Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Blueprints For Taming the Climate Crisis

Soulskill posted about two weeks ago | from the pump-all-of-our-smog-into-the-sun dept.

Earth 389

mdsolar sends this story from the NY Times: Here's what your future will look like if we are to have a shot at preventing devastating climate change. Within about 15 years every new car sold in the United States will be electric. ... Up to 60 percent of power might come from nuclear sources. And coal's footprint will shrink drastically, perhaps even disappear from the power supply. This course, created by a team of energy experts, was unveiled on Tuesday in a report for the United Nations (PDF) that explores the technological paths available for the world's 15 main economies to both maintain reasonable rates of growth and cut their carbon emissions enough by 2050 to prevent climatic havoc. It offers a sobering conclusion: We might be able to pull it off. But it will take an overhaul of the way we use energy, and a huge investment in the development and deployment of new energy technologies. Significantly, it calls for an entirely different approach to international diplomacy on the issue of how to combat climate change.

cancel ×

389 comments

Climate Change on Slashdot? Bring on the fun! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47417681)

I look forward to the enlightened, reasonable debate to follow. Please chain down your chairs and pop some popcorn.

Re:Climate Change on Slashdot? Bring on the fun! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47417727)

If cows didn't fart so much we wouldn't be in this mess.

Re:Climate Change on Slashdot? Bring on the fun! (3, Informative)

X0563511 (793323) | about two weeks ago | (#47417837)

If we didn't rear so many of them, the mess we're in might not be quite as bad as it is.

Re:Climate Change on Slashdot? Bring on the fun! (1)

RenderSeven (938535) | about two weeks ago | (#47418017)

Take my incandescent light bulbs, take my SUV, take my hour-long commutes (please!), and take my semi-comfy-62-degree home heating, but keep your f**king hands off my f**king Big Mac!

Re:Climate Change on Slashdot? Bring on the fun! (1)

Sarius64 (880298) | about two weeks ago | (#47418133)

More fracking please! The UK Government agrees: Fracking UK shale: climate change [www.gov.uk] .

Re:Climate Change on Slashdot? Bring on the fun! (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about two weeks ago | (#47418181)

So, you're saying we should eat more of them?

Re:Climate Change on Slashdot? Bring on the fun! (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | about two weeks ago | (#47418291)

Are there really more methane-producing animals than there would be if there were no humans? Cows, buffaloes, deer, any other farting animals? I might be wrong, but it seems implausible that we would be responsible for the fact that there are now too many animals on the planet, quite the contrary. I do believe that we are responsible for the disappearance of vast amounts of forest that used to turn all these farts back into oxygen.

Re:Climate Change on Slashdot? Bring on the fun! (1)

Bardez (915334) | about two weeks ago | (#47418057)

That was the punchline of a SeaQuest episode's (Whale Song [tv.com] ) sub-plot. Cattle was outlawed due to excessive flatulence.

DGW Dinsaurogenic Global Warming - crisis of time (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47417685)

The Jurassic period. O2 in atmosphere 130% modern levels. CO2 is 1950ppm, 5-7 times modern levels. Temperature a WHOLE 3 DEGREES C over modern times â" Oh noes!! The Jurassic DGW, Dinsaurogenic Global Warming, shows that those Dinosaurs with their Airplanes and Cars and stuff, you know, those Dinosaurs and their DGW destroyed THE WHOLE PLANET!! With their DGW! Look, who wants 26% atmospheric oxygen? More air to breathe? Who wants that! And who wants more CO2 @1950 ppm, you know, to make all those plants and trees convert that CO2 into a higher O2! Who wants that! And we DON'T want the massive biodiversity of the Jurassic, no, we don't want more plants and animals and trees, no.

Any time period they want to "prove" this they just cherry pick ranges. And they have the perfect example, the Dinosaurs and their horrible DGW, Disnosauric Global Warming, destroyed the Jurassic - wait, no , it didn't, it was the best time for life on earth with 1950 ppm CO2!

Another Cult of the Church of Climatology propaganda piece.

Tsarkon Reports

Re:DGW Dinsaurogenic Global Warming - crisis of ti (5, Informative)

i kan reed (749298) | about two weeks ago | (#47417725)

Did you bother to note the rather important fact that none of our modern crop foods were alive during that time period. Adaptation of plant and animal life to major geologic changes doesn't happen in a century.

The problem we face isn't one of extinction of life on earth, but the inviability of meta-stable ecosystems we and our economies rely on.

Re:DGW Dinsaurogenic Global Warming - crisis of ti (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47417741)

Got it. The jurassic plants like CO2, but the ones we eat and use today dont. Sure. Right. Yeah, you nailed it Al Goreleone.

Re:DGW Dinsaurogenic Global Warming - crisis of ti (3, Interesting)

i kan reed (749298) | about two weeks ago | (#47417891)

Let's just pretend for a moment the answer to that question isn't yes [tutorvista.com]

That wasn't even the point being made. It's the temperatures that are the threat to modern forms of plant, not CO2 concentration. Any farmer will tell you about the importance of climate to growing a particular crop.

