The message I"m getting is not that I have to prepare for something or change energy sources, it's that "our lifestyle is killing the planet much faster than we thought".

CO2 levels is just one of a myriad of indicators that are off the scale now.

By lifestyle I mean supermarkets and restaurants and iPhones and planes ... all the stuff that we're so proud of as a society.

Winning, getting ahead, being number one, outcompeting, etc. All those ego-centric values that are the basis of our socio-economic systems - focused on disconnecting the `self` from `other` - are wrong on a fundamental level.

Ultimately it is the lack of spirituality in people that's killing the planet. Religions, Inc are a major part of the problem, not a solution.

By 'spirituality' I mean the deep realisation of the larger context in bio-space and bio-time that I as a creature exist in:

My body is just a cell of a larger organism - Earth - and my life is a drop in the river of life that's been flowing for billions of years - the constant unfolding and re-merging of the DNA molecule.

`I` am the privileged observer of this Process and my ultimate mission is to leave it in better shape than I found it.

Well, most of us are failing at it.

We have to expand nuclear power. Many don't like it but at this point we have no other choice. Let solar drive the phasing out of nuclear reactors instead of coal power plants! Sadly in my country (Sweden) nuclear is not only taboo but it's illegal to perform research of the subject.. Laws passed by a severely misinformed "green" movement...

This is very simple, but something most of the HN people won't be able to do.

STOP FLYING!

Passenger numbers have gone up in a step change with CO2 count over the last 50 years, contrails compound the effect. The sad thing is - you will all look at this message and think. Why should I have to change? Why me, surely someone else must fix this?

Don't wait for governments, don't wait for industry. Make individual choices that affect the output now and we will see a reduction (eventually).

The psychology in this tells us not to lose hope, but to look to technology to solve the issues. But we must act responsibly in the meantime.

I generally get funny looks and the feeling that people are imagining me with a toothbrush mustache and a comb-over when I suggest this:

Wouldn't population control to an extent help slow the rate of emissions? Caps on births or higher taxes on family sizes, etc.

I know political/moral/ethical issues would make it impractical but I don't think any potential solution is worth ignoring.

I don't understand why more isn't done to implement large-scale carbon capture and storage technologies. There are quite well-understood and proven technologies to do this, but they don't seem to be on anybody's agenda.

Trying to bring down CO2 concentration by convincing people to give up cars, food and planes is obviously a losing strategy.

If we're serious about preventing climate change we're going to have to actively remove carbon from the atmosphere. But nobody seems interested.

Are Canada's CO2 stats material to global warming, or are they being over-dramatized because this is a Canadian publication? The graph in the article shows that Canada has 5x the per capita CO2 extraction of China, but on the other hand China has 40x as many people.

(For context, I think global warming is very real and addressing it should be a top priority, but I also believe that sensationalist articles often do more harm than good.)

How does animal agriculture affect this? Are there any authorities on the subject on HN? Everything I've heard suggests the greenhouse gas emissions in support of animal agriculture far outstrip those of pretty much anything else, but nobody seems to really talk about it.

Pre-empting a couple of replies here - I already don't eat meat, and yes I've seen "Cowspiracy". :)

I don't like sensationalism as it clouds the mind with short-lived buzzes. Instead of always trying to alarm people of the big invisible terror lurking in the dark, we should educate people on how to handle the situation. What are the scenarios? What can we do ourselves for those scenarios (not to prevent, but to prepare)? Which cities and countries will be lost at what point in time? How do we protect ourselves?

Be constructive, be creative.

IMO a large part of the failure to deal with this problem has to do with political cowardice on the part of the left. Sometimes if you're just honest with people as opposed to constantly trying to sugar coat, lie, or guilt trip people things go better.

It's truly baffling to me that dim-witted local politicians can constantly convince local populations into tax increases and blowing up of local coffers to build sports teams new stadiums when they already have functional ones. On the other hand you're telling me it's impossible to sell a tax that is going to be used to literally save the world?

It is less expensive (for society) to prevent the release of previously sequestered CO2 than it is to deal with the consequences of introducing the CO2 into the carbon cycle.

Though since the costs of releasing sequestered CO2 are socialized, but the benefits are privatized, the US (at the federal level) continues to choose inaction.

Howdy! I work in cleantech, and I guess it's that time again for a what-are-we-going-to-do-about-it post :)

To start, here's my favorite climate change joke: "They say we won't act until it's too late... Luckily, it's too late!"

