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

401–410 of 522 posts

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#401

Post by mirimir »

splawn wrote: post #394
mirimir wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but that's very different from "killing the planet". If what you care about is the future of human civilization, then that's what you ought to be talking about. Bringing up "killing the planet" just invites eye rolls. Personally, I care more about the future of consciousness than about the future of humanity, per se .

People pointing out the distinction between "killing the planet" and "killing off our species" is what causes my eyes to roll. Seems to me like a moot point. edit: /mute/moot/g

Well, "the planet" = "our species" is a big part of the problem, no?

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#403

Post by jacquesm »

Reason077 wrote: post #389
jacquesm wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worldwide the share of coal in energy production is at 40% and the United States it has dropped from 56% to 40%. Coal still produces 40% of every KWh consumed with Nuclear making up a fair portion of the remainder. Renewables are at 20% and (fortunately) rising sharply but for the moment fossil energy sources are by far the bulk of the energy consumed by electric vehicles. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.C…

Yes, but to use this as an argument against electrification of transport is silly. Even in countries that still have coal-fired power today, an electric vehicle is certainly no worse than a fossil-fuel one. And, as grid share of renewables and other cleaner energy sources increases, each EV becomes greener and greener over time. But each fossil vehicle remains just as polluting - or perhaps even gets worse as it ages…

> Even in countries that still have coal-fired power today, an electric vehicle is certainly no worse than a fossil-fuel one.

I've yet to see an end-to-end over the lifespan of the vehicle report that was factual enough that it was possible to make that call.

Keep in mind that EVs have been subsidized a lot, that the batteries themselves are made with technology that also pollutes and emits CO2 and that a new EV is almost certainly a net negative compared to continuing to driver an older ICE because the ICE car already exists and the EV has to be built new.

That makes the whole equation so complex that I really do not feel comfortable saying that an electric vehicle is certainly better or equal to a fossil-fuel one, it would very much depend.

I'm writing this as a long time renewable energy nut that would very much like to see our dependence on oil reduced to manageable proportions and not for something like transport where we have other alternatives. Even so, if this is all to succeed then the best way forward is to be realistic rather than to hype EVs and the reality is that right now people claim their EVs are 'green' when in fact they are to a large extent turning decentralized pollution into centralized pollution.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#404

Post by mirimir »

mac01021 wrote: post #397
mirimir wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, we're not "killing the planet". Humans are organisms like any other. Sure, human populations have spiked from millions to billions in recent millennia, and mean per capita resource utilization has increased dramatically. But that's just what organisms do. So anyway, the planet will be fine. Human civilization may collapse, given the risk of crop failure and war. But even humanity will survive. Edit: Many other…

Isn't this a straw man? I don't think anyone really believes the giant ball of iron we live on is alive or can be killed. "Killing the planet" is shorthand for "making the planet inhospitable and causing harm to a majority of its living inhabitants" or something like that. So why do so many people feel compelled to derail conversations about global warming by pointing out at length that the earth itself is not litera…

No, it's not a straw man. Yes, many species will go extinct. Human civilization will probably collapse. Maybe the human species will go extinct. But life will go on, and within a billion years, who will care?

We wouldn't be here, but for the last major extinction event.

Anyway, I'm not arguing for inaction. But I do think that it's too late. Exponentials and positive feedback are full of surprises.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#406

Post by splawn »

mirimir wrote: post #401
splawn wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People pointing out the distinction between "killing the planet" and "killing off our species" is what causes my eyes to roll. Seems to me like a moot point. edit: /mute/moot/g

Well, "the planet" = "our species" is a big part of the problem, no?

Not sure. If that somehow poetically translates into the reason it is so easy for us to demonize science with corrupted politics... Then you get a "100% yes" from me. :)

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#407

Post by 7952 »

spangry wrote: post #234
7952 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More simplistically we have to care about things beyond our most immediate surroundings. The extent of that concern has always been something that people argue about, just look at how the left and right view "community" differently. But it is essentially a moral question more than a practical or scientific one. Making people aware of the ethical dimension of their actions is worthwile. It is just difficult to do that…

Or you can internalise costs that normally get externalised. For instance, the government could make people pay a fixed-fee (i.e. a tax) for every tonne of co2 they emit. You then just set the fee at a level commensurate with the total damage caused by emitting a tonne of co2 and then sit back and let people's natural self-interest do the rest of the work. I think it's noble and commendable to act ethically, and prom…

I think social pressure is hugely powerful in defining peoples behaviour. That is why we act "ethically" out of a sense of peer pressure; it has little to do with the rightness of the underlying act.

You see this with how smoking is viewed. People don't really care about the health effects to bystanders, they care about what others will think about them. That is human nature.

The trouble with this kind of tax/fee is that it trivialises the issue. You are allowed to do something wrong as long as you pay a small fee. This sends a mix message, and even leeds to a sense of entitlement.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#408

Post by virmundi »

openasocket wrote: post #380
virmundi wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self-actualization and spirituality seldom go hand in hand with wealth. Poor people have improved spirituality than wealthier people. Wealth draws your focus away from those things onto pleasures like sleeping around, or owning the latest i-device because it's the latest. Hence Jesus saying it's easier to thread a fishing line through a needle than for a wealthy person to find the Kingdom of Heaven.

> Hence Jesus saying it's easier to thread a fishing line through a needle Nit: it's thread a camel through the eye of the needle, not fishing line

Nope. That's just a shitty English translation. The Jews at the time were familiar with different types of ropes/threads. It is most likely that Jesus referred to the type of rope used in fishing which is much larger than a thread.

http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/camelneedle.htm

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#409

Post by kamaal »

everyone wrote: post #390
PeterisP wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The planet is going to be just fine, the only thing that we can screw up is our ability to live on it in large numbers - which matters a lot to me for obvious reasons. Unless we're speaking about things that literally are extinction events for us , the larger organism doesn't really care about extremely short term fluctuations; in the scale of a few hundred million years the current climate change (or the temporary e…

The sun is hotter now than it was at the PT event. There are serious climate scientists saying that, its possible that a greenhouse effect similar to the PT event happening now, could push earth into a Venus like state.

One thing to note is the PT event took several million years to unfold.

I think human civilization has bigger problems in the mean time.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#410

Post by breatheoften »

specialist wrote: post #274
mikelyons wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If everyone was seeking enlightenment, there would be no incentives. Incentives are entirely constructions of the ego. Also, most of the posters seem ignorant to the fact that science and rationality are equally as dogmatic as the most fundamentalist religion. All beliefs are false, there is no argument against that.

No contest. I can't argue spirituality, enlightenment. "If you meet Buddha on the road, kill him." While I personally believe we'd all be better off reconnecting with awe, wonder, our place in the universe... When's the last time you watched the Milky Way? Heard the birds singing without the roar of airliners? ...Those beliefs aren't actionable.

How is the desire to observe the Milky Way due to a belief in its beauty not actionable?

There are organizations that seek to preserve the possibility to view the night sky with minimal light pollution (http://darksky.org). I went to a campsite in New Mexico that is designated as a dark sky sanctuary recently -- it was amazing.

Post reply on HN