing much, much faster than expected. There is nothing we can do to stop
the thawing of the permafrost. The total amount of carbon in the atmosphere is
850 gigatons, and the permafrost is holding almost 1,500 gigatons of CO2, it's
won't all get released, but even if only half gets released it would mean
almost doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, dwarfing what humans are
releasing.

The oceans are warming rapidly and the major producer of oxygen on earth,
phytoplankton which is responsible for %50-%80 of the earths oxygen have seen
their population reduced by almost %40 in the last 150 years due to warming
oceans. Also, phytoplankton are the basis for the marine food chain as the
phytoplankton populations collapse so will the marine food chain.

1.5C is a pipe dream, I even think 4C is a pipe dream. The climate is no
longer changing, the earth is changing and it's driving the change in the
climate, and there is nothing humans can do at this point to even slow down
the process. The wheels are going to fall off, and they are going to fall off
much faster than anyone expects.

------
tschwimmer
The definition of committed here is ‘operated as historically,’ so this isn’t
as bad as it might seem.

~~~
tialaramex
It takes considerable additional politician will, and in countries under
democracy that will must be sustained over a longer period, to strand existing
assets (e.g. shut a perfectly good CCGT power plant) rather than just not
build more.

If the US had no coal power in 2016 nobody would have built it starting 2017
on the hope than Trump is in office until 2024 and doesn't wake up one day
determined that actually coal is bad. Too risky. But seeing good news on the
horizon might mean a plant is idled not closed, or you keep four of six plants
instead of two of six. It adds up.

~~~
shoo
down here in australia our newly reelected federal government is trying to
figure out what new public subsidies they can give to prop up their mates who
run australia's local coal mining and coal burning industries

------
shoo
Without reading the article (why yes, i am a bad person), from a number of
years ago it was not at all obvious that the human endeavor is capable of
hitting targets to limit global warming to +2C or even +3C. I am not sure that
talking about a +1.5C target in 2019 is particularly useful <+>.

That said, arguments in terms of remaining "carbon budget" or "cumulative
emissions budget", as the article uses here, are a useful way of framing the
problem. Perhaps an unrealistic target is still a useful tool to focus policy
attention.

<+> i reckon _logically_ it is still possible to limit warming to +1.5C
degrees, but in terms of plausible pathways to reach that target, the pathway
might look something more like "massive global human population loss due to X"
rather than "solar panels" or "carbon sequestration" or "global one child
policy" or "overthrow of capitalism"...

~~~
hn_throwaway_99
Completely agree. We should just stop talking about the 1.5C limit like it is
even remotely possible. The world at large has shown time and time again that
our political systems are just not capable of dealing with long-term, "slow
burn" threats that have a high immediate cost.

It's an immensely sad thought when you look at the consequences of 3 or 4
degrees (or more) warming. But at this point it's pretty much inevitable.

