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

131–140 of 522 posts

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#131

Post by tremon »

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?

That waste problem was already theoretically solved in the 1950s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_breeder_reactor

It is mostly because of military influences (proliferation risk) and environmental activism that these solutions have never been fully developed and deployed.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#132

Post by frevd »

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).

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#133

Post by pjc50 »

jsmthrowaway wrote: post #114
pizza wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Keep in mind that it is a perfectly reasonable position to both: a) agree with you and GP (though perhaps not to such a dramatic end), and b) slap on the brakes when discussing constitutionally perilous endeavors that could ultimately harm us more than this discussion can forecast; what else can I forbid or do in the name of existential issues? That I'm in the apparent minority here based on voting is far more alarmi…

Interesting set of values there. I've got to say that being in a country where certain classes of advertising are forbidden and the rest is subject to (pretty minimal) accuracy regulation feels like it makes me freer and happier rather than the other way round.

Cigarettes and prescription drugs may not be advertised in the UK.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#134

Post by paublyrne »

badminton1 wrote: post #88
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.

In 1950 global population was 2.5 billion people, now 7.5. That's 3x in 67 years. Technological advances can help us increase the amount of people we can sustain, but eventually there is going to be a limit. The limit will not only be because of CO2. There are other situations that need to be managed. Population is increasing, and the lifestyle of individuals is rising, making each person have a larger cost on the en…

The increase in global population is not necessarily exponential. A lot of it can be explained by increases in life expectancy, and those increases seem to have - for now - a relatively fixed limit. Longer life expectancy does not increase the number of children each person has (for the most part, leaving ageing rock stars to one side).

Greater wealth seems to also have discourage people from having children if the birth rates in wester countries are any indication.

I think we can do more to tackle the specific problems you mention through regulation and better policy, whereas a falling global population on its own would do little or nothing to combat them.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#135

Post by jsmthrowaway »

pjc50 wrote: post #133
jsmthrowaway wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind that it is a perfectly reasonable position to both: a) agree with you and GP (though perhaps not to such a dramatic end), and b) slap on the brakes when discussing constitutionally perilous endeavors that could ultimately harm us more than this discussion can forecast; what else can I forbid or do in the name of existential issues? That I'm in the apparent minority here based on voting is far more alarmi…

Interesting set of values there. I've got to say that being in a country where certain classes of advertising are forbidden and the rest is subject to (pretty minimal) accuracy regulation feels like it makes me freer and happier rather than the other way round. Cigarettes and prescription drugs may not be advertised in the UK.

I'd actually prefer that, too. Especially prescription medications: there have been awful studies about correlations between patients asking their doctor (as the ads say) and getting that specific Rx even when unnecessary.

I also don't know how to get there constitutionally without somehow differentiating advertising from speech (the Court has declined every opportunity, which should be obvious from the term of art "commercial speech") or relitigating Central Hudson. I also don't know whether yielding on the Constitution in cases like these compromises my values. See where I'm coming from? All it takes is one case of ignoring the First or Fourteenth in particular and getting away with establishing some bad precedent. That's a future that would concern me greatly.

I've seen some folks arguing for jailing fake news authors here on HN. Ignoring parts of our Constitution feels good to think about in order to address a squeaky wheel. The ramifications of where that steers the whole cart over potentially decades must be carefully studied, however, some amendments far more than others (the First being one of those).

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#136

Post by ZlxVLI1eWNFSDc »

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…

>We need to change or habits not our numbers, this is the source of the problem.

So you say, doesn't make it true. The source of the problem is every person; increase the number, worsen the problem.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#137

Post by retrac98 »

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". :)

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#138

Post by ZlxVLI1eWNFSDc »

EliRivers wrote: post #109
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.

>I understand peak child has been reached

This is certainly not true on a regional basis, and I can hardly say with confidence that stagnating population levels in Europe really warrant African families having upwards of 10 children on average when the land can hardly feed the current population as is.

We are talking about huge numbers here if African population really does increase by 3 billion during this century. FWIW, I'm not going to stop driving and start walking so someone else's children can do the pollution instead of me and it levels out.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#139

Post by ryanwaggoner »

vesak wrote: post #37
std_throwaway wrote: post #7

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…

>Be constructive, be creative. Ok, solution time. Let's immediately ban everyone who denies that climate change is human made from all positions of power. That implies stripping them of both titles and wealth.

You either do this via dictatorship, which is problematic (highly unlikely to remain committed to environmental agenda in long run), or via democracy, but if via democracy, then it's pointless. If people are willing to do this, they're willing to cut carbon. The problem with those denialists is that we keep electing them!

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#140

Post by ZlxVLI1eWNFSDc »

mistermumble wrote: post #89
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.

Population control would have to begin with the US, which on a per-capita basis has more than double the emission than any other nation or region (China, European union, etc). More than 8 times the rate of populous nations like India and Indonesia. How likely is that to happen, especially in Trump's America? Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

>Population control would have to begin with the US, [because opinions]

I don't think there's a rule for that. Is it in the Scripture (because I know that less well)?

Post reply on HN