Re:DGW Dinsaurogenic Global Warming - crisis of ti (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47417941)

So now you're a farming expert, a dinosaur expert, a weather expert and a climate expert.

Wow, how many PHDs you got, bro?

Re:DGW Dinsaurogenic Global Warming - crisis of ti (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about two weeks ago | (#47418033)

Oh yes, do show me what data I cited was wrong.

Please. Please, absolutely do.

I get that every time facts come in it makes you look like a bumbling idiot, and you object to that, but come on.

You make up an excuse, it's relatively easily demonstrated to fantasy, and you demand credentials, as if credentials were what was missing from the climate science side.

Re:DGW Dinsaurogenic Global Warming - crisis of ti (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47418165)

Don't feed the troll.

captcha: feeders :)

Re:DGW Dinsaurogenic Global Warming - crisis of ti (1)

Grow Old Timber (1071718) | about two weeks ago | (#47418365)

And WHO is this anonymous coward that refutes everyone (the experts) here? Probably paid to be a pain in the ass of any change.org er .com It's pretty simple we should have raised the petrol tax on ourselves, like Europe did 20 yrs ago to pay for the mass transit... Instead we waited for wall street oil investors to tax us into less freedom of the road. THEY are the deniers. Yes give us a walking lifestyle. Less cars more health. I am living it and it is great. Less consumption is rewarding in itself! Be free from the nay sayers and show the world we can be better.

Re:DGW Dinsaurogenic Global Warming - crisis of ti (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47418255)

I started by stating historical facts. Unless you dispute what we know about the Jurassic now as well?

You have many times in recent history, epochs and eons ago that make your stupid, alarmist drivel a clear ploy to erect a totalitarian regime to control all behavior.

And you know what I'm going to say? FUCK YOU, and MOLON LABE, MOTHERFUCKER.

You motherfuckers are getting close to crossing your last line.

And if I ever find people like you working for me or trying to sell me shit, Im going to fire you and not give you any money. You little worm fuck. You fucking fat piece of shit video game playing puke motherfucker asshole cunt.

Take that and shove it in your ass and give the tailpipe of your fucking prius a blow job while its hot.

Talk Radio rhetoric (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47418075)

Got it. The jurassic plants like CO2, but the ones we eat and use today dont. Sure. Right. Yeah, you nailed it Al Goreleone.

The misrepresentation, half truth and putting Al Gore in there are all signs of vapid Talk Radio propaganda.

I know because I used to be in that environment.

Let's examine the parent's statement.

1. State a fact: "jurassic plants like CO2" - which sucks in people.

2. "the ones we eat and use today dont" - complete lie in this case (not even a half truth which is usually the case). Now the typical unsophisticated talk radio listener will think, "Well 1 is true so 2 is true."

"Sure. Right." - sarcasm to suck in them in.

" Yeah, you nailed it Al Goreleone" - bring in the talk radio's environmental symbol. Which by the way, Al Gore is only an environmentalist in talk radio's eyes.

See folks. That's how they do it basically. It's the same formula that used in advertising. Here's Sean Hannity's:

1. Tell a truth.

2. Usually there's a half truth.

3. Outright lie.

4. Blame Liberals.

5. Tell audience that they listen to him because they are smarter than average people. No really, listen to his show sometime.

Re:Talk Radio rhetoric (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47418189)

Yes, and because of all of the above, being true in all ways, we need a totalitarian dictatorial police state to make sure we are all green.

I love how you people "help" me so much. Its like pointing a police state gun in my face is a sign of your love!

Re:DGW Dinsaurogenic Global Warming - crisis of ti (1)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | about two weeks ago | (#47417739)

Yup, but we're talking about dynamic changes, it'll change far faster than it ever has before, and the systems we depend on to survive may not like it.

But hey, whatever, what's really important is creating a society that funnels all wealth to a lucky few while the rest willingly do so and try to kill each other for the privilege.

Re:DGW Dinsaurogenic Global Warming - crisis of ti (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47418205)

If a minority of people create most of the wealth then most of the wealth will be in the hands of a minority.

Re:DGW Dinsaurogenic Global Warming - crisis of ti (1)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | about two weeks ago | (#47418419)

You keep telling yourself that. These wealth creators obviously would never game the system, lie, cheat or steal, right?

And what happened to the amazing productivity we all supposedly have? You know, from our technology? How come if we all are so productive, only a few of us are rich?

Tell me, what is "wealth"? Is it material possessions? Food in the fridge?

Or paper constructs that allow you to game the system?

Re:DGW Dinsaurogenic Global Warming - crisis of ti (1)

emagery (914122) | about two weeks ago | (#47417743)

Sigh; and the permian was similar (in fact, was the source of much of the fossil fuels we use now.) And yet, a far milder jolt on their climate wiped up 95% of all life the likes of which the world took ages to recover from. The nature of any given climate is of academic interest; the problem is in how fast it changes... and it's happening a lot faster now (we've done in just 200 years what took a million then) than during the world's worst known extinction level event.