==So what can you do about it?==

The biggest thing this article doesn't say that is most relevant to the HN audience is that you can work at a new energy technology company! Our industries are out of the R&D stage and are currently focused on scale and growth[1], and we need as many smart people as we can get. There are lots of companies hiring software engineers.

==How do I find a job fighting climate change?==

I'd recommend browsing the exhibitor and speaker lists from the most recent conference in each sector (linked below). Check out the companies that interest you and see if they are hiring.

    * Energy Storage[2][3]
    * Solar[4][5]
    * Wind[6]
    * Nuclear[7]
    * Electric Utilities[8][9]
    * Electric vehicles[10]

Also, if you're in the SF bay area, I'd recommend subscribing to my Bay Area Energy Events Calendar[11]. Just start showing up to events and you'll probably find a job really quickly.

[1]: https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/22/energy-is-the-new-new-inte...

[2]: http://www.esnaexpo.com/

[3]: https://www.greentechmedia.com/events/live/u.s.-energy-stora...

[4]: https://www.intersolar.us/

[5]: http://www.solarpowerinternational.com/

[6]: http://www.windpowerexpo.org/

[7]: https://www.nei.org/Conferences

[8]: http://www.distributech.com/index.html

[9]: https://www.greentechmedia.com/events/live/grid-edge-world-f...

[10]: http://tec.ieee.org/

[11]: https://bayareaenergyevents.com/

I don't like the way they fudge the graph axes to make it look more dramatic. It's a significant rise all on its own, why make it look suspect by messing with the presentation?

Elected officials follow public opinion, and large-scale protest is an effective way to demonstrate and shape opinion. Join other technologists at the Climate March in 2 weeks (April 29). https://techsector.peoplesclimate.org/

Something needs to change, we're on the wrong track, and now is the time for you to take action (plus, meet nice people!).

NASA scientists wrote the first article on effects of CO2 on the climate in 1981 [1]. We are in year 36 after this, and people like the president of the United States are still denying that it exists.

[1] https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pd...

The real problem is not with type of tech we're using to power our devices, but with how many of these devices we have, and how efficiently we're using them. From the they we're born we are molded into customers who will want m0re stuff.

The other problem with our worlds is that our economies are ponzi schemes that can't grow forever. To keep our economies viable we need to increase our production by few % every year. While 1-4% does not seem too much, in reality for economies at current scales this is enormous amount of stuff that needs to be produced just to support our current employment rates. To support that increase we need more energy, and since that energy comes at a higher and higher cost (environmentally, economically and energetically) we need to add more generation capabilities every year.

This broken system needs to be changed, not because it's unfair, wasteful, and plain stupid but simply because it's physically impossible to grow at a 3% rate forever.

We've already felt the first major problem (to the west) of global warming, mass migration. Most recent wars have had environmental issues as part of the cause. Syria's mismanagement of the water table, Rwanda's water shortages. Most conflicts seem to occur near the equator, and in deserts.

Our political system won't cope when a billion people start migrating

I am terrified. Should I be?

Nobody seems to mention cars, they run on burning fossils and they are a large factor due to the amount of cars in use (ever increasing worldwide). Forcing the industry to replace the exhaust by whatever thing which does not consume fossils to create energy (directly or indirectly e.g. by electrical power that needs to be generated by burning coal) is what might contribute a lot to a better atmosphere (at least in the cities), and could even be good for the economy (as opposed to cost). Renewable energy production without burning fossils should be invested in. The only candidate for now to cover the consumption is nuclear (solar or wind power requires too much space and looks bad, so here you go with your efforts).

> Limiting the global mean temperature rise to below 2°C with a probability of 66% would require an energy transition of exceptional scope, depth and speed.

It seems that sovereigns don't quite think like individuals: If this was a personal decision, I'd just put my hopes in boarding a plain that has a 66% chance of making it to its destination (or at least that's what the pilot, in an effort to look respectable, is telling me). But since I got the ticket on sale, I've convinced myself that it's "rational" to take the gamble. There's other tickets on sale, but they'd cost 30 - 50% of my total net worth. Clearly, I think to myself, it's better to die in a plain crash than to live in a smaller house.

>extraction of fossil fuel CO2

What is the definition here. Specifically, on Canada, does it measure the amount of CO2 contained in the produced oil, gas, coal fuels which is then physically extracted where it's consumed, i.e. in the US?

For their pretty graphic it looks like Asia is the biggest offender. So why doesn't the UN slap sanctions on them until they comply with international standards.

