2024 first year to pass 1.5C global warming limit
bbc.com
bbc.com
State of the climate: 2024 will be first year above 1.5C of global warming (5 points, 9 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42085978
This year set to be first to breach 1.5C global warming limit (10 points, no comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42077420
We did not leave the stone age because we ran out of stone, but because we found something better. This applies to renewables, EVs, batteries, etc as well, the problem is mostly solved, it is a matter of making the machine go faster is all. We need enough low carbon energy to replace everything fossil today (account for the orders of magnitude efficiency gains versus thermal generation, so not a 1:1 replacement needed), future energy growth, and energy needed to sequester 100+ years of emitted carbon.
The exponential growth of solar power will change the world - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40746617 - June 2024
(the Earth collects enough solar radiation in less than an hour to power humanity for a year)
IDK, does not look that way:
https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/ https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/india/ https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/usa/ https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/eu/
At best China will stay the same, India will increase emissions, meanwhile both US and EU emissions will significantly drop.
>Europeans have, for the most part, done very well
These exports are happening because Europe has replaced its Russian gas with American gas.
The tension globally is between the west who has high per capita emissions, a long period of high emissions, and high living standards as compared to the global south who have a larger population and lower living standards and yet still high absolute levels of emissions.
Telling China/india/et al that they’re the real problem is taken as “yeah we polluted for centuries to get rich but that’s all in the past, you need to stay poor in order to save the planet”.
An alternative solution might be to have the west pay to help these countries develop more sustainably, but that’s met with anger by the rising nationalist elements. I mean even importing green tech from the global leader (China) is being resisted.
As for which metric to use, that depends on the argument you want to make. One can look at cumulative emissions and see how western nations have polluted much more historically, and should therefore do much more to clean up a mess their have contributed much more to.
Their governments will retort: "Oh but we produce so little of current global emissions now, those other countries polluting more should change first".
Each polluter is an individual person making individual decisions.
The thing people are dancing around is any concept of "rationing", because that's political suicide, but at the same time asking people who've only just got clean water and walk to work to reduce emissions while other people are taking multiple transatlantic flights per week looks a bit questionable.
I don’t know who those people are. Also, another way to say rationing is “sharing”.
The per-capita measurement allows you to directly and meaningfully compare any subdivision, while per-country isn't even meaningfully comparable with other per-country measurements.
Compare to what end? The environment cares about total output, not per capita output.
> while per-country isn't even meaningfully comparable with other per-country measurements.
Why does it need to be?
Yes, and the environment does not care in any way about countries or other silly subdivisions. So we approach the problem as each of us humans having some carbon budget based on the limits of our environment. You can argue how exactly these budgets are distributed, but it's the only measure that matters. Because again: you're arbitrarily choosing to look at countries, when even other subdivisions along the same axis would make more sense. So why focus on countries specifically?
> Why does it need to be?
Because obviously a measurement that's comparable is more useful than one that isn't. It allows us to make determinations about what changes bring us closer to the goal of environmental sustainability, and which changes bring us further away. Do I really need to go on further?
Because it is at the country level that people corporate on international problems. And in many countries it is the federal (or equivalent level) which has the money required to build out the kind of projects needed change those numbers (or the legal authority to mandate it).
Ahh. I misunderstood what you meant. > while per-country isn't even meaningfully comparable with other per-country measurements.
I interpreted as “other per-country measurements” as (other measurements) not (same metric, different country).
I still think it’s not relevant. The changes and the target are still the same, i.e. stop burning shit.
It's also at the union level that people corporate on international problems, arguably more so than on the country level. Yet the largest differences occur at the regional level. Both would be more comparable, and would capture arguably more useful information. I just don't see how an arbitrary and incomparable measurement is better than one without those flaws.
> I still think it’s not relevant. The changes and the target are still the same, i.e. stop burning shit.
Yes, but it's easier to implement the necessary changes if everyone tries. It will be much harder to get the necessary investment from all voting populations if large discrepancies exist between groups of people.
You seem to be talking about the groupings by unions and regions. I am unconvinced that people have a stronger affiliation for those than their country. Further, measuring emissions levels for the country as a whole. On a practical level, getting emission levels for a specific region or a specific union, must less particular individuals, is going to be much harder.
Why is the affiliation the relevant axis? Why not indirect political power (unions strongest) or direct political power (regions strongest)? You're arbitrarily choosing an arbitrary measurement.
> Further, measuring emissions levels for the country as a whole. On a practical level, getting emission levels for a specific region or a specific union, must less particular individuals, is going to be much harder.
I don't see how it could be more complex for unions since they are made up of countries. If we have measurements for countries, we have measurements for unions.
Similarly, you can't create country-wide measurements without measuring individual regions. At least in Germany we have pretty good coverage for the individual regions, which gives you much higher resolution data. So why not use that?
I don't see how you can arrive at "countries" as the best/most logical axis of measurement. The only use I see is if you want to tell people that other countries have much further to go (but I'm not accusing you of doing so).
Should be easy if it's "full of them".
"We must exit this road to ruin - and we have no time to lose," he said in his New Year message, calling for countries to slash emissions of planet-warming gases in 2025."
"Last year's heat is predominantly due to humanity's emissions of planet-warming gases,..."
"The 1.5C figure has become a powerful symbol in international climate negotiations ever since it was agreed in Paris in 2015, with many of the most vulnerable countries considering it a matter of survival."
Many more across article...
I find suggestions for critical action that leads to eliminate individual freedoms, justified by collective guilt, quite obvious in articles about climate and weather like this.
It's a pity you can't quite grasp thermodynamics or Hume though :/
Have you tried reading that 1967 paper on CO2 equilibrium in the atmosphere?
In the spirit of your attitude it's intuitively obvious to the meanest intellect and well covered in courses by the likes of Graham Priest, Dominic Hyde, et al (logical Philosopher types with a grasp of physics and applied math).
The water,land,air interface was *predicted* to warm via thermodynamics arguments.
Leaders made commitments to reduce the insulation causing the warming.
The insulation was not reduced, despite the vows to do so.
The water,land,air interface has warmed, as expected in the absence of reduction in insulation.
Big gas guzzling cars and utility companies building in more gas generators and hiking prices. Yes there is some solar, but it's <5%.
I doubt much will change in next 4 years. Trump and Republicans are very pro carbon fuels.
What do you think the hit to the tech sector will be from the fires in California?
Hollywood is being significantly affected though.
I wasn't trying to suggest it's a major financial hit to the tech industry in California, but every event climate change linked extreme weather event like this does have a negative impact on output and profits.
Earth will be fine with 1/10th the level of humans. I'm not saying I want anyone to die, I'm just saying massive drops in birth rates is fine outside the economics of it.
Earth is for life, not life for Earth.
Do you have kids?
It's a true gem of the internet of the 2010s, and a must-watch for any fan. A bunch of voice actors even started their careers through it!