Climate change prevention plans 'way off track', says UN
- Reference: 1663164931
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2022/09/14/climate_change_prevention_plans_way/
- Source link:
The [1]United In Science 2022 report from the UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said that, despite a litany of pledges from countries promising to halve their carbon outputs by 2030 in line with the Paris Agreement, little is being accomplished.
"Climate science is clear: we are heading in the wrong direction," the WMO [2]said .
Paris in the rear-view mirror
According to the report, carbon emissions now exceed pre-pandemic levels, suggesting that emissions are getting worse, not better. To compound the issue, reduction in emissions during the pandemic had little impact on the growth of atmospheric concentrations of CO 2 , which refers to the amount remaining in the atmosphere after plants and the ocean have absorbed their part.
The world's oceans, which store some 90 percent of Earth's accumulated heat, may be reaching the extent of what they're capable of, too. Per the report, ocean heat content in the years stretching from 2018 and 2022 was higher than any other five-year period. The WMO said that the growth in ocean heat has been particularly fast in the past two decades.
[3]
The Paris Agreement's stated goal is to keep the world from warming up more than another 1.5°C (approximately 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels, which is where the sevenfold figure cited earlier comes from: If the 1.5°C goal is to be met, carbon reduction rates need to be seven times faster.
[4]
[5]
If the world is to prevent itself from breaking a [6]2°C of warming threshold, the Paris Agreement's fallback plan, decarbonization efforts still need to be four times more ambitious than they are today, the report said.
[7]Twitter datacenter melted down in Labor Day heat
[8]CERN draws up shutdown plans to save energy
[9]California asks people not to charge EVs during heatwave
[10]Lessons to be learned from Google and Oracle's datacenter heatstroke
If current policies are maintained, the report said that there's a 66 percent chance that global warming could increase by a mean of 2.8°C, although that would be reduction to 2.5°C "if new or updated pledges are fully implemented." This isn't a problem in one country, the WMO said, but a collective failure.
The effects of climate change continue to be felt around the world. In just the past few months, a severe UK heatwave [11]knocked out Google and Oracle datacenters and left [12]NHS systems offline , while California's government told residents [13]not to charge EVs due to heat-related stress on the grid - and [14]China shut down factories in Sichuan for the same reason.
"Floods, droughts, heatwaves, extreme storms and wildfires are going from bad to worse, breaking records with alarming frequency. They are the price of humanity's fossil fuel addiction," said UN secretary-general António Guterres.
[15]
With prevention slipping out of reach, the report shifts its conclusion to discussing adaptations to climate change, like early warning systems for extreme weather. The UN said it's launching an initiative to deploy early warning systems globally in the next five years - not exactly a reassuring sign for those hoping to meet climate change goals. ®
Get our [16]Tech Resources
[1] https://public.wmo.int/en/resources/united_in_science
[2] https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/united-science-we-are-heading-wrong-direction
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YyH6prGzo0k2w6H68s2xeAAAAIc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YyH6prGzo0k2w6H68s2xeAAAAIc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YyH6prGzo0k2w6H68s2xeAAAAIc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2013/05/29/warming_6degc_unlikely_2degc_nearly_certain/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2022/09/13/twitter_datacenter_labor_heat/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2022/09/07/cern_draws_up_shutdown_plans/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2022/09/01/california_ev_heatwave/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2022/08/22/google_oracle_heatstroke/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2022/08/22/google_oracle_heatstroke/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/22/hospital_it_meltdown/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2022/09/01/california_ev_heatwave/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2022/08/16/china_heatwave_factory_shutdowns/
[15] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YyH6prGzo0k2w6H68s2xeAAAAIc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[16] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Thought about using nuclear?
Here's a great article from today, which explains why and has some lovely maths and physics to boot.
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/eu-physics-denial-has-come-home-to
It's hard to fault it, but if anyone can then please point out the errors because I've missed them all.
Re: Thought about using nuclear?
A post by someone who's never heard of pumped storage. Nice.
Re: Thought about using nuclear?
That article has enough snark that it cannot convince anyone who isn't convinced already. Also, I can't help noticing a whiff of conspiracy theory, and its comments well reflect that.
All of that said, it isn't wrong. We should have gone nuclear twenty years ago, and, having failed at that, we should go nuclear right now. All politicians in the big parties know this; most of them are not stupid.
Unfortunately, not only public opinion doesn't like nuclear much, but there are small-but-significant numbers of people who hate it beyond any reason, and who would happily vote against all their other interests in order to stop anyone who intends to build nukes. This makes being openly pro-nuke extremely difficult, if you want to actually get elected to anything, because as soon as you bring it up, your opponent can attack you on it with a decent profit, and most really important elections are played on razor-thin margins.
Even just making a media campaign about it would be tough. And, of course, the reluctance of politicians to speak up in favor of nuclear just makes the anti-nuclear message that much stronger, making the nukebad meme essentially self-sustaining.
I honestly don't see any way to get out of this situation. Eventually, the sheer amount of suffering caused by this policy will be enough to force reality down everybody's throat. But it's sad that it would all be entirely avoidable.
Personally, I'm going to build a PV+battery system on my roof, as big as I can afford it. It's fucking stupid that I have to do this, but I need to at least be able to run a PC in order to work, and I don't know what else I can do to protect myself. The ROI only barely makes sense because of the government incentives and the high cost of energy - but once I factor in the loss of work I'd have to eat from regular blackouts, it's a no brainer. Any hour I can run my PC off the battery is money. My only regret is that I should have built it sooner, but I honestly didn't think that we'd actually get to the point where blackouts are a thing.
Re: Thought about using nuclear?
"I'm going to build a PV+battery system on my roof, as big as I can afford it. It's fucking stupid that I have to do this, but I need to at least be able to run a PC in order to work..."
I'm in a similar situation. I need to keep the lights on in my home office despite extended blackouts. I rent my home however and PV doesn't make sense for the landlord. That's just as well because I've found a cheaper and easier solution: a 1000W power inverter permanently installed in my car. For $350 I have enough power for the home office (and the kitchen refrigerator) that lasts as long as the fuel in the tank does.
I concede that it's not green. But as a renter it's far and away the most cost effective solution I found.
If the goals are so hard to reach, abandon them.
As with everything in life, you have to balance costs and benefits. The costs of having children are HORRENDOUS, yet, in the face of such evidence people keep on making them, so the benefits must outweight the costs.
If the cost of spending seven times as much effort abolishing modern civilisation is worse than the cost of not doing so, then don't do it.
Which is the greater benefit? Not shivering in medival hovels, or preventing Norfolk from flooding?
We could build nuclear plants, and then we could both not shiver in medieval hovels, and also prevent Norfolk from flooding. Even with very pessimistic estimates on costs, waste and accidents, it's still the least-bad alternative. As I said elsewhere, I can't live on irradiated ground, but I also can't live underwater (and/or with no heating in winter).
It seems evident that
Nations will continue on their current paths until climate change is so extreme they can't ignore it any longer, by which time it will be too late to act. We will be past several key tipping points. Tens of millions or even hundreds of millions will die as a result of famine, heat, drought or flooding, take your pick. I don't think the average person realises just how bad things are likely to become, wherever you live in the world. The planet doesn't owe us an existence.
So?
Are they now gonna tell us how many days to save the earth this time?