Comment by gmuslera | Hacker News Reader

Comment by gmuslera | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

That it will peak means that we are still adding, each year, even more greeenhouse gases than in the previous ones.

That is not directly what causes the warming. In simplified terms, we have excess of greenhouse gases, we keep more heat of what we receive from the sun than what we lose, and that is one of the forces behind global warming, hitting the 1.5ºC and so on. And CO2 remains in the atmosphere for 100-200 years after emitted.

So, this "peak", if achieved, means that we are still accelerating the problem. after we peak, we will keep adding roughly as much carbon as we did in previous years (that will keep be adding to the excess). We are not sensibly lowering the amount of extra greenhouse gases, we will still be growing what is up there for the foreseeable future. And as the planet warmed up, several feedback loops have been triggered that are adding their own quota of even more greenhouse gases, like permafrost thawing. And the extra fossil carbon that we kept adding to the system all this time will now keep circulating in the new carbon cycle, is not like after 200 years it will just vanish.

This is not "things are getting better", but at best "we will keep worsening things, but not so fast, maybe in a future"

The peak is exciting because it's the turning point, where additional technology and development reduces the problem rather than making it worse.

Its the turn of the tide in a big battle, and we should be excited about it, and not minimize it.

The point is that is not a turning point. We are still accelerating towards a wall, and maybe, just maybe, we will just go to at a constant speed in some years. It is not slowing down, is not turning back, and the natural world and climate system is crumbling down in front of us, in a steep way, this year in particular.

Heatwaves will start to kill people big time, The Ministry for the Future style, in the next few years if not this very one. But we keep accelerating.

It's an inflection point, not a zero point. GP's emphasis on the word "acceleration" above is to distinguish the two.

Rallying is an inflection point, turning the tide is a zero point. Rallies suffer from survivorship bias -- you don't hear praises and songs for the rallies that failed. It's not enough to assume blind hope, we have to recognize the forces stacked against us and be very strategic going forward. This requires massive sacrifice, including those comfortably sitting in the war rooms and atop guarded positions.

When a pendulum swings, consider the momentum as it passes over its equilibrium. We are approaching that equilibrium point, and if you look at global renewables deployment, EV uptake, and CO2/methane emissions reduction efforts, we are about to leave that equilibrium point headed in the other direction at full speed. Major sacrifice will not be needed, except perhaps with regards to meat consumption as the world gets wealthier.

Certainly, we should not rest on our laurels and should keep the pedal to the floor, but the data shows we are moving the needle.

> In this report, we find there is a 70% chance that emissions start falling in 2024 if current clean technology growth trends continue and some progress is made to cut non-CO2 emissions. This would make 2023 the year of peak emissions – meeting the IPCC deadline.

Let’s get to 100% as soon as possible.

Your grasp of physics metaphors leaves a lot to be desired. That's not how momentum works. Plus, the pendulum reference implies swinging back across to net-positive carbon emissions, which I don't think is part of anyone's plan.

What we want is a critically damped system, that inflects ASAP and approaches zero the quickest. Again, this requires a better grasp of the issues than "EVs will save the world". Our conveniences are the problems that need solving. Everyone who has the systems view (as opposed to the extremely narrow economics view) says we need to radically restructure our society so that lifestyles can be sustainable. This includes removing the need for most people to drive or fly, period.

  > This includes removing the need for most people to drive or fly, period.

does this imply that most co2 emissions are caused by cars and consumer flying?

No, but there are many sources of emissions related to the sprawl of car-centric culture.

The connection with flying is just how much emissions can be attributed to one passenger in a plane compared to an equivalent drive. When you fly you're trading more emissions for speed and convenience in your travels. The classic quoted stat is that a single flight is worth about a year of driving at today's averages.

Yes, emissions peaking is just one step on the journey, but it's a very necessary and important near term target along the way.

Exactly! Peak gives a sense of relief.. Better is of course relative, should we be happy that we are no longer stepping further down on the gas pedal, but still going at dangerously high speed? When where we should really be is at least in full stop, preferable going in reverse..

> And CO2 remains in the atmosphere for 100-200 years after emitted.

My understanding is that methane is lighter than air, and circulates in the atmosphere until it breaks down (~12 years). CO2 is heavier than air, and readily dissolves itself in ocean water. In the pre-industrial era the oceans emitted carbon dioxide, to keep the plants on land alive. My earlier comment had a reference to estimates of how much CO2 is absorbed by the ocean: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20002823

Searching now, the officially-sanctioned estimates are that 30-40% of human CO2 emissions are rapidly captured by the ocean. If we instantly stopped all CO2 emissions, I think most of the excess atmospheric CO2 would be captured by the plants and the ocean over just a few years.

> In the pre-industrial era the oceans emitted carbon dioxide, to keep the plants on land alive

I don't think the ocean was doing it with any kind of intention.

True, it doesn't mean that the problem is solved, but it's a big milestone on the way. I fwiw something I thought was way further in the future

Don’t be a doomer. I’m not sure what the intent is of your comment because what you’re saying is obvious to anyone who understands greenhouse gases and it’s pointlessly negative about one of the most important moments in the history of humanity since the Industrial Revolution started this

Not to downplay, but when we peak, we’re long past peak per capita, so there’s hope that combined with peak population we would be on a path of increasing decrease. Half life of 120 years of athmosperic CO2 doesn’t make it an easy century. But which century was?

World CO₂ per capita emissions have probably already peaked; at the very least, it's been roughly flat for the past decade or so: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?t...

Unfortunately, it's not just CO2 that has an effect on climate... there's also other gases, particularly methane, that are relevant for climate change. And with the current warming going on, there will be not "just" the methane emissions from fermentation, cow farms and leaking natural gas pipelines, but also a ton of methane from currently thawing Russian permafrost, or methane clathrate deposits (which alone are estimated to hold more carbon than all other sources of fossil fuels combined).

Yes a decade roughly flat per capita but number of people has risen 10% in that time.

While this is true, it’s still a positive point. If you’re hurtling towards a wall in your car, you have to take your foot off the gas and hit the brakes.

So at least we’ll be taking our foot off the gas.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com