←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 | 3 comments | 17 Nov 24 18:49 UTC | HN request time: 0.819s | 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 #
1. taeric ◴[17 Nov 24 23:06 UTC] No.42168159[source]▶
I'll add my voice to the complaints on doomerism. Frustrating how much of the discourse is on blame and shame. Ignoring that we have done rather well compared to the bad targets for quite a while.
replies(1): >>42168327 #
2. consteval ◴[17 Nov 24 23:36 UTC] No.42168327[source]▶
When our incoming president proposes to appoint a climate change denier as the head of the Department of Energy and also plans to raise oil subsidies while dissolving subsidies for clean energy, I think perhaps enough shame has not been handed out.

We've let blatant lies and science denial get way too far. We currently have people completely detached from reality running our nation states, and we have droves of people who will believe them when they say the sky is green. From a sociopolitical perspective, it's bad.

replies(1): >>42168388 #
3. taeric ◴[17 Nov 24 23:46 UTC] No.42168388[source]▶
I voted against this administration, and I still think shame is the wrong choice. Agreed we have allowed blatant lies too much leeway. But progress can be had without shame.

I think back to when better lights were hitting the market. People would regularly scold folks for having their current lights on too long. "Just turn your lights out to save energy" was a common view. It was comically misguided, though. Modern lights use a laughably low amount of energy.

Same goes for a lot. People love to complain that things don't last as long. Ignoring that energy use is plummeting on things. It is still largely valid that you should not replace a car on a whim. I think justifying my 2000 truck is getting harder every year.

Granted, to your point, seeing Buttigieg have to defend encouraging electric vehicles was frustrating.

To that end, I'll push it is less shame that is needed, but more accountability. Especially at the leadership level.