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

161–170 of 522 posts

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#161

Post by retrac98 »

jessriedel wrote: post #154
retrac98 wrote: post #137

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". :)

This UN site says 5% of actual CO2 and 14% of CO2-equivalent emissions. Cow and pig production emit mostly methane and nitrogen oxide. http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/

Doesn't methane have a much more powerful greenhouse effect than CO2 though?

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#162

Post by kpil »

tremon wrote: post #131
tobltobs wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are actual risks with handling really dirty waste and turn it into really dirty fuel - you can't just hand-wave away that as "environmental activism."

It's much more risky than just leaving the waste in a pond cooling for 20 years while hoping that you will be retired before someone actually have to get rid of it.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#163

Post by tgjsrkghruksd »

morganwilde wrote: post #143
retrac98 wrote: post #137

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". :)

As far as I know, this issue is not comparable to our carbon economy, I.e. Natural gas extraction, coal mining, oil, etc. Key difference is that agriculture is a closed cycle, animals produce a lot of green house gas, but it's gas that's already a part of our ecosystem. When we did stuff from the ground we add new carbon to the ecosystem, and this feat is what's destabilizing the environment. I heard this argument fr…

But we do dig stuff from the ground for agriculture. Massive amounts of forestland are cleared, plowed, and massive amounts of inorganic NPK inputs are added. This releases enormous amounts of previously entrapped CO2 to the atmosphere.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#164

Post by chrischen »

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.

Or build denser cities where the average inhabitant consumes much less energy.

A lot of the waste in America comes from sprawl, causing everyone to build bigger houses and own bigger things, but most importantly, rely on fossil fuels just to get around every day.

Of course converting the US to high density is probably too late.

The US is also the biggest target market for Chinese made goods, which means a lot of the non-fossil fuel pollution you see in China is really just externalizef American pollution.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#165

Post by lazyasciiart »

fsloth wrote: post #142
pjc50 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only is this too totalitarian, it's too late . Most western countries are already at stable or slightly declining population levels. It's worth reducing fertility in poorer countries, but this is best done by carrot rather than stick: education and job opportunities for women, and decent free baseline healthcare with contraception included. One of the main obstacles to the latter is US religious conservatives.

"decent free baseline healthcare with contraception included...One of the main obstacles to the latter is US religious conservatives." I should imagine Catholic church's condemnation of birth control is the larger political issue in countries that are not US.

The US global gag rule, which has been in effect under every Republican president for decades, blocks foreign aid funding to any organization that mentions abortion. I think it was estimated to cut aid spending by $9 billion when Trump re-introduced it this year (especially as he expanded it from the old policy of health-related organisations to all organisations).

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#166

Post by TeMPOraL »

ghouse wrote: post #10

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.

So does, unfortunately, the rest of the world. With the recent anti-nuclear craze, the EU is sadly not stellar in this regard either. And all of this forgets about Africa, which continues to improve the living condition of its people and thus grow in energy demand. If there isn't green infrastructure ready to be used there, they'll go for the easiest thing, which means fossil fuels.

And so do many individuals. I mean, I can ask anyone about the climate, and they'll all tell me that "climate change bad; clean air good". But when I say something about emission tax, the most polite response I get is "what's wrong with you, mate?"...

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#167

Post by amatix »

retrac98 wrote: post #161
jessriedel wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This UN site says 5% of actual CO2 and 14% of CO2-equivalent emissions. Cow and pig production emit mostly methane and nitrogen oxide. http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/

Doesn't methane have a much more powerful greenhouse effect than CO2 though?

Yeah, that's how the 5% becomes 14% equivalent in @jessriedel's numbers.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#168

Post by blippe »

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...

It as never been illegal to perform nuclear research in Sweden. Between 1988 and 2006 it was illegal to perform preparatory actions for building nuclear power plants (in addition to actually building them, after the 1980 referendum vote). It was commonly referred to as "tankeförbudet" (a pejorative term, close to "illegal thoughts"). The law was removed 2006, one of the reason was this common misconception.

However, ABB created and exported (among others) the BWR90+ during the nineties, proving your statement wrong. You can read about it in the newspaper about how it iw popular to study nuclear power again (article from 2010). http://www.dn.se/nyheter/politik/karnkraft-hett-pa-universit...

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#169

Post by EliRivers »

ZlxVLI1eWNFSDc wrote: post #138
EliRivers wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

This is certainly not true on a regional basis

Fortunately, it's a global problem.

As to the rest of your comment, I understand that people have fewer children when they trust that their children aren't going to die young, and that's the direction we're headed in.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#170

Post by TeMPOraL »

diafygi wrote: post #13

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 ar…

Hi there, thanks for posting it again :). I favourited it the previous time around. I'm actively looking for places where I can put my skills to use for the best effect for the world, so thanks for the resources. Any recommendations on how to prioritize the needs?
Post reply on HN