News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:For the first time, renewable energy generation beat out ... by goatlover on Sunday April 02, 2023 @12:05PM (#35412017)
Was limiting warning below 2° ever realistic? I can't understand why 1.5° when it was clear to everyone that there was no way in hell that is happening. Why not set a realistic goal and try to figure out the best way to deal with the consequences?
Re:For the first time, renewable energy generation beat out ... by adrianN on Sunday April 02, 2023 @12:27PM (#35412274)
We've known about climate change for at least fifty years now. Every goal we set since then has been "realistic" with considerable effort. Unfortunately we never even attempted to reach them, so we raise the goal by a degree or two every decade or two.
Re:For the first time, renewable energy generation beat out ... by goatlover on Monday April 03, 2023 @12:12AM (#35418474)
Realistic means it's likely people will put considerable effort into achieving said climate goal, not whether it's possible. Everyone on earth could join hands and achieve world peace or governments could decide to pour trillions into terraforming Mars. But neither is likely to happen.
Re:For the first time, renewable energy generation beat out ... by adrianN on Tuesday April 04, 2023 @09:52AM (#35439620)
If you want to lose weight, just setting a goal is insufficient, you have to change your habits too, no matter how unambitious your goal is. It's the same with climate change.
Re:For the first time, renewable energy generation beat out ... by pyrale on Sunday April 02, 2023 @01:48PM (#35413160)
It depends on what you call realistic. If your objection to realism is that it's hard to convince politicians to act on this topic, then 2° is still not very realistic, and the future is likely going to be very bleak.

If it's about having the understanding and technical means to define new targets for our economy in order to reach that goal, even if it means reducing our consumption, then yes, it was a reasonable goal back when we started considering the issue seriously.

Re:For the first time, renewable energy generation beat out ... by goatlover on Monday April 03, 2023 @12:14AM (#35418487)
I don't see how reducing consumption is a realistic goal considering the economic and political fallout from pursuing such reduction. What political parties would be suicidal enough to put such policies into place? When would a majority of the voting public support such goals in most countries, particularly the biggest polluters? Are governments going to keep such policies going once mass protests break out when unemployment hits record highs? We got to see how much people were willing to put up with during the pandemic, and the answer is not that much reduction for very long, at least not the kind that would seriously curb emissions.
Re:For the first time, renewable energy generation beat out ... by pyrale on Monday April 03, 2023 @02:36AM (#35419360)
> Are governments going to keep such policies going once mass protests break out when unemployment hits record highs?

See, that's the difference between an organized society planning this change and just letting it happen.