←back to thread

Humans have caused 1.5 °C of long-term global warming according to new estimates

(www.lancaster.ac.uk)
399 points gmays | 5 comments | 17 Nov 24 18:49 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
abdullahkhalids ◴[17 Nov 24 19:21 UTC] No.42166327[source]▶
The last IPCC report estimates that to limit warming to 2C, humans can only emit at most 1150 GtCO2 (at 67% likelihood) [1].

There are 8.2 billion humans, so about 140tCO2/person left on average. If we assume that we get to net zero by 2050, that means the average person can emit about 5.4tCO2/person/year from today to 2050 (hitting 0tCO2/person/year in 2050). This is what emissions look like currently [2]

    Top 5 countries > 10m population
    Saudi Arabia  22.1t 
    United Arab Emirates 21.6t  
    Australia            14.5t 
    United States  14.3t
    Canada          14.0t
    Some others
    China           8.4t
    Europe 6.7t
    World average 4.7t
    Lower-middle-income countries of 1.6t
    Low-income countries 0.3t
Guess what's going to happen and who is going to suffer, despite not doing anything.

[1] Page 82 https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6...

[2] https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-metrics

replies(8): >>42166357 #>>42166397 #>>42166404 #>>42166583 #>>42167033 #>>42167060 #>>42167078 #>>42167129 #
Aurornis ◴[17 Nov 24 19:31 UTC] No.42166404[source]▶
> that means the average person can emit about 5.4tCO2/person/year from here on out. This is what emissions look like currently

Using a world average target number and then presenting a list that leads with world outliers is misleading. This is the kind of statistical sleight of hand that climate skeptics seize upon to dismiss arguments.

The world average is currently under the target number:

> World average 4.7t

I think you meant to imply that the CO2 emissions of poor countries were going to catch up to other countries, but I don’t think it’s that simple. The global rollout of solar power, battery storage, and cheap EVs is exceeding expectations, for example.

I don’t want to downplay the severity of the situation, but I don’t think this type of fatalistic doomerism is helping. In my experience with people from different walks of life, it’s this type of doomerism that turns them off of the topic entirely.

replies(7): >>42166430 #>>42166512 #>>42166562 #>>42167138 #>>42167254 #>>42167323 #>>42168159 #
jfengel ◴[17 Nov 24 19:43 UTC] No.42166512[source]▶
I believe the causation runs the other way. The IPCC was founded in 1988, when CO2 emissions were 22 gigatons per year. Nearly four decades later it's 40 gt/y, and continuing to rise.

Doomerism is the reaction to our utter failure to even pretend to try. It did not cause that failure. Nor are people looking at the data and going, "yeah, I ought to do something, but people on Hacker News were gloomy so I'm going to buy a bigger SUV instead." EVs and solar and suchlike are much, much, much too little and much, much, much too late.

Doomerism doesn't help, except in the extremely limited sense of helping someone express their frustration. But it also isn't hurting because we'd be doing exactly the same nothing if they were cheerful.

replies(11): >>42166581 #>>42166665 #>>42166716 #>>42166799 #>>42166962 #>>42167006 #>>42167024 #>>42167089 #>>42167459 #>>42168310 #>>42171947 #
1. radicalbyte ◴[17 Nov 24 20:38 UTC] No.42167006{3}[source]▶
We've cut our emissions down massively, our electricity is pure solar, our meat consumption is 30% of what it was and we've flown once in 5 years (and then a fairly short flight). Home heating is still gas but we've halved usage by dropping the temp to 18c (from 21c) and better insulation.

Cars are still petrol but we've gone from 50k km / year to 10k km / year most made in a tiny 1 litre car (the other is a Prius). We don't have enough solar to cover that and the electric mix here is carbon intensive enough that we're better off using the petrol car until it needs replacing before switching to electric.

Hopefully at some point America will start taking their emissions seriously; it's crazy that you guys are so inefficient.

replies(1): >>42167294 #
2. gtvwill ◴[17 Nov 24 21:11 UTC] No.42167294[source]▶
Eh it's not actually you that needs to change all that much but more industrial processes need to be change. E.g. I worked on a exploration drill rig that hunted gold core. We burnt well over 400,000 litres of diesel a year keeping that thing running. Closer to 500,000 after you count all the fuel burnt to keep the operator alive, fed and transported. 1 rig. It looked for gold that mostly didn't end up in electronics.

Arguably it provided bugger all actual physical good for society in return for its consumption. It got some fat cats rich and employed a half dozen humans. It consumed insane amounts of resources.

Your consumption is nothing compared to these ends of industry, they just try and make you think it does. Industrial industries worldwide need drastic changes.

replies(3): >>42171104 #>>42171891 #>>42184277 #
3. ◴[18 Nov 24 10:00 UTC] No.42171104[source]▶
4. ralphhughes ◴[18 Nov 24 12:50 UTC] No.42171891[source]▶
I assume all that diesel went straight into a generator for electricity? So in your opinion, could the drill rig have added a trailer full of fold out solar panels and battery storage and still functioned? (I know nothing about drilling for gold, just curious)
5. radicalbyte ◴[19 Nov 24 15:13 UTC] No.42184277[source]▶
Whilst I agree with you that the major changes need to come from industry, there absolutely is a level of personal responsibility. Most people shouldn't drive an SUV or eat a lot of red meat. They need to change.

I need to cut meat (and food) consumption and cut reductions from our heating. Also as I do want to travel in ways which are not workable without flying (too much of the world to see).