Re:DGW Dinsaurogenic Global Warming - crisis of ti (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47417789)

So the dinosaurs cause the climate change then, and we are doing it now! Right, thanks for clearing that up.

I wonder if caveman farting caused the last iceage to stop. I should ask you, you know for a fact everything.

Re:DGW Dinsaurogenic Global Warming - crisis of ti (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47417879)

you're a fucking idiot

the planet will survive just fine and life will always go one. it's US, HUMAN BEINGS, that we are concerned about here.

Re:DGW Dinsaurogenic Global Warming - crisis of ti (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47417905)

Im looking forward to your totalitarian police state to control every breath (CO2 alarm) from cradle to grave to make sure you and your police state help me and the human race survive.

I live in Montana. I'm looking forward to it. (3, Interesting)

vinn (4370) | about two weeks ago | (#47417695)

I live in Montana and I'm rather looking forward to global warming. This place is gonna be even more amazing when it gets warmer. I might even have to buy a summer home in the Yukon.

On a slightly more serious note, as Winston Churchill once said, "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."

Re:I live in Montana. I'm looking forward to it. (2)

akma (22089) | about two weeks ago | (#47417747)

You're screwed. The NOAA's data shows cooling. Invest in a thicker coat.

Re:I live in Montana. I'm looking forward to it. (1)

ahoffer0 (1372847) | about two weeks ago | (#47417865)

You're screwed. The NOAA's data shows cooling. Invest in a thicker coat.

Or cows with more flatulence

Re:I live in Montana. I'm looking forward to it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47417875)

Yeah, here's what "cooling" looks like.

http://ourchangingclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/global_temp_yearly_p1_smthbin11_2.png

Re:I live in Montana. I'm looking forward to it. (1)

Bodhammer (559311) | about two weeks ago | (#47417955)

Actually, it looks like this: https://wattsupwiththat.files.... [wordpress.com]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja... [forbes.com]

Re:I live in Montana. I'm looking forward to it. (3, Informative)

i kan reed (749298) | about two weeks ago | (#47418073)

Citing a proven liar, ex TV weatherman's (who has less formal meteorological education than I have) wordpress blog.

Just saying. Oh, and paid shill. Let's not forget that he gets paid money to maintain a specific position.

Re:I live in Montana. I'm looking forward to it. (1)

Bodhammer (559311) | about two weeks ago | (#47418175)

Here is the data: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/ [noaa.gov]

Re:I live in Montana. I'm looking forward to it. (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about two weeks ago | (#47417953)

Well, keep in mind that that phenomenon is tightly coupled with the melting of the arctic and how cold air blows around North America a bit more. Presumably once there's no more Antarctica left, they're get to join the rest of the world in unseasonable droughts.

WhatGoes Around (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47417711)

From tear down the Nukes, to build up the Nukes. I wish people would make up their minds.

Re:WhatGoes Around (2)

i kan reed (749298) | about two weeks ago | (#47417777)

I have a crazy proposition for you:

There are multiple human beings who identify themselves as environmentalists, and not all are as informed as others. And not all are as spirited as others. And contradictions can arise within a community, as ideas struggle for dominance.

Re:WhatGoes Around (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47417923)

as ideas struggle for dominance.

Dissent and anything other than blind acceptance of dogma will not be tolerated [slashdot.org] .

Re:WhatGoes Around (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about two weeks ago | (#47418089)

Oh look, libel suit gets ruled correctly. Liars allies invent new lies to justify old lies.

Re:WhatGoes Around (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about two weeks ago | (#47418117)

Nukes are unfortunately the only realistic answer in the short (100ish or so years) to solve this problem. Believe me, I *hate* nuclear, but I'm willing to realize that it's the lesser of short term evils at this point. Considering the massive damage climate change is going to wreak...it's not a high bar to be 'better' than that...

Or (3, Insightful)

sexconker (1179573) | about two weeks ago | (#47417713)

How about we just use nuclear power for most cases because it's more efficient, safer, etc.?
How about we just use electric cars for most cases because they're simpler, more efficient, etc.?
How about we just stop using coal because it's fucking terrible all around?

Why do we need a climate change bullshit bogey man to get politicians to stop blocking natural progress?

Re:Or (2)

i kan reed (749298) | about two weeks ago | (#47417811)

Because:

1. The status quo is a powerful force on both an economy and politics
2. Debating real facts about the effects of certain types of human activity is important
3. You don't know what "bogey man" means.
4. Because coal is cheaper in the short term, not accounting for externalities, and climate change is becoming increasingly clear as an important one

Re:Or (2)

X0563511 (793323) | about two weeks ago | (#47417869)

5. Because everyone (for some hidden away more so than others) is a pyromaniac at heart, and FIRE!

Re:Or (0)

sexconker (1179573) | about two weeks ago | (#47417909)

What "real facts" are those? There has not been a single climate model put out by anyone ever that has predicted Earth's climate with any degree of accuracy for any decent amount of time. There has been no experimentation against a nullable hypothesis.

