Hacker News Reader

Comment by shuger | Hacker News Reader

> once we're no longer able to rely on cheap fossil fuels for it

Why would that happen?

The most likely outcome would be a ban on net new CO2 in the atmosphere, enforced by the army of any country that has insurance companies unwilling to pay for the destruction of half of any cities next to a coastline, a 15-m wall around the remainder, most of the agricultural lands too hot and dry to be used, and the bulk of the rest battered by weekly cat-6 hurricanes, a billion of climate refugees…

A lot of people are going to die of heat in the next month. That number will double every year until we address it decisively.

That’s not counting on eco-terrorism which will likely anticipate a lot of the reaction.

Is this sarcasm or do you actually believe all of that is going to happen?

Not the OP, but pretty sure it's not sarcasm. I'm not sure if all of that will happen, but I would suggest that on current trajectory at least the following is likely to happen:

- Sea level rises leading to widespread flooding of vulnerable cities (and some particularly low-lying island countries too).

- Severe droughts and water shortages in desertous areas. Some of which may not have been desertous before.

- General weather changes (both reduced rainfall and increased rainfall) leading to disruptions in food production supply chains.

All of which will likely lead to significant political pressure to mitigate further disruption.

Atmospheric science isn’t belief: unless we rapidly change energy, transport, and construction practices, most humans will face existential threats in the next five years to ten years one way or another. That part is not for debate.

A lot of activists and governments have started responding (banning ICE cars in 2025, 2030, and 2035). My belief is that most will have increasingly strict rules because they will see increasingly obvious droughts, heatwaves, and hurricanes—that’s the part where I’m less sure about.

There are people and politicians who are delusional, so anything can happen. I expect them to move and be more popular in areas where the consequence will be dire soon.

There are people who protest and see no change. Them, and people who lose everyone they care about in climate-related disasters, will most likely resort to violence: this has already started with people attaching themselves with concrete to a highway or deflating tires of SUVs in London. That group is organized and they don’t feel heard. That much has happened and I can testify that it’s not blaming down. I believe that this will lead to more violence, notably targeted assassinations.

> The most likely outcome

I'm not so sure about that

Well if we're to hit net-zero carbon emissions then we either need to not emit any long-term stored carbon or capture and store carbon from the atmosphere. The former is likely to be much cheaper than the latter.

Because it becomes uneconomical to extract and process? And of course, eventually it will run out if we don't stop using it first.

That's the question: why would it become uneconomical to extract and process?

https://www.worldometers.info/oil/

47 years of oil left given current reserve estimates, I'd bet my life there's a couple of centuries left at least

Interesting top 11:

    1  Venezuela       299,953,000,000  18.2%   sanctions/attempted coup
    2  Saudi Arabia    266,578,000,000  16.2%   strategic ally (petrodollar)
    3  Canada          170,863,000,000  10.4%   neighbour
    4  Iran            157,530,000,000  9.5%    sanctions/coup
    5  Iraq            143,069,000,000  8.7%    invaded
    6  Kuwait          101,500,000,000  6.1%    friendly relations
    7  U.A.E            97,800,000,000  5.9%    friendly relations
    8  Russia           80,000,000,000  4.8%    sanctions/global rival
    9  Libya            48,363,000,000  2.9%    bombed/destabilized
   10  Nigeria          37,070,000,000  2.2%    friendly?
   11  United States    35,230,000,000  2.1%    *ahem*

Reserves are misleading. Because people only declare resources to be reserves that have had enough investment in them to be proven to some level.

See https://www.adamsmith.org/research/the-no-breakfast-fallacy for more background.

It will become uneconomical because making the same chemicals, or better replacements, with renewable energy will be cheaper:

https://www.enapter.com/newsroom/reaching-price-parity-of-gr...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com