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

321–330 of 522 posts

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#321

Post by Touche »

pantalaimon wrote: post #298
Touche wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're looking at the world's history with rose-colored glasses. World poverty is at the lowest levels today than it has been in recorded history: https://ourworldindata.org/slides/world-poverty/#/declining-... I think you'd be hard pressed to find a time in history when life was better than it is today. And if you did find one, it would be so long ago than population levels were a fragment of what they are n…

> I think you'd be hard pressed to find a time in history when life was better than it is today. That's nice and dandy but what good is it if we can only sustain that maybe another 50 years if we're lucky?

I guess if we had foresight we could have prevented the industrial revolution which would had (likely) prevented climate change.

Of course, the industrial revolution was a force of economic pressure, not a decision the world came together and decided on in unity.

So to prevent the industrial revolution would have required a suppression of freedom and property rights unlike has ever existed in history. On a world scale.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#322

Post by rimliu »

tajen wrote: post #291
rimliu wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we believe they're more frequent because of GW No, we actually still not sure about this.

The consensus is, we're sure. Doubts on the details shouldn't slow us from acting anyway.

Since when we are sure? Just a few weeks ago some scientist on BBC was talking about extreme events and was careful not to insist that they are a direct consequence of climate change (though there finally appears to be a link). I am aware about consensus on climate change, but not about direct link between it and more frequent or more severe occurrences of extreme weather events. Pretty much all agree that it is likely that changing climate "may likely" bring more of such events but are careful not to directly link any particular case with it.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#323

Post by demonshalo »

PeterisP wrote: post #316
Jare wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we are making one of the BEST trade-offs humanity has ever seen Either you believe that we are not heading to a near extinction-level event, that we will prevent it before it happens, or that such an event is a fair price to pay for enjoying a century of computers and iphones. The first option seems blind, the second baseless optimism, and the 3rd... I don't really know what to say. Is there a 4th?

Do you believe that we are heading to near extinction-level event? As far as I have seen, even the most extreme predictions of climate change consequences don't come close to that. I have seen predictions expecting mass forced migrations, decrease in sustainable population, etc; but unless you're literally expecting the vast majority of the worldwide population to die, it's not an extinction-level event, it's not nea…

That's what I mean when I say they lack reason. The entire green movement's argument is an emotional one not a logical one.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#324

Post by demonshalo »

torrent-of-ions wrote: post #260
demonshalo wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. By 'spirituality' I mean the deep realisation of the larger conte…

> The problem with the green movement as a whole is that they do not understand economics or trade-offs. Yes, they do. It's just that destroying the planet and letting the future generations suffer for a more comfortable and convenient life right now is not a trade that they are willing to make.

> letting the future generations suffer...

source?

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#325

Post by rimliu »

CalRobert wrote: post #218
rimliu wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, meat calories will need to be replaced with something. Or are we going to eat grass?

Given that it takes 10,000 calories of feed to make 1,000 calories of beef, you're still talking about a massive reduction in the number of vegetation calories produced.

Is it calories or mass? I.e. cow eats 10kg of grass to produce 1kg of beef, we eat 10kg of beaf to gain 1kg of weight? And in any case it does not really answer the question.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#326

Post by PeterisP »

pizza wrote: post #108
jsmthrowaway wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

You'd obviously need to involve the first world countries for a meaningful impact on consumption.

Please name a single first world nation-state that would be either submerged under water or have their population decimated (i.e. an expected casualty rate of 10%).

I believe that even Netherlands would stay above water by continued investment and extension of their current water control practices. For the first world, any coastal areas that actually do become underwater will likely simply result in an expensive migration, with actual deaths from storms/etc measured in the hundreds at most.

Countries like Bangladesh are in a different position, for them it makes all sense to reduce emissions, but they can't change much.

The expected worst case change in the first world is not impactful enough to warrant major changes in the country regime; if huge reductions of emissions are more expensive than some resettlement (and, generally, won't be enough to prevent the need of resettlement anyway), then we don't reduce global emissions but invest in mitigation of local consequences.

And actually, one answer to "who needs nation-states when they're submerged under water and their populations decimated?" is that the first world would actually want their nation-states to be strong and shield their people from the consequences of other nation-states becoming submerged under water and their populations decimated.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#327

Post by api »

delegate wrote: post #145

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, ou…

That has been the rhetoric since the 1960s. That is the rhetoric that is obviously not working.

I call this the "abstinence based" approach to solving environmental problems. Guilt and shame and preach people into denying their "sinful nature." It works about as well as telling teenagers not to have sex.

We have made a near idol out of technology because the benefits of modern technology and all its associated energy consumption are massive. Due to the diminishing marginal utility of wealth, these benefits are the most massive for the poor. The major driving force of consumption and pollution growth is not the relatively small number of super-rich buying more jets, but the rise of billions of people from hand-to-mouth poverty into something beginning to resemble at least a first world lower-middle class lifestyle.

Sitting in a rich Western country and telling them they're sinners for wanting these things is not going to work. It's going to get you ignored. It's getting you ignored.

The way to save the planet is to stop the feel-good moralism and start treating this problem as what it is: a technical problem that can be solved by scientists and engineers. Replace fossil fuels with solar, wind, and nuclear power and give out free condoms to teenagers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_...

If you pay attention to the large scale developed economies on that list, you'll notice a large difference between the CO2 emissions of, say, France or Switzerland vs. the United States or China. All of these nations are full of mobile phones and computers and high speed transit systems, but all are not equal in terms of their environmental impact. Clearly some are doing what they are doing in ways that cause less environmental harm than others.

It is possible to maintain and even continue to develop our "sinful" lifestyle while reducing its footprint.

Not only is this possible, but it's the only option. There are still billions of people living in poverty, and those people are going to ignore your rhetoric. It's their desire not for opulence but for basic health and dignity that is going to push the planet past 600-800ppm CO2 in this century... unless we find ways to satisfy that desire without trashing out atmosphere.

We will solve these problems by innovating, or we will sit around and pray and moralize all the way to hell.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#328

Post by alistproducer2 »

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?

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#329

Post by caf »

Touche wrote: post #283
tehwalrus wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The question is how can we steer the ship. You mean how we can fix the leaks.

Fix the leaks or find another ship (planet).

Now who's got the rose-coloured glasses on?

Thinking that organising a worldwide migration to another planet is going to be a practical option is as absurd as thinking that moving back to a pre-industrial society is.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#330

Post by kerbalspacepro »

harwoodleon wrote: post #207

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 choice…

As a % of CO2 emissions, how much is flying?
Post reply on HN