I do know what bogey man means, and I used it correctly.

"Because coal is cheaper in the short term, not accounting for externalities" 10 is more than 20, if you ignore 15 out of the 20.

Climate change isn't an important externality, it's bullshit. And that fact is becoming increasingly clear to the public.

Re:Or (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about two weeks ago | (#47418051)

What is a "nullable hypothesis"?

Re:Or (2)

blue9steel (2758287) | about two weeks ago | (#47418387)

Climate change isn't an important externality, it's bullshit. And that fact is becoming increasingly clear to the public.

Even if that were true there are plenty of other externalized costs for coal. Here is a short list: Health problems caused by coal dust and fly ash, radioactive carbon-14 being spewed all over the place, atrocious mining practices that pretty much destroy the entire area, mercury pollution and sulfur dioxide emissions just to name a few.

True, there are no completely clean power sources but coal is pretty much the worst. The correct answer would be to create an externalized costs tax and apply it to all sources of power generation based on their various impacts then let the market sort it out.

Re:Or (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about two weeks ago | (#47417821)

Why do we need a climate change bullshit bogey man to get politicians to stop blocking natural progress?

Well, mostly because you dropped an even bigger bogeyman into your argument - "nuclear". That word produces even more hysteria and foaming at the mouth than AGW does. By different people, mind you, since the people generally doing the most yelling that we need to do something about AGW tend to be the ones who panic at the thought of anything nuclear....

Re:Or (2)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about two weeks ago | (#47417961)

How about we just use nuclear power for most cases because it's more efficient, safer, etc.?

Something tells me that the West won't exactly be thrilled with the idea of giving nuclear technology to every two-bit dictator and unstable, terrorist-haven, shithole country in the world--even if they pinky-promise never to upgrade their centrifuges to produce weapons-grade material.

Re:Or (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47418095)

How about we just stop using coal because it's fucking terrible all around?

Because coal isn't terrible all around. Your terrible might be my joy. Suppose you could burn coal, sell electricity, and have someone else (important: we're talking about someone who isn't you) bear the CO2-related expenses? Free money. That's not terribly, that's awesome. For you.

Re:Or (1)

daninaustin (985354) | about two weeks ago | (#47418157)

1. I'm not against nuclear but i'm not sure it's more efficient or safer than natural gas. Part of this may be due to the obstacles put in place by the enviromentalists, but it's a reality. 2. Electric cars may be simpler but with the current state of batteries it's doubtful they are actually more efficient. There is a reason they are so expensive. This wil l change and they will eventually take over (may be soon.) 3. Coal isn't all terrible. It's very cheap and we have a lot. It produces a LOT of energy that we can't easily ignore. Don't tell me to conserve energy when we have 60+ days over 100 degrees...

Re:Or (2)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about two weeks ago | (#47418177)

Nuclear isn't safer. It's only 'safer' until something goes wrong. Every reactor built was built 'to never fail' and yet we found ways to make them fail. New reactor designs may be 'more' resilient to our innate ability to screw something up, but that doesn't make it 'safer'.

Coal has massive 'operational' issues. It's failure scenarios are pretty mundane and localized.

Nuclear has some operational issues (storing waste being the biggest) but the failure issues are the big ones. They occur infrequently but unlike every single other source of fuel, render 100s of square miles uninhabitable for decades. Nothing else has that problem.

Re:Or (2)

Jawnn (445279) | about two weeks ago | (#47418257)

Why do we need a climate change bullshit bogey man to get politicians to stop blocking natural progress?

You keep using that word. I do not thing that it means what you think it means.

Nuclear can be OK if... (1)

VernonNemitz (581327) | about two weeks ago | (#47417721)

If we concentrate on fusion, not fission. Today there are a number of researchers who think that the theoretical problems of fusion have been solved enough that all we need to do is invest money in actual hardware. But the existing entrenched interests keep opposing such investments. Well, that's what THEY say, anyway. But they are certainly right that fusion, when perfected, will be less problematic than fission, especially with regard to wastes.

Too late. Fission 80,000 times safer than hydroele (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about two weeks ago | (#47417881)

Fusion will be great when and if it happens. California will probably be underwater by then, at least if you believe in the boogeyman version of global warming.

In order to survive long enough to eventually develop some amazing energy source, we need to take action now, using power plant designs we can ramp up today and have reliable energy. Natural gas releases half as much CO2 as coal, so that's one improvement. Nuclear fission is awesome except for the worries about safety. Well, we've had nuclear for many years, and we've had other options, such as coal and hydroelectric for many years. Our experience shows that coal and hydroelectric both kill hundreds of thousands as times as many people as nuclear. Nuclear power has killed about 5 people, while just one hydroelectric dam failure killed 170,000 at Banqiao. So the "problem" with fission is indeed the WORRIES about safety - the actual safety is far better than any alternative.

