News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Extinction Rebellion: Nuclear power 'only option' says fo... by ClumsyPilot on Friday September 11, 2020 @06:09AM (#24440998)
Most people have no idea how fucked we actually are.

What happens after 2050? Climate change continues, even if the world goes completely carbon neutral. Economic damage continues.

Read the report, the only way to keep to 2 degrees is to pull carbon out of the atmosphere. The sequestation industry would have to be larger than the oil industry was at its peak.

Given that we can't even switch to renewables and plant trees, what are the odds we will subsidise an enormous industry to fix the atmosphere?

Re:Extinction Rebellion: Nuclear power 'only option' says fo... by zpeti on Friday September 11, 2020 @06:43AM (#24441220)
Actually, another interesting argument that gets ignored is that global warming is not proportional to emissions. You need exponential increase in emissions for a linear increase in warming. Therefore since we are actually close to starting to reduce our emissions, global warming will probably peak and then cool.

This is also in the IPCC's report, but gets ignored everywhere.

Reading LT3000s post on this is very insightful: https://lt3000.blogspot.com/2019/11/contrarianism-esg-invest...

Re:Extinction Rebellion: Nuclear power 'only option' says fo... by ClumsyPilot on Friday September 11, 2020 @07:35AM (#24441570)
While technically correct (except cooling), that insight is of limited value.

Eating habbits are a great parallel - I have been gaining weight during lockdown, and discussed it with a friend, and he replied "don't worry, you will only reach a certain weight and then stop growing." Well, thats true, but I don't want to reach equilibrium of 150kg. Similarly, 2 degrees is the point we will reach in 2050, the global equilibroum will be much higher. We will reach it asymptotically, but that doesnt help.

There will be no cooling, because the CO2 level in the atmosphere dictates the equilibrium point.

Further to the post, it is interesting but gives the impression of renewable technology as if we are still in the 70's. Firstly, coal is not neccessary, we have steel production with hydrogen instead of coal. Secondly, US is massively behind other developed nations, coal is gone or dissapearing from power generation of most major economies within 5 years.

Lastly it claims EU's carbon price is damaging for the economy, but thats a ridiculous claim - the price is absolutely miniscule. $25 means an average cost of ~150 per head per year. Thats nothing! Lastly, that money doesn't dissapear, it funds infrastructure, so we can reduce taxes elsewhere.