The Uninhabitable Earth • Hacker News Board

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#191

Post by Oletros » Mon, Jul 10, 2017, 9:32 PM UTC

joloka wrote: post #174

Oletros wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fearmongers? > Everything described by the fearmongers has to do with too much human activity Then should read better, because it is not the case. Or perhaps you can give us links to those "fearmongers". And by fearmongers youre not talking about climate scientists, isn't?

Yes, the article is blatant fear mongering. Every time a climate issue comes up it mentions human activity as the cause of all our problems. Outside of a Hail Mary technological solution, there is only one way to reduce human activity and that is to have fewer humans.

> Every time a climate issue comes up it mentions human activity as the cause of all our problems

Still waiting any source, but I suppose youd don't have any

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#192

Post by acjohnson55 » Mon, Jul 10, 2017, 9:34 PM UTC

crush-n-spread wrote: post #87

acjohnson55 wrote: post #18

And in the USA, we are led by people who seem almost uniquely incapable of grappling with our societies hard problems. Sad.

Elon Musk leads America more than Donald Trump does, trust me. Don't get discouraged because Donny has become President. They hardly do anything interesting.

I meant "led" on every level. Our president is a symptom of a much larger problem of know-nothingism and myopic greed. We're in a social tailspin, with no clear way out.

And it's absurd to think that Elon Musk has more power or influence as an industrialist than the POTUS, Trump or not.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#193

Post by mac01021 » Mon, Jul 10, 2017, 9:34 PM UTC

golergka wrote: post #187

mac01021 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not better than total extinction for those who die in the war. Also, how do you know it is never considered among the solutions?

> It's not better than total extinction for those who die in the war. But it's better totally. > Also, how do you know it is never considered among the solutions? Never seen it discussed.

Say we want to reduce our emissions 1/10 of their current rate. This would not be enough for long term climate stability but, if we did it soon, would greatly push back our deadline on elimination the other 10% to avert the bulk of the forecasted catastrophe.

There are two ways to reduce humanity's rate of CO2 emissions:

1. Reduce the number of people emitting CO2. 2. Reduce the amount of CO2 that each person emits.

You're complaining that noone ever considers option 1 which, as an approach to our desired 90% reduction in emissions requires that we kill off 90% of the world's population? Even for those lucky enough to be among the surviving 10%, fallout from the war and the loss of the other 90% will constitute a tremendous cost in terms of their standard of living. And it won't leave those survivors in a great position to figure out the (still necessary) elimination of their remaining emissions rate.

I, for one, am unlikely to be in the 10%, and hope this approach is dismissed by those with the power to enact it.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#194

Post by anigbrowl » Mon, Jul 10, 2017, 9:45 PM UTC

dietdrb wrote: post #150

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…

The Climate Leadership Council is an organization of Republican Party elders with an extremely solid proposal to immediately reduce carbon emissions through a carbon fee, which is a market-based mechanism to reflect the true cost of carbon at the source. Link to proposal: https://www.clcouncil.org/our-plan/ Link to TED talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/ted_halstead_a_climate_solution_wh...

I would have applauded this...a decade ago. The proposal itself is a fine thing, but heralding it as 'the right strategy for our political moment' (1) is asinine.

~1/3 of the population has bought into the idea that climate change is a hoax, and that Tea Party conservative demographic has essentially wrested control of the Republican party from the well-intentioned paternalists that used to run it. Appeals to rationality and institutional consensus are unlikely to be effective when you have a large demographic that has lost trust not just in the media but in the notion of the university (2).

While the authors of the proposal are entirely right about both the current political conditions and necessity of bold action, they are no facing an intractable political problem: generating the political capital required to make this a reality demands large-scale public buy-in, most of which will naturally come from the more liberal side of the political spectrum. But the more they do so, the more intense the opposition will be, and this is a made-to-order target for the right: taxes go up! on gas and oil, the previous bodily fluids of the our psychic economy! at the behest of global elites! You can hear the cries of 'Agenda 21!!!' already.

This is a reconstructive policy, and that's great, but it is going nowhere until our existing political crisis is resolved, which is probably 5 years at a minimum.

1. https://www.clcouncil.org/the-right-strategy-for-our-politic...

2. http://www.people-press.org/2017/07/10/sharp-partisan-divisi...

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#195

Post by gorkonsine » Mon, Jul 10, 2017, 9:56 PM UTC

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…

If you need to move more than 3 kids, you need to get a minivan. But most suburban people don't, they get the more gas-guzzling SUVs instead. Minivans can also haul a lot more cargo; SUVs are generally rather poor at that.

For most people who rarely move cargo, and don't have so many kids, a much more sensible solution is to get a small/midsize car, and use a utility trailer when you need to move things. My economy car can easily move a washing machine and dryer, or a large riding mower, something that pretty much no SUV can do, thanks to a trailer. While I'm pulling a trailer I get fuel economy similar to a midsize SUV, but it's not often I'm pulling the trailer so the rest of the time I'm getting 40mpg.