Re:Too late. Fission 80,000 times safer than hydro (0)

Major Blud (789630) | about two weeks ago | (#47418115)

"Nuclear power has killed about 5 people"

Although I agree with you on fission, you may have forgotten about this nasty incident:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Too late. Fission 80,000 times safer than hydro (1)

daninaustin (985354) | about two weeks ago | (#47418167)

Fusion is the energy of tomorrow... and always will be

Re:Too late. Fission 80,000 times safer than hydro (1)

NotInHere (3654617) | about two weeks ago | (#47418321)

The problem about nuclear is not about how many people it has killed, but about how many it will kill.

Some people want to hide nuclear waste deep in the mountains, hoping it doesn't harm them. I think this is a very stupid thing to do, as one day perhaps we will figure out how to get rid of nuclear waste (like having cheap safe rockets to send it to sun), and then need it. We know far too few about geological stability to decide for this step.

Don't take me wrong -- I think nuclear fusion is a great technology which will perhaps one day give us almost free energy. But until then we shouldn't destroy our future with fission.

solar fricken roadways (1)

prider (174309) | about two weeks ago | (#47417735)

http://laurencekc.wordpress.com/2014/05/27/solar-frickin-roadways-and-the-hype/

Wait, did $Deity announce a do-over? (1, Interesting)

pla (258480) | about two weeks ago | (#47417753)

Here's what your future will look like if we are to have a shot at preventing devastating climate change

The West Antarctic Ice Shelf has already begun its collapse, guaranteeing us 10-12ft of sea level rise over the next 50-200 years (only the timeframe, not the result, remains in question). We have officially lost our "shot at preventing devastating climate change".

We do, however, still have a shot at preventing the necessary abandonment of every major coastal city on the planet, by avoiding another 200ft of sea level rise that would result from the rest of Antarctica melting.

At this point, we need to stop asking how we can go green, and start planning for our new seaside vacation homes in Arizona.

Re:Wait, did $Deity announce a do-over? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47417883)

Your comments are fully fictional. There is currently MORE ice than "previously thought." Remember those idiots that went down to prove it was all gone and got stuck? Then the rescue ship got stuck. They didn't know there was that much ice.

Maybe we'd all quit believing every idiot (Al Gore) who runs around telling us to give them money to save the world this crap would go away.

Re:Groundwater subsidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47417907)

At this point, we need to stop asking how we can go green, and start planning for our new seaside vacation homes in Arizona.

They are pumping so much ground water in Aridzona that they will be below water before you know it. Groundwater subsidence must be taken into consideration in your calculations.

Re:Wait, did $Deity announce a do-over? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47418045)

I guess you missed the recent article that stated the problem with the West Antarctic Ice Shelf is in large part attributed to (drum roll) GEOTHERMAL WARMING. It is very hard to associate geothermal warming in Antarctica to increasing or decreasing atmospheric CO2. Another interesting fact is that there is increased ice coverage in Antarctica over past years (remember they are in the throes of winter down there).

I shall quote Chicken Little -- "The Sky is falling, the Sky is falling".

Re:Wait, did $Deity announce a do-over? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47418253)

It is very hard to associate geothermal warming in Antarctica to increasing or decreasing atmospheric CO2.

I'll just leave this here... [youtube.com]

Re:Wait, did $Deity announce a do-over? (1, Informative)

ScentCone (795499) | about two weeks ago | (#47418123)

We have officially lost our "shot at preventing devastating climate change".

Nothing we could have done in the last 100 years would have made a bit of difference with respect to what you mention.

Well, except possibly for doing something to reduce eastern population booms by a few billion people. The couple hundred million people in the west with the economic latitude to pursue the type of stuff laid out in TFA won't make a bit of change, relative to four billion people digging coal in China, sprouting up on the subcontinent, overgrazing in Africa, and plowing down rainforest in Central and South America.

You want any of this to change? Stop having so many babies in places that can't afford them.

Re:Wait, did $Deity announce a do-over? (1)

cbeaudry (706335) | about two weeks ago | (#47418201)

YOU are seriously the kind of person we do NOT need in these discussions and debates.

"The sky is falling, we are all going to die... aaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!"

SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Re:Wait, did $Deity announce a do-over? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47418295)

The total volume of ice in Antarctica would not produce that much water. Get a globe and compare it to the rest of the oceans. Sheesh.

OH NOES (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about two weeks ago | (#47417773)

I'd drive a cheap-to-run car with torque like a supercharged V8 and my electricity would come from sources that put out their radioactive waste in neat chunks instead of slowly spreading it out the top of a smokestack!? This awful socialist future is going to ruin us all!!!

Do your own part, start today at home (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47417791)

I've heard people complain about big businesses, manufacturers, etc. But I think the general population is responsible for most of the energy requirements. If it's true, then it means we're the ones who can impact the most change, but we all must do our part.

