Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 242 posts

Re: Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016

#41

Post by indlebe »

brian-armstrong wrote: post #26
malnourish wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly what I think we should be doing (as a nation). We should be pushing innovation and becoming a leader in R&D for green energy. It seems like a fantastic way of creating jobs and I have a hard time comprehending why people are so resistant to it.

I hate to beat this drum, but it comes down to money. Oil and coal spend so much money spreading false information about the issues, so it's hard for people to be informed about what our options actually are.

Not to mention that Oil and Coal are sources of energy where western corporations directly profit. Not so much with solar and nuclear.

Re: Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016

#42

Post by reality_czech »

brian-armstrong wrote: post #7
buckbova wrote: post #2

> According to research published last year, spending a day in Beijing is currently akin to smoking almost 40 cigarettes. Decoupling emissions from economic growth thus helps both people and planet. Convincing Mr Trump of this fact is now an urgent and daunting challenge. How is convincing Trump here the answer? Isn't convincing China more important? How about convincing the American people? Do this and politicians w…

We (the US) are in a good position to lead the renewables industry, and part of that is dogfooding what we make. But that dogfooding is harder if our domestic nonrenewable prices are low. Yes that means that, for now, those products aren't fully competitive. But they could get there with scale, and we get that scale by rolling them out domestically. It helps us build this industry in the long term. China is also jump…

China pretty much destroyed the US solar panel manufacturing market. If the US wants to "lead the renewables industry," ironically for you, the only way to do it is probably Trump-style protectionism. Otherwise China will continue to wipe out the next crop of Solyndras with its subsidies and other dirty tricks.

Of course, we can always put solar panels on top of things. That's a thing. They're doing that in Africa too. But the profits mostly go to solar panel manufacturers in China. And solar panels can't sustain a heavy industrial base... you need coal or nuclear for that, as other industrial nations know very well.

Re: Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016

#43

Post by Delmania »

malnourish wrote: post #22
brian-armstrong wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We (the US) are in a good position to lead the renewables industry, and part of that is dogfooding what we make. But that dogfooding is harder if our domestic nonrenewable prices are low. Yes that means that, for now, those products aren't fully competitive. But they could get there with scale, and we get that scale by rolling them out domestically. It helps us build this industry in the long term. China is also jump…

This is exactly what I think we should be doing (as a nation). We should be pushing innovation and becoming a leader in R&D for green energy. It seems like a fantastic way of creating jobs and I have a hard time comprehending why people are so resistant to it.

Fear. Put yourself in the shoes of a 50-year-old coal miner who's had the same job since he was age 18. You lose your job, and the town in which you live is starting to decline because the major source of money is gone. You have no idea how your going to pay for your bills and food.

Do you really think such a person is going to be enthusiastic for retraining for a new, competing with younger people, and moving? Or do you think this person would rather support politicians who promise to restore the coal mining industry?

Re: Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016

#44

Post by rudolf0 »

Shivetya wrote: post #25
jamesblonde wrote: post #3

The canary in the coalmine for global warming is Arctic sea ice. It is melting at an alarming rate, and we can expect an ice-free (>1m sq km of sea ice) Arctic in the summer within a decade or two (or 3-4 years if recent trends continue!). There's a small active community who follow this. We tend to hang out here - a HN level of polite discussion goes on: http://neven1.typepad.com/

well fortunately the Antarctic is gaining mass, so things happen. We are still only 12k years out an ice age and learning as we go. Natural variability is quite boring so it doesn't make headlines as much as it should. the real reality is that the Paris agreement is a horrid piece of do nothing legislation that lets the major developing powers do what they want all the while getting the nod of acceptance from the UN…

Even if the Paris Agreement has its problems, do you really think it's worse than no climate agreement?

Re: Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016

#45

Post by sqeaky »

anon1253 wrote: post #37
sqeaky wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carbon sequestering is not as hard as it would seem. We have several technologies, but we can also just plant trees.

Yes trees are a perfect solution. They've optimized this process through millions of years of evolution. However, we're still removing more trees than adding them per year. Quite impressively so, even. It takes time for forests to grow. A lot of its carbon sink properties are because of soil succession, which takes decades to mature.

Who is "we"?

I think the US is about equalized because industries like the the US paper industry plant about as many trees as we cut.

If "we" is the world the lots of poor countries are unsustainably slash and burning. Starving people want to not die today so they make places to plant crops.

If we is people afraid of the expanding growth of the Sahara southward then things like the great green wall are interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Green_Wall

Re: Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016

#47

Post by NumberCruncher »

sqeaky wrote: post #32
Shivetya wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well fortunately the Antarctic is gaining mass, so things happen. We are still only 12k years out an ice age and learning as we go. Natural variability is quite boring so it doesn't make headlines as much as it should. the real reality is that the Paris agreement is a horrid piece of do nothing legislation that lets the major developing powers do what they want all the while getting the nod of acceptance from the UN…

On a geological timescale we are in a cooling trend, but what non-biased source grants credence to the idea that CO2 and Methane aren't warming things right now in greater amounts? It seems entirely reasonable that anthropogenic climate change is a bigger deal than ice ages and we could prevent one.

Having a higher CO2 or methan level for 100 years is on a geological timescale a rounding error. There were times in earth history (vulcano eruptions, meteor impacts) where life had to face a rapid and drastic climate change. And we are still here.

Re: Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016

#48

Post by exolymph »

blondie9x wrote: post #28
clumsysmurf wrote: post #15

"Convincing Mr Trump of this fact is now an urgent and daunting challenge." By appointing Myron Ebell to lead the transition at the EPA, Mr Trump has made it clear he's made up his mind. Personnel is policy.

It's too bad Americans cannot vote for some of the most prominent cabinet members the way they vote for President/Vice-President. Many of these appointees will have a more direct impact on people's lives but yet they have no say in who will represent them. Democracy?

I don't think allowing the public at large to vote on cabinet members would be a good idea. The whole point of representative democracy is you elect a representative who seems reasonable and delegate specialized decisions — like who is the best climate authority — to your rep. (No, this obviously doesn't always work.)

Re: Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016

#49

Post by colemickens »

blondie9x wrote: post #28
clumsysmurf wrote: post #15

"Convincing Mr Trump of this fact is now an urgent and daunting challenge." By appointing Myron Ebell to lead the transition at the EPA, Mr Trump has made it clear he's made up his mind. Personnel is policy.

It's too bad Americans cannot vote for some of the most prominent cabinet members the way they vote for President/Vice-President. Many of these appointees will have a more direct impact on people's lives but yet they have no say in who will represent them. Democracy?

What makes you think that would go over any better though? It's not like any of his cabinet picks have been surprising to anyone paying attention to his rhetoric and stances during the election.

Re: Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016

#50

Post by Delmania »

knowaveragejoe wrote: post #4
buckbova wrote: post #2

> According to research published last year, spending a day in Beijing is currently akin to smoking almost 40 cigarettes. Decoupling emissions from economic growth thus helps both people and planet. Convincing Mr Trump of this fact is now an urgent and daunting challenge. How is convincing Trump here the answer? Isn't convincing China more important? How about convincing the American people? Do this and politicians w…

I think all of the above are part of the answer. Convincing Trump not to try to prop up coal as he's promised.

The Republican leadership has already said there's not much that can be done because coal is private and that government money shouldn't be spent on it. They know, and have known for some time, that coal is a dying industry, but you have to appeal to voters.
Post reply on HN