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

The Uninhabitable Earth

nymag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 252 posts

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#111

Post by scottLobster »

chiefofgxbxl wrote: post #84
latch wrote: post #15

It's pretty hopeless. I used to think we'd adjust in time, but that was when the decline looked more linear (or at least I thought it looked more linear). Of the many people who I know who are seriously concerned re climate change, I'd say 2 have taken truly meaningful steps . It's not the handful of climate change deniers that's the problem. It's the overwhelming number of people who want to say they're green, but s…

This is why I'm so concerned about the trend that SUV sales are outpacing Sedan sales. Whereas sedans used to be the "default" car a decade ago, SUVs are now taking their place [0]. All things being equal, a smaller car (sedan) should get better MPG than a larger car (SUV) [1]. And yet it seems that people's efforts to reduce their environmental footprint is focused on recycling a plastic cup here and there [2]. A ve…

Granted some people buy gratuitously large vehicles, but for many there is a practical purpose: moving large amounts of stuff. Whether it's multiple bags of mulch, dorm room furniture, sports equipment, more than 3 kids, or just lots of luggage for a family road trip, there's definitely an advantage to a big car there. Not to mention better performance in snow depending on model.

In any case, one we get non-luxury electric SUVs the point will largely be moot.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#112

Post by joloka »

cbennett wrote: post #82
joloka wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sensationalism is not a firm basis for serious debate or serious action. If anything is going to save the human race, it is technology, but to hear these breathless alarmists talk, they are anti-technology, anti-progress, and apparently want us all to live stacked up in massive cities with no real quality of life at all. I tend to see this as either an exhibition of control-freak tendencies or simply full-on communis…

>>to hear these breathless alarmists talk, they are anti-technology, anti-progress, and apparently want us all to live stacked up in massive cities with no real quality of life at all. I tend to see this as either an exhibition of control-freak tendencies or simply full-on communism. Where is the second half of the article where, after discussing at length many bad possible outcomes, the guy goes on to propose detail…

You're right in that I never made it to the end, it was just that bad. It's like the weekend crap fearmonger articles you get on Zerohedge every weekend, albeit with better graphics. Not trolling.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#113

Post by rwcarlsen »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #68

A few observations: Trying to scare people into behavior does not work very well. The Catholic Church spent centuries threatening people with eternal hell if they had extra-marital sex, and people still had extra-marital sex. Studies have shown that abstinence only sex education results in more teen pregnancies. Thomas Malthus saw an impending famine and begged people to have fewer children. People did not listen. Wh…

Not disagreeing with the ineffectiveness of abstinence on unwanted pregnancy, I just would like to point out that I don't think the Catholic church was trying (directly) to address extra-marital pregnancy. Their primary/direct goal was to prevent extra-marital sex - which their teachings do seem to affect. Your comment could be read as a criticism that the "Catholic leaders were dumb - can't they see that birth control education is more effective?" - which is a wrong line of thinking because that is not the issue that the Catholic leaders were trying to address.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#114

Post by opportune »

Brakenshire wrote: post #90
jackmott wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Soil is extremely good at absorbing Carbon Dioxide. Isn't it why there is so little CO2 in the atmosphere (0.04%)? We just need to make sure the process does indeed happen. Nonsense hand waving. Nobody has a coherent plan for how to "just" make that happen. The people who think they have a coherent plan haven't opened up excel or a napkin to do some preliminary math about the scale involved.

One of the major problems we have is that this amazing carbon sink is being destroyed, there have been quite a few years where slash and burn in rainforests has competed with the burning of fuels as the major source of carbon emissions. We face a major challenge to halt that, but to actually reverse it entirely and aim for a radical recreation and expansion seems ambitious. My understanding was that rainforests take…

The problem is that by focusing on rainforests, we also unfairly target some of the poorest countries on earth. Coming from westerners, who essentially deforested an entire continent (Europe) and chopped down and replanted another one (US/Canada), this message is highly hypocritical. If you're a poor farmer making $3000/year in Brazil or Indonesia you don't give two shits about what some latte-sipping American thinks about the rainforest, you're worried about feeding your family and getting your kids a good education.

The solution is to actually subsidize these farms out of chopping down the rainforest. If you pay the farmer $5k to not slash and burn the rainforest so they can plant their crops there, they won't because that income is almost as much as they would make anyway. The problem is, this doesn't really work at scale. But that's economics; if we truly valued the rain forest as much as we said we did, we would be willing to pay to keep it around (like Norway actually does).

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#115

Post by tastyfreeze »

chiefofgxbxl wrote: post #84
latch wrote: post #15

It's pretty hopeless. I used to think we'd adjust in time, but that was when the decline looked more linear (or at least I thought it looked more linear). Of the many people who I know who are seriously concerned re climate change, I'd say 2 have taken truly meaningful steps . It's not the handful of climate change deniers that's the problem. It's the overwhelming number of people who want to say they're green, but s…

This is why I'm so concerned about the trend that SUV sales are outpacing Sedan sales. Whereas sedans used to be the "default" car a decade ago, SUVs are now taking their place [0]. All things being equal, a smaller car (sedan) should get better MPG than a larger car (SUV) [1]. And yet it seems that people's efforts to reduce their environmental footprint is focused on recycling a plastic cup here and there [2]. A ve…

At least around here if you ask people why they, as the only person in the vehicle, drive something so big many will answer, "so, I win". The idea being that in an accident the larger vehicle will provide more protection.