Use an efficient device like the Apple TV/Chromecast/etc to watch Netflix instead of a power-hungry Xbox 360/One, Playstation 3/4 or Wii/U.

If you have more than one computer, don't use your high-end gaming PC to surf the Web, write code and other low-power tasks.

Stop mining Bitcoins. It hasn't been worth the energy required for a long time.

Use a small toaster oven instead of a full-size oven if you live alone.

Use a rice cooker instead of a huge pot to make rice and pasta.

When possible, only use a fan to help you keep cooler instead of the AC. When using the AC, don't try to cool your house down to winter climates, around 25C is cold enough for the summer.

In the winter, keep your house at only 21C.

Re:Do your own part, start today at home (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about two weeks ago | (#47417893)

With computers it's better yet to use a phone or tablet instead of opening a laptop.

A big one is to turn your cable box off when you're not using it. Ever notice how bloody hot most of them get? It's because they're horrendous power guzzlers. People who aren't nerdy enough to program universal remotes properly just turn off the TV itself when walking away, leaving the cable box to run like a little electric space heater.

Re:Do your own part, start today at home (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47418029)

What an Idiot. I prefer not to wait up to half an hour before I have channel information on the cable box. That already happens every time a power glitch of sufficient duration occurs, and would happen if you cut the power off to the box.

Re:Do your own part, start today at home (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about two weeks ago | (#47418329)

Solution: drop cable. You save in energy, time and money.

Re:Do your own part, start today at home (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about two weeks ago | (#47417933)

If you have more than one computer, don't use your high-end gaming PC to surf the Web, write code and other low-power tasks.

It's been a long time since a computer drew as much power as it could, regardless of load.

My powerhouse gaming/computing machine draws less than 50 watts while browsing the web, and when I'm actually using the thing for something serious, it can draw almost 600.

Re: bitcoins: yep. if you can't stand your computer to be idle, run something of actual use to humanity. [wikipedia.org]

Cellphones and laptops will save us all. (3, Informative)

gurps_npc (621217) | about two weeks ago | (#47417835)

The real problem is not energy generation, but energy storage. So research into better batteries (mainly fuels by laptops and cellphones) can save us.

Because the real benefit of the fossil fuels is the high density of the stored energy.

Give me the technology to build a battery that can power an electric car for 500 miles, and ...

Electric cars can now work for 99% of the population - all running on power they store overnight/while at work.

Solar can now store enough to last not only through the night but also through a cloudy day.

Wind based energies can now store enough to get through some calm days

"different approach to international diplomacy" (2, Interesting)

Onuma (947856) | about two weeks ago | (#47417845)

Oh great...that means we're fucked.

If you want local solar (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about two weeks ago | (#47417853)

If you want local solar to play any part in this future, it might help to restructure the power grid (at least in the USA).

The way things are currently setup, residential solar can only get pushed around the local grid.
This can be changed, but it's expensive. So obviously it's not popular.

Re:If you want local solar (2)

unimacs (597299) | about two weeks ago | (#47418109)

This is just a question. Transmission losses are significant. Why would you want to transmit small amounts of power over long distances anyway? Why not use it locally?

Lofty Goals (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47417859)

whatever it took to keep global temperatures from rising more than two degrees above the preindustrial average

What contributes to the temperature increase:
-Massive heat sinks, or cities of concrete and steel. Do we all move to the country and grass shacks?
-Massive use of electricity. Do we turn off all of our smartphones? iWhatevers? That would cut back the usage.

What are we willing to give up to reach that goal?

Adolph Hitler would be proud (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47417863)

A handful of meteorologists may be able to pull off something Hitler and a history of despots have been unable to do. Bring to reality a world government under tight fascist control. Seig Heil!

summary misleading (1)

mdsolar (1045926) | about two weeks ago | (#47417873)

A portion was left out of the summary. It is by mid-century that we'd see a big change over it the type of generation, not in 15 years. For the US, a renewable heavy, carbon capture heavy and nuclear heavy scenario were looked at. The energy security heavy scenario developed in "Reinventing Fire" by Amory Lovins was not explored. http://www.rmi.org/electricity [rmi.org]

It's not the US that is the problem! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47417877)

The US isn't the problem. Our carbon emissions are already falling. We could follow all those plans, and it won't make a lick of difference unless China, India, and developing countries change. Heck, the US could disappear completely, and it still won't make enough difference to matter.

Re:It's not the US that is the problem! (1)

NotInHere (3654617) | about two weeks ago | (#47418357)

And which country are China and India producing for?

US? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47417897)

So, what's China gonna be doing? Still running super-high-octane dino bones? It only works if all of the largest offenders work on it, no?

A 15 Year Plan To Zero Footprint (1)

Baldrson (78598) | about two weeks ago | (#47417963)

A 15 year plan exists in rough outline. [blogspot.com] . Yes, it is extreme but then if the climate crisis worsens to the degree predicted by some, and action is delayed as it appears it will be, there will be very little time to geoengineer remediation.