Russians fail to manage their swamps and forests. They burn regularly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Russian_wildfires

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_wildfires

I bet that contributed a lot to the 2010-s CO2.

By now it would be good manner for the richest people to invest massively in carbon sequestration.

That's scary. I guess we all ought to go vegetarian, and protest those coal power plants.

It has been said that methane from decaying organic matter such as the bottom of reservoirs and melting methane permafrost are significant contributors to atmospheric presence of greenhouse gases.

On the issue of global warming, I highly recommend this talk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w6ruZ_5nPE

Wow thanks for the Mulvaney quote. Not spending money on climate change maybe, you just wait for what climate disruption will cost.

One problem with the section on Canada is that they look at CO2 extraction. Canada looks like a big contributor here because it's a net exporter of fossil fuels. However, focusing on supply hasn't worked at any point to date and isn't likely to work at any point in the future. As long as people are buying fossil fuels, extractors are going to produce them and find (less efficient/more dangerous) ways to get them to market if infrastructure like pipelines are blocked. The only efforts that have ever successfully curbed fossil fuel production temporarily were OPEC's self-imposed caps, which were entirely motivated towards maintaining high oil prices and not reducing CO_2 emissions.

It seems logical to address the demand instead, but this is hard too. EV's are a promising technology, but have next to no impact at present. A few of the richer people in the richest nations on Earth can afford them, but that's it. We need to find ways to curb fossil fuel consumption by typical drivers in places like Mumbai and Shanghai. The problem is, battery technology just isn't getting cheap enough fast enough. If we could produce a sub $5000 compact EV today, it would still take several decades for them to replace the majority of cars currently in use. EV's also need to be able to compete in agriculture, where vehicles need to be capable of endurance well beyond road cars.

If we want to get CO_2 levels under control quickly we're basically going to have to tax gasoline to the point where people are forced to drive less and pay more for everything that uses fossil fuels in their production, including food. We might even need a mileage tax that scales with income so that the rich are forced to drive less too. Unfortunately, this basically means asking politicians around the world to fall on their swords and take one for the planet.

If we can't address supply or demand, all we can really hope for is to develop the technology to get us out of this bind. Either a magical battery/capacitor technology, scalable carbon sinks, or some kind of geoengineering project like a space-sunshade to partially block the sun. It's risky to wait for tech to be developed, and perhaps even riskier to engage in geoengineering projects that may have unintended side-effects. I like the sunshade idea[1] because it's easily reversible, but it's still risky and nobody is seriously working on the idea as far as I know. However, it seems as though putting payload into orbit might become radically cheaper before EV's have a global impact. This option may be more attractive in a decade or so, and may be a more important use of commercial spaceflight capability than starting a colony on Mars.

A lot of people are against any form of geoengineering because they believe it will give people hope for an easy solution without the need to curb our use of fossil fuels. The problem is, people are already hoping that easy solutions, like EV's, will enable them to carry on as usual without serious sacrifice. Given the global lack of will to sacrifice quality of life for the good of the environment, we need to have other options available.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade

Maybe we start reducing CO2 level in the athmosphere (not only reduce CO2 output) ? Any plans for that (besides plant more trees)?

I just started using http://ecosia.org/

Cows/methane produce more global warming gasses than our petrol headed cars. Eat less meat!!!

Cows produce way more warming gases than our petrol headed cars. Eat less meat!!!

This perversion all started when we went from Hunter/Gathers -> Agrarian Farmers -> "Luxury Trap" - Yuval Noah Harari on the Rise of Homo Deus

-- link updated [1]https://youtu.be/9M7OaGXXtQs?t=3h6m29s

Hurray for the clean-coal man!

Are we doomed and what would a world where greenhouse gases were going down look like? Would we still be able to fly internationally for example?

Everything's just fine.

Stop eating animals and buying new shit every day and this problem will go away.

Can someone explain:

- since CO2 has a logarithmic effect on warming

- the catastrophic climate prediction models have not proven effective at predicting climate

- we should expect moderate increases in warming, which can be beneficial (livable climate, crops etc)

- the unquestionable benefits of hydro carbon energy to bring people out of poverty and into modern prosperity (food, healthcare, modern technology)

..what's all the sensationalism about? Shouldn't we be happy that the alarmists were wrong and the threat has been overblown?

An alternative viewpoint:

https://youtu.be/500MmY5rB1w

https://youtu.be/EaNPBZ6BZZ8

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/10/the-diminishing-influ...