"Looking forward, the models see red"
November 24, 2015 11:43 AM Subscribe
25 years of climate talk history in one comic: Richard Monastersky & Nick Sousanis explore the history of climate treaty negotiations in Nature's special Paris Climate Talks issue. The goal of the Paris Talks is to limit emissions so that Earth won't warm by more than 2°C, and there are many reasons to be optimistic about the prospects for an agreement - but what will it really take to limit warming to 2°C??
Nuclear accidents came somewhat close to fucking us, too, and if we went nuclear on the scale needed to replace fossil fuel consumption, there would be way, way more chances to fuck up.
posted by grobstein at 12:27 PM on November 24, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by grobstein at 12:27 PM on November 24, 2015 [8 favorites]
We're getting crunched on both sides. More and more I'm seeing evidence that 2°C is unobtainable without unprecedented global effort, because it requires so much emissions reduction across the board. On the other hand, the research keeps popping up that 2°C isn't nearly as safe as we thought it would be.
So we're not going to be able to stop before hitting our target, and the target doesn't prevent things from being as mess anyway. Now we're just trying to fight over the magnitude over the mess.
It gets harder and harder to blame climate deniers anymore. Pretending things aren't going to get ugly sounds inviting at times.
posted by evilangela at 12:39 PM on November 24, 2015
So we're not going to be able to stop before hitting our target, and the target doesn't prevent things from being as mess anyway. Now we're just trying to fight over the magnitude over the mess.
It gets harder and harder to blame climate deniers anymore. Pretending things aren't going to get ugly sounds inviting at times.
posted by evilangela at 12:39 PM on November 24, 2015
... to succeed, an agreement not only has to be rational, it has to be perceived as fair at the table. (NPR, The Psychological Dimension Behind Climate Negotiations)
posted by filthy light thief at 12:55 PM on November 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by filthy light thief at 12:55 PM on November 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
Everything I've read and seen suggests that 2C is virtually impossible, but don't talk about it that way so that hope will still be alive for 4C.
The major developed nations will likely achieve something close to carbon neutrality, but south asia and china, plus wildfires (like malaysia and the US west) and deforestation will more than make up the difference. all projections for mitigation also include carbon scrubbing tech that doesn't yet scale, and the clock, of course, is still ticking.
My son is 11...I struggle to teach him how to prepare for a world so different than ours.
posted by OHenryPacey at 12:55 PM on November 24, 2015 [2 favorites]
The major developed nations will likely achieve something close to carbon neutrality, but south asia and china, plus wildfires (like malaysia and the US west) and deforestation will more than make up the difference. all projections for mitigation also include carbon scrubbing tech that doesn't yet scale, and the clock, of course, is still ticking.
My son is 11...I struggle to teach him how to prepare for a world so different than ours.
posted by OHenryPacey at 12:55 PM on November 24, 2015 [2 favorites]
Nuclear accidents came somewhat close to fucking us, too
More info? I can't think of any nuclear accidents that had any real risk of global catastrophe, and the real big names in nuke fuckups literally couldn't happen today as far as I understand it.
posted by Sternmeyer at 1:07 PM on November 24, 2015 [2 favorites]
More info? I can't think of any nuclear accidents that had any real risk of global catastrophe, and the real big names in nuke fuckups literally couldn't happen today as far as I understand it.
posted by Sternmeyer at 1:07 PM on November 24, 2015 [2 favorites]
sorry kids we fucked the planet #lol #yolo #hotenoughforya
posted by Sebmojo at 1:11 PM on November 24, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Sebmojo at 1:11 PM on November 24, 2015 [2 favorites]
More info? I can't think of any nuclear accidents that had any real risk of global catastrophe, and the real big names in nuke fuckups literally couldn't happen today as far as I understand it.
Haven't looked at this for a while, but a relevant question might be, how many Chernobyls would have to occur to make the average person's life appreciably worse? I think the number is not that high. Chernobyl not only made a sizable region uninhabitable, but dumped excess radiation doses over a much larger area. We can mostly ignore this because it only happened once. If it happened many times, the cumulative effects would change our lives for the worse.
On the question of what could and couldn't happen today, first note that the scenario proposed upthread is retroactively dated to 50 years ago.