Why aren't the rental companies pushing electric? (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about two weeks ago | (#47417985)

Almost every gasoline car sold in America today can go 300 miles on a tank of gas and in 10 minutes be refueled to go another 300. So most people don't rent cars. If the car rental companies come up with some kind of monthly fee based car rental program targeted towards electric car owners, it would be creating a new market segment for itself. May be a 10$ a month plan that gives you access to cars/pickups at some fixed rate. Or a 20$ a month plan that gives so many rental-days which get accumulated in the account. Many pricing models would work. Throw in some free charging when the customer has checked out a gas car, allow them to choose between cars, pickup trucks and moving vans... Or a 250$ a year plan that gives 14 rental days sold through electric car dealerships... or electric car makers...

Helping a big part of American car owners to switch to electric cars would create a huge market segment for the gas car rental companies. Why aren't they doing it?

Re:Why aren't the rental companies pushing electri (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47418235)

Every cab should be electric. They sit idle most of the time anyway.

As someone who is hoping for nuclear power ... (3, Interesting)

jphamlore (1996436) | about two weeks ago | (#47418013)

Fifteen years for a dramatic ramp-up of nuclear power anywhere outside of China?! Not possible. I believe the United States long ago lost the ability to manufacture key components to even make a nuclear reactor and its containment vessel.

Re:As someone who is hoping for nuclear power ... (2)

WindBourne (631190) | about two weeks ago | (#47418413)

And yet, we have new reactors in our subs and aircraft carriers that are 100% manufactured here.
So, you lost that argument.

HOWEVER, if you said that Westinghouse and GE, which sold their units, are now manufactured in Japan and China, that would be correct.
BUT, B&W along with GA, actually do their work here.

too bad it's not man-made (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47418019)

not to mention that it's colder pretty much everywhere..

60 percent from nuclear ..... LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47418083)

That is amusing. Building a couple hundred more nukes in the US is not feasible. The same people that create climate hysteria also perpetuate and amplify nuclear hysteria.

At best a few reactors will be added at a couple sites in one or two red states. 15 years from now we'll be burning slightly less coal and a great deal more natural gas, and we'll have slightly fewer than the present 108 40+ year old zombie nukes. Unless one melts down, in which case we'll shut them all and burn even more gas.

And coal's footprint will shrink drastically

LOL. No it won't. We'll just have the Chinese burn it for us. Keeping your stores stocked with low cost goodies ultimately requires vast quantities of cheap power, and the Chinese will burn as much coal as it takes while you feather your environmental nest.

Whatever the climate is going to do given continued CO2 emission it is going to do, and we will adapt. Just as we and all the other species have done before. Coal is the fastest growing energy source [iea.org] on Earth. For every ton of CO2 you manage to shift of Asia, Africa, S. America, etc. they'll another for good measure, no matter how much it offends Western sensibilities.

One simple rule ... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about two weeks ago | (#47418103)

When I see something which says "In 15 years the world will be like this", I think "My, what drivel", and move on.

From what I've seen in my lifetime, futurists and prognosticators are usually dead wrong, clueless, and writing little more than fiction.

It offers a sobering conclusion: We might be able to pull it off. But it will take an overhaul of the way we use energy, and a huge investment in the development and deployment of new energy technologies. Significantly, it calls for an entirely different approach to international diplomacy on the issue of how to combat climate change.

In other words, it will require the impossible, need huge sums of money, depend on a level of consensus and cooperation unlikely to happen, and a near complete re-tooling of societies.

Blah blah blah.

Why aren't electric utitlies pushing electrics? (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about two weeks ago | (#47418111)

Solar panel prices are falling through the roof, scratch that, there is no damage to the roof. Some studies show that SolarPV might deliver electricity cheaper than grid in 25 states [cleantechnica.com] in just two years. Energy storage price break through is likely to happen first to homes than cars because storage for home does not have weight, volume and crashworthiness constraints. Already utility companies are worried and doing what they do best. Lobby the local government and utility commissions.

But one sure fire way to keep their customers tied to the grid is to encourage electric cars. If every home is charging two or three cars overnight they might not be able to ditch the grid. Since night load for the utilities is just 66% to 70% of peak day time load they can serve this market without additional investment in power plants.

Peeling off a large customer base from gasoline companies to the grid would be in the long term interests of the electric utilities. Why aren't they doing it?

Re:Why aren't electric utitlies pushing electrics? (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about two weeks ago | (#47418401)

The do not push it because they do not make money on it. SImple as that.
And we need to quit trying to force it down their throat. There are BETTER ways to make things happen.

