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

Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

nationalobserver.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 522 posts

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#101

Post by pveierland »

DanWaterworth wrote: post #69
dorgo wrote: post #61

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

AFAIK, planting more trees by itself doesn't really help in the long term, because trees eventually decompose releasing the carbon they captured.

My understanding is that if you create a new forest, the amount of carbon needed to create it is taken from the atmosphere. Even if trees in the forest die and decompose, the forest will on average consist of carbon which previously was part of the atmosphere, in effect removing carbon from the atmosphere.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#102

Post by jsmthrowaway »

webjunkie wrote: post #96
codebolt wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, we should tackle the biggest sources first. And meat production in particular is one of the biggest contributors. Scale back the subsidies for these types of farms and replace them instead with taxes. Consumers will change their habits once they are faced with the "real" cost of meat.

Slap extra taxes on meat and forbid any advertising for meat or meat-containing products. Boom.

> forbid any advertising for meat or meat-containing products

Who needs that pesky First Amendment when there's dietary habits to tackle, right?

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#103

Post by yaseer »

givan wrote: post #85
scrps wrote: post #75

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.

When debugging performance problems you always search for the biggest bottlenecks not the minor ones, so what are the biggest contributors to CO2? I don't think the problem is the number of people living on earth but how modern society is making people live, for example some big contributors are high meat consumption (cattle methane) inefficient transportation (big suvs with just the driver inside sitting in traffic…

One the one hand, I find it amusing to have programming analogies to complex social and economic issues.

On the other hand, this analogy (and others) are pretty useful. Makes me think sociological discourse would benefit from using logical systems as a frame of reference.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#104

Post by tobltobs »

amarant wrote: post #95

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...

Is the radioactive waste problem solved?

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#105

Post by projectorlochsa »

Const-me wrote: post #97

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.

Deforestation of Argentinian and Brazilian agriculture tops that any day.

Phytoplankton loss does that too.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#106

Post by laughingman2 »

scrps wrote: post #75

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.

Then the most practical hack is banning meat and dairy industry.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#108

Post by pizza »

jsmthrowaway wrote: post #102
webjunkie wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slap extra taxes on meat and forbid any advertising for meat or meat-containing products. Boom.

> forbid any advertising for meat or meat-containing products Who needs that pesky First Amendment when there's dietary habits to tackle, right?

On the other hand, who needs nation-states when they're submerged under water and their populations decimated?

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#109

Post by EliRivers »

scrps wrote: post #75

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 understand peak child has been reached and the only reason the population is still increasing is that people aren't dying young at the same rate they used to. I think there are bigger gains to be made by changing other things, and they can be made much faster than a slow reduction of population.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#110

Post by taberiand »

tobltobs wrote: post #104
amarant wrote: post #95

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...

Is the radioactive waste problem solved?

It's much less of a problem than the CO2 problem
Post reply on HN