Electric SUVs will still consumer significantly more energy than electric cars. You can't change basic physics.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#196

Post by gorkonsine » Mon, Jul 10, 2017, 9:59 PM UTC

neutronicus wrote: post #122

chiefofgxbxl wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My fiancee inherited an SUV when her parents moved back to their country of origin, and it really is much better than my compact sedan for moving furniture.

My utility trailer is far better than your SUV for hauling furniture, appliances, mulch, etc. And for the 363 days of the year that I'm not hauling anything needing that much capacity, my economy car gets far better fuel economy than your SUV while also being safer to drive because it's smaller, faster, and more agile, and doesn't roll over so easily so I can avoid accidents better.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#197

Post by all_usernames » Mon, Jul 10, 2017, 10:01 PM UTC

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…

I'd very much like my next employer to be one that is actively working toward climate solutions, and has a large leverage. Any suggestions?

Obvious choices would be Tesla (any large automaker with a serious electric program), or a political organization with sane and pragmatic environmental goals.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#198

Post by anigbrowl » Mon, Jul 10, 2017, 10:02 PM UTC

gorkonsine wrote: post #168

sanxiyn wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly support nuclear power, and although I kind of understand their points of view, I can't stop thinking those opposing nuclear power is not serious about climate change.

>I can't stop thinking those opposing nuclear power is not serious about climate change. They mostly are I think, they're just completely ignorant and naive and unrealistic about all the solutions. The strongly anti-nuclear people (esp. those a decade ago and longer) seem to really think that everyone's going to suddenly stop driving cars and start walking and biking everywhere. However, that said, it's getting more…

They are ignorant, but nuclear power proponents have most done a terrible job of selling their argument. They keep selling the benefits while downplaying the safety concerns. The correct strategy is to treat the safety concerns as being of primary importance and treat the benefits as an unfortunate necessity.

It does not matter what the actual risk incidence and hazards are. You do not overcome bias by talking people into submission to the evidence. that works great in peer view and in school but it does not work in the real world because the population you need to convince does not have sufficient spare intellectual capacity to process that.

If you want to sell nuclear power you offer reactor designs that are new, you over-engineer for safety, you say you're taking profit out of the equation, you fire anyone who makes even the smallest mistake, and you drink a glass of any wastewater (or equivalent depending on reactor design).

The public believes, with some reason, that anything nuclear either explodes or contaminates things. No amount of reasoned argument is going to change this perception. The way to change it is to make the plants look different and have the operators and sponsors of the plants live next to the nuclear plant with their families. Not say that it's perfectly safe, show that it's perfectly safe.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#199

Post by sbierwagen » Mon, Jul 10, 2017, 10:12 PM UTC

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…

  It's the overwhelming number of people who want to say 
  they're green, but still own two cars, never take public 
  transport, eat meat daily, live in big houses, and buy 
  buy buy.

This is the classic neoliberal "individual responsibility" framing, meant to cast global warming purely as a personal moral issue, and deflect attention from regulating corporations, which burn the majority of fossil fuels. Ending corn ethanol and oil industry subsidies will do far more than guilting people to buy electric cars.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#200

Post by anigbrowl » Mon, Jul 10, 2017, 10:20 PM UTC

kafkaesq wrote: post #189

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…

Trying to scare people into behavior does not work very well. What works is "magic science." Are these the only two options? What about education, radical changes in awareness (and self-awareness), a move toward genuine sense of responsibility toward others as well as to the commons -- is all of that, off the table? And what if "magic science" fails us this time? Or is that "unthinkable"?

Education takes a generation or two to work even for simple things, and what you're asking for is deep and fundamental. Surely you have noticed by now that a good quarter of the US population views all forms of public education with hostility. Think also how long it has taken for obviously sensible ideas to catch on, and then consider the much greater difficulty of inculcating abstract moral and political concepts.

Radical changes in awareness (and self-awareness) would be a fine thing, but frankly I think most people know about climate change already; some of them refuse to believe it, some of them would just prefer not to believe it, and some of them just don't care. The more public service announcements you make, the more they'll be denounced as satanic/communist/whatever propaganda.

Honestly, if you really want an outbreak of radical self-awareness, cross your fingers, hire every young organic chemist you can find, and start producing industrial quantities of LSD. That is not a facetious suggestion; psychedelics yield unpredictable but powerful changes in consciousness and can have a lasting impact on perception and behavior precisely because they subvert standard epistemological filters.

A move toward genuine sense of responsibility toward others is something that often emerges out of the shared experience of disaster. Just as you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink, you can lead people towards enlightenment but you can't make them think. Experience is the great teacher. Since we'd obviously rather not use disaster as our classroom, it's incumbent on us to create experiences that are sufficiently meaningful to alter behavior.