Ridiculous recommendations (2)

wronkiew (529338) | about two weeks ago | (#47418147)

As much as I agree that we need to reduce carbon emissions, these recommendations are a recipe for disaster. The USA research team, for example, recommends something like a 50% reduction in per capita energy intensity by 2050. That is flat out incompatible with human nature in a healthy economy and society. I neither want my children to live in a world ravaged by carbon pollution, nor do I want them living a life of energy poverty. Any sensible solution would avoid both outcomes by greatly expanding the availability of clean energy generation. The fact that no one seems to be willing to chart a course of clean energy abundance makes me suspicious that other motives are at work here besides saving us from global warming.

The French team starts with the only healthy and clean energy infrastructure in the world and _completely_dismantles_it_. Apparently their current administration has recommended that the country phase out nuclear power by 2050, and the team takes this as gospel, replacing it with biofuels. The projected results are predictably disastrous.

The only team to make reasonable recommendations here was China, but they also had the easiest job since China has the most low-hanging fruit and the only serious build-out of clean energy generation.

Wrong (2)

WindBourne (631190) | about two weeks ago | (#47418383)

We can do it and in fact, are doing so.
We have switched over our house to LEDs (which I bought most of the bulbs for less than 10 each) and now see our electric usage has dropped by about $5-10 / month (about 50-100 KWH savings each month).
In addition, we have Solar on our roof and sell back our excess to the grid.
We are now getting ready to buy a Tesla Model [XS].

There is no doubt that my family's usage is going down.
What is needed is for us to get all of the nation's usage down, and it is easier than you can believe, if we use economics.

'fight' climat change (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47418161)

what is that?
something you do after attacking thunderstorms?
let's fight gravity!

The US is not the pollution bad guy (1)

magarity (164372) | about two weeks ago | (#47418187)

I just got back from Shanghai where the pollution haze limits visibility to a couple of miles. In Beijing it's down to a few hundred yards most days. Let me know how the relative climate impact of electric cars in the US vs the economic impact and compare with the climate impact of 1/3 of all cars sold worldwide being in China in 5 or 6 years from now and I bet almost all of them will be gasoline powered. The international economic competitive impact to all electric in the US would be huge compared to the relative environmental impact.

Relax (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about two weeks ago | (#47418301)

When OCO2 starts taking measurements, the world is in for a REAL jolt.

Re:Relax (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47418423)

They'll just publish the images from N. America. The huge plume coming from Asia will not be seen anywhere in mainstream media.

Need to make SIMPLE changes. (3, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | about two weeks ago | (#47418283)

We need to do several things in the US to help ourselves, as well as push other nations.
We would be better off stopping subsidies on solar, and allow wind to expire in 2 years. Instead, we should now focus those subsidies on nuclear power (our own), along with electricity storage.
Then require that all new construction below 5-6 stories will have on-site AE that will equal or exceed its HVAC usage.

In addition, we need to put a tax on all consumed goods (including those shipped from overseas), based on the MAX CO2 that went into make it. The tax should start low and raise every 6-12 months. This will give time to all nations and states to make long-term choices.
Basically, the tax is applied to all goods, unless you register where it and its parts come from. Then if you get the parts from nations/states where the CO2 is lowest, you get lower taxes.
To make sure of the CO2, rather than the wild estimates that we have, we use the OCO2 which will show emissions production, along with movement, around the world.
Finally, to normalize it, we use $ GDP / tonne of CO2. The higher the $GDP, the better.

The above is all that is needed to force us to change, and give us time. Not just America, but all nations since America is the world's largest importer.

"...technological paths available..." (1)

Tokolosh (1256448) | about two weeks ago | (#47418359)

It seems to me that only a single path is being considered - to reduce CO2 emissions.

In reality there are numerous other potential paths, none of which are being evaluated. This kind of blinkered approach reminds me of certain southern politicians. How about bringing some real science and economics to bear on choosing the best response to global warming?

Bunker Oil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47418371)

Trans-oceanic shipping is currently based on Bunker Oil [wikipedia.org] . This nasty stuff is a major pollution source [wikipedia.org] to the point it is included in the Greenhouse emission budget on a national level. It is also dirt cheap, being the bottom gunky by-product of regular cracking of heavy oil at a refinery. Environmentally sound techniques like bio-fuels are optimized for producing gas for cars and other high-margin industrial processes. These have quite a price hurtle to cross.

The transportation improvements section of the PDF is pretty hand-wavy on 'improvements' like electrification of vehicles. Techniques like Cold Ironing, taking port from port instead of internal engines, is mainly useful for preventing horrible pollution from this high-particular sulfurous fuel while near shore. It does nothing for a ship under steam. Unless countries start pushing out nuclear barges, a highly impractical solution, all these shiny electric vehicles and parts are going to be chuffing their way across the seven seas [time.com] to the sound of a large sunken carbon footprint. Some of these ships build today will be in service years from now, deep into the 21st century.

The report is maybe good for a non-technical CIO, but some of us are nerds. We all want to know what kind of power plant our flying cars are going to be using. Sadly this glossy discussion of carbon markets seems well prepared but no more so than any "Stories from Future" TV special. In particular, the transport sections are requiring a "strong global R&D push on technologies." Sure, we'll get right back to you on that one.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...