Soon we will all be driving semi-tractors just so we can "win" against the largest vehicles on the road.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#116

Post by chiefofgxbxl »

scottLobster wrote: post #111
chiefofgxbxl wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I'm so concerned about the trend that SUV sales are outpacing Sedan sales. Whereas sedans used to be the "default" car a decade ago, SUVs are now taking their place [0]. All things being equal, a smaller car (sedan) should get better MPG than a larger car (SUV) [1]. And yet it seems that people's efforts to reduce their environmental footprint is focused on recycling a plastic cup here and there [2]. A ve…

Granted some people buy gratuitously large vehicles, but for many there is a practical purpose: moving large amounts of stuff. Whether it's multiple bags of mulch, dorm room furniture, sports equipment, more than 3 kids, or just lots of luggage for a family road trip, there's definitely an advantage to a big car there. Not to mention better performance in snow depending on model. In any case, one we get non-luxury el…

I think people delude themselves into thinking they're purchasing an SUV to transport a lot of stuff or to travel with kids, when in reality drivers nonetheless drive alone.

Anecdotally, as I've said, SUVs have simply replaced Sedans as the "default" car on the road. And as you may know, the "default" car in America has a single driver.

> In any case, one we get non-luxury electric SUVs the point will largely be moot.

I disagree on the basis of the positive reinforcement cycle causing people to buy larger cars in the first place. From speaking to other drivers and listening to them as they think out their thought process when deciding what new car to buy, the #1 reason people want to drive an SUV is safety (which may include the point you made about performance in snow).

Not that I have anything against safety itself, but you must see the arms race that can occur from seeking safety in a larger vehicle. When other people are driving larger vehicles around you, you may feel endangered and thus buy a larger car yourself. That causes other drivers to buy larger cars in turn. No one can have "the biggest car". They only keep getting bigger.

So this notion that electric SUVs are going to save us is moot, I believe. People will still clamor for larger (now-electric) SUVs for their safety, reducing their eMPG (electric-equivalent MPG).

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#117

Post by opportune »

uptown wrote: post #33
latch wrote: post #15

It's pretty hopeless. I used to think we'd adjust in time, but that was when the decline looked more linear (or at least I thought it looked more linear). Of the many people who I know who are seriously concerned re climate change, I'd say 2 have taken truly meaningful steps . It's not the handful of climate change deniers that's the problem. It's the overwhelming number of people who want to say they're green, but s…

The system has evolved to make change very difficult. One part of this post on ZeroHedge shows you the supply chain involved with just a ketchup. 52 transport and process stages. Fifty-two. "Just how energy inefficient the food system is can be seen in the crazy case of the Swedish tomato ketchup. Researchers at the Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology analysed the production of tomato ketchup. The study cons…

How is this inefficient? I definitely think that markets have the potential to be very inefficient, but do we know that the alternatives to this are any more efficient? Economies of scale often do make it more efficient for all of a particular kind of product to be produced in one location and then shipped to wherever they're needed. The fact that there are 52 steps to the process says nothing about the actual efficiency of it. It's just a play to ignorance to the fact that almost all products we enjoy go through a similarly complicated supply chain.

It's only inefficient in the sense that it expends more gas (thus leading to higher emissions) than is strictly necessary. However, I also assume that it is cheaper for food to be distributed and processed in this manner; this is usually what people mean by "efficient".

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#118

Post by sosodaft »

What we really need is WWII-style, society-wide action on this count--remember the days of Meatless Mondays, saving your cans to make bullets, mailing your binoculars to the Navy. Even if it's confined to the parts of society that actually believe global warming is a serious threat, making pro-climate living a social norm could have a tremendous effect.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#119

Post by thesmallestcat »

gilbetron wrote: post #79
thesmallestcat wrote: post #22

Well, one of the clearest consequences of global warming is that an entire continent becomes habitable as well as a large part of the northern Canada and Russia. Everything I've read about global warming indicates an increase in arable land even when accounting for desertification.

From the article: "Pollyannaish plant physiologists will point out that the cereal-crop math applies only to those regions already at peak growing temperature, and they are right — theoretically, a warmer climate will make it easier to grow corn in Greenland. But as the pathbreaking work by Rosamond Naylor and David Battisti has shown, the tropics are already too hot to efficiently grow grain, and those places where…

In the very long term, how can you dispute the benefit of human expansion in Antarctica? Humans have thrived in times when there was little glaciation and suffered in times of increased glaciation. The only benefit of glaciers is that we're accustomed to the climate they promote. I have no doubt that mankind could adjust to and thrive in a world without glaciers. It's ridiculous how afraid humans are to engineer their planet compared to a century ago.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#120

Post by _rpd »

state_machine wrote: post #93

I did not realize the physiological effects would be as severe: > The fraction of carbon dioxide is growing: It just crossed 400 parts per million, and high-end estimates extrapolating from current trends suggest it will hit 1,000 ppm by 2100. At that concentration, compared to the air we breathe now, human cognitive ability declines by 21 percent.

This level of impairment conflicts with data from military studies, for example ...

> CO2 at 40,000 ppm for 2 weeks did not affect performance on multiple tests of cognitive function in physically fit young airmen

https://www.nap.edu/read/11170/chapter/5#54

but it is something certainly worth further investigation.

Post reply on HN