More importantly, what can and can't go wrong is a function of the resources you can put into ensuring that nothing goes wrong. Part of the reason we have the level of nuclear safety we have today is because nuclear power is not that widespread. Almost all plants are operated in very rich countries or with technical assistance from very rich countries. This has the happy side effect that the operators of these plants can afford a high level of regulation and safety monitoring.
If we open enough nuclear power plants to replace fossil fuels, then there will be plants operating in approximately every country. There will be many, many plants whose generation output can't pay for the level of materials security and general safety that characterizes plants in the US or Germany or Japan, today. There will be many, many plants under the supervision of governments that lack anything approaching the technical savvy of nuclear regulators in the current developed world.
It seems to me that a disaster that couldn't happen to a modern nuclear plant in the US or Germany very well could happen at any of hundreds of plants in a world where nuclear power has replaced fossil fuels.
posted by grobstein at 1:54 PM on November 24, 2015 [6 favorites]
Haven't looked at this for a while, but a relevant question might be, how many Chernobyls would have to occur to make the average person's life appreciably worse? I think the number is not that high. Chernobyl not only made a sizable region uninhabitable, but dumped excess radiation doses over a much larger area. We can mostly ignore this because it only happened once. If it happened many times, the cumulative effects would change our lives for the worse.
On the question of what could and couldn't happen today, first note that the scenario proposed upthread is retroactively dated to 50 years ago.
More importantly, what can and can't go wrong is a function of the resources you can put into ensuring that nothing goes wrong. Part of the reason we have the level of nuclear safety we have today is because nuclear power is not that widespread. Almost all plants are operated in very rich countries or with technical assistance from very rich countries. This has the happy side effect that the operators of these plants can afford a high level of regulation and safety monitoring.
If we open enough nuclear power plants to replace fossil fuels, then there will be plants operating in approximately every country. There will be many, many plants whose generation output can't pay for the level of materials security and general safety that characterizes plants in the US or Germany or Japan, today. There will be many, many plants under the supervision of governments that lack anything approaching the technical savvy of nuclear regulators in the current developed world.
It seems to me that a disaster that couldn't happen to a modern nuclear plant in the US or Germany very well could happen at any of hundreds of plants in a world where nuclear power has replaced fossil fuels.
posted by grobstein at 1:54 PM on November 24, 2015 [6 favorites]
While I am a huge booster of nuclear power, I think that grobstein is missing an even bigger issue with going global with nuclear power- once you have a steady stream of nuclear material going in and out of some of the poorer countries, it becomes easier to acquire the materials needed for at least a dirty bomb and maybe a true nuke. The only way to control that sort of thing would be an agency with authority over all the governments that could go in with unplanned inspections and actually take steps to control things. An IAEA with police powers. Which got scotched by the Americans and Soviets back in the 50's.
Chernobyl is an extreme case, it's more how many Fukushimas you are willing to tolerate. Personally, given that coal plants actually spew more radiation into the atmosphere than a nuclear plant creates in waste, my tolerance is high. I'd love the US to kill the coal industry and switch to nuclear power. I'm not so sure about people like our good friend(s) theShah or Iran Saudi Royal Family.
posted by Hactar at 2:07 PM on November 24, 2015 [7 favorites]
Chernobyl is an extreme case, it's more how many Fukushimas you are willing to tolerate. Personally, given that coal plants actually spew more radiation into the atmosphere than a nuclear plant creates in waste, my tolerance is high. I'd love the US to kill the coal industry and switch to nuclear power. I'm not so sure about people like our good friend(s) the
posted by Hactar at 2:07 PM on November 24, 2015 [7 favorites]
Also the increase in natural disasters will further threaten nuclear power containment and storage of waste. See Fukishima.
posted by agregoli at 2:08 PM on November 24, 2015
posted by agregoli at 2:08 PM on November 24, 2015
2C is not happening. It is decades too late to meet that goal.
IMO we're going to see things rapidly go exponential. Do your dreams now, folks. Enjoy the next decade while you can, because it's going to be really shitty really soon.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:11 PM on November 24, 2015 [4 favorites]
IMO we're going to see things rapidly go exponential. Do your dreams now, folks. Enjoy the next decade while you can, because it's going to be really shitty really soon.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:11 PM on November 24, 2015 [4 favorites]
Going back fifty years and transitioning every developed country immediately over to nuclear power.
