←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 | 4 comments | 17 Nov 24 18:49 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
oezi ◴[17 Nov 24 19:06 UTC] No.42166179[source]▶
Looking into the numbers a couple if months ago I was surprised how little it costs to stop climate change.

On the order of 100-200 trillion USD. Which is roughly 100-200% of global yearly GDP. Or 2-5% of yearly GDP until 2050. This could well be provided by printing money at all the federal reserve banks.

This investment will likely bring in a positive return on investment because it reduces the negative climate impacts.

Without such investments the downstream costs in climate change adaptation will be very expensive

replies(15): >>42166197 #>>42166228 #>>42166244 #>>42166268 #>>42166281 #>>42166295 #>>42166298 #>>42166311 #>>42166377 #>>42166407 #>>42166458 #>>42166521 #>>42166737 #>>42167052 #>>42167400 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[17 Nov 24 19:11 UTC] No.42166228[source]▶
> investment will likely bring in a positive return on investment because it reduces the negative climate impacts

There is a demographic conflict of interest between those who will be alive in 2050 and those who will not. The long-term gains are difficult to deny. The short-term costs, however, will be massive.

replies(4): >>42166304 #>>42166434 #>>42166454 #>>42166522 #
pstuart ◴[17 Nov 24 19:44 UTC] No.42166522[source]▶
The price of renewables has plunged to be cheaper than fossil fuels, battery tech is improving while prices are dropping, new jobs are created, etc, etc.

Making these changes are investments with real payoff in the near term.

The real impediment is that fossil fuels have made some people incredibly rich, and they are actively fighting these changes to protect their income.

replies(1): >>42168030 #
1. speakfreely ◴[17 Nov 24 22:41 UTC] No.42168030[source]▶
> The price of renewables has plunged to be cheaper than fossil fuels

Is there a source for this? If you're referencing LCOE, remember that does not account for storage costs for intermittent power sources (wind, solar) so it's an incredibly misleading number.

replies(1): >>42170257 #
2. pstuart ◴[18 Nov 24 06:33 UTC] No.42170257[source]▶
First hit on google: https://gasoutlook.com/analysis/u-s-renewable-energy-beats-f....

Roughly parity for LCOE once storage is added.

Battery prices continues to drop and in short order it will be flat out cheaper with storage included: https://rmi.org/the-rise-of-batteries-in-six-charts-and-not-...

Add to that investments in the national grid and general energy efficiency it's doable: https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/100-percent-clean-electricity-...

Again, the only reason to not pursue this is to keep the fossil fuel companies profits flowing, and that isn't very compelling.

replies(2): >>42188361 #>>42188401 #
3. ◴[19 Nov 24 21:37 UTC] No.42188361[source]▶
4. speakfreely ◴[19 Nov 24 21:41 UTC] No.42188401[source]▶
From your link:

> The Lazard study looked at the “cost of firming,” which consists of building extra capacity to back up solar and wind, for example, leading to an increase in total costs. When included, the economic advantage for solar and wind over gas narrows considerably, and in some cases gas at the low end of the cost curve beats out “firm” solar and wind projects, particularly in California where costs of firming are higher.

> The headline LCOE costs look really striking for solar and wind, but when those firming costs are included, renewables “do not look as low-cost as the first LCOE figures imply,” Patiño-Echeverri said.

There doesn't need to be a fossil fuel boogeyman behind every decision to continue the status quo. Sometimes the math is the math. Hopefully that will change in the future.