Taking zero population growth more seriously would have helped immensely as well. It does seem like global population will peak ~2050, but there may be around 11 billion humans contributing to the Holocene extinction event and anthropogenic climate change. There were only around 3 billion of us 50 years ago.
posted by Thoughtcrime at 2:28 PM on November 24, 2015 [5 favorites]
Taking zero population growth more seriously would have helped immensely as well. It does seem like global population will peak ~2050, but there may be around 11 billion humans contributing to the Holocene extinction event and anthropogenic climate change. There were only around 3 billion of us 50 years ago.
posted by Thoughtcrime at 2:28 PM on November 24, 2015 [5 favorites]
2C is not happening. It is decades too late to meet that goal.
I think that if they asked for 4C, they might get 8C, so I'd rather they ask for 2C if it means we're more likely to actually achieve 4C. Asking everyone to commit to anything lower wouldn't make any sense to the people who see it as the actual goal.
posted by VTX at 2:39 PM on November 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think that if they asked for 4C, they might get 8C, so I'd rather they ask for 2C if it means we're more likely to actually achieve 4C. Asking everyone to commit to anything lower wouldn't make any sense to the people who see it as the actual goal.
posted by VTX at 2:39 PM on November 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
but..but...but effficiency Jevon's Paradox ......Consume More and Conserve more!
posted by lalochezia at 2:50 PM on November 24, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by lalochezia at 2:50 PM on November 24, 2015 [2 favorites]
Things are going to start happening pretty fast now.
posted by MrVisible at 5:21 PM on November 24, 2015
posted by MrVisible at 5:21 PM on November 24, 2015
Yet another article about climate change and CO2 levels and such that never once mentions the commitment to warming that we already have with the CO2 currently in the atmosphere.
I mean, I'm sure these things are being discussed by intelligent people who have a nuanced view of the subject matter, but can't the secondary reporting for it EVER mention that, even if we cut all emissions to zero around the world, like, TODAY, by some miracle... we still have 20-50 years of increasing warming of the atmosphere simply because of the delayed effect of its presence?
The CO2 we're experiencing the effects of now was mostly all released 20-30 years ago. The charts and the discussion in the last link in the FPP give the impression (without stating it explicitly) that there's this moment where All The Charts Go Down.
But I note they never once put temps on one of those charts.
posted by hippybear at 1:53 AM on November 25, 2015 [2 favorites]
I mean, I'm sure these things are being discussed by intelligent people who have a nuanced view of the subject matter, but can't the secondary reporting for it EVER mention that, even if we cut all emissions to zero around the world, like, TODAY, by some miracle... we still have 20-50 years of increasing warming of the atmosphere simply because of the delayed effect of its presence?
The CO2 we're experiencing the effects of now was mostly all released 20-30 years ago. The charts and the discussion in the last link in the FPP give the impression (without stating it explicitly) that there's this moment where All The Charts Go Down.
But I note they never once put temps on one of those charts.
posted by hippybear at 1:53 AM on November 25, 2015 [2 favorites]
That's a really good point. If people start feeling the effects and then realize that the stuff causing what we're feeling today is coming from emissions from 30 years ago, they might realize have that "oh shit" moment and they'll realize how important it is that we work on this right fucking now while we're still just setting record highs at a 2:1 ratio to record lows.
posted by VTX at 3:42 PM on November 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by VTX at 3:42 PM on November 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
Paris climate summit: Earth may warm by 6°C – even with a deal
posted by jeffburdges at 7:31 AM on December 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by jeffburdges at 7:31 AM on December 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
« Older Minimum Viable Planet | The Gossamer Pleasures of Faerie Magazine Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Going back fifty years and transitioning every developed country immediately over to nuclear power. At this point time travel becoming a reality seems more feasible than the world coming together, agreeing to carbon limits, and then actually sticking to them.
Anti-nuclear hysteria pretty much fucked us.
posted by Talez at 12:23 PM on November 24, 2015 [9 favorites]