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

Drawdown: The most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse Global Warming

drawdown.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 95 posts

Re: Drawdown: The most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse Global Warming

#51

Post by dane-pgp »

yulaow wrote: post #31
colordrops wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't it seem though that politics is a deadlock, with nations playing a game of chicken that has no winner? It's a case of the tragedy of the commons. No power broker is going to sacrifice their economy or political backers enough to make a difference, as there would always be someone else with a more short term view take advantage of their temporary weakness. It seems that there is no feasible solution other than…

The problem is that the economical background of our society is based on exploiting all resources and pushing the limits of the society itself (both with high reproduction rates and in mass production of goods). If we want to change the climate situation, we first need to change the whole economic system and related political measures.

When you say "our society is based on ... high reproduction rates", which society are you talking about, and which reproduction rates?

Currently most of humanity has less than replacement level of fertility:

http://www.economist.com/node/14743589

Are you saying that the economy is failing because of low reproduction rates?

Re: Drawdown: The most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse Global Warming

#52

Post by Sleeep »

nostromo wrote: post #10

I hear often that educating girls will curb population growth in poor countries. Has anyone actually proven that this is a causative relationship and not correlative?

This is true even in the United States

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/9/education-lev...

Re: Drawdown: The most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse Global Warming

#53

Post by sgc »

lumberjack wrote: post #43
colordrops wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't it seem though that politics is a deadlock, with nations playing a game of chicken that has no winner? It's a case of the tragedy of the commons. No power broker is going to sacrifice their economy or political backers enough to make a difference, as there would always be someone else with a more short term view take advantage of their temporary weakness. It seems that there is no feasible solution other than…

The Paris Agreement was an attempt at fixing that problem. I think it's still the way forward.

No it wasn't. It was an attempt to start thinking about the problem. Everyone knows it is completely insufficient. I agree that we need it, even dearly, but we do need to focus on creating easier and more commercially advantageous solutions to reduce the amount of force (political or otherwise) required to implement an effective solution. Otherwise, frankly, forget it. People are going to be kicking and screaming against it and we just don't have the time for their bs. So studies like these are also insufficient, but in my opinion one of the more important aspects of moving forward with just getting this done rather than talking about it.

Re: Drawdown: The most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse Global Warming

#54

Post by spenrose »

acidburnNSA wrote: post #50

Nit picking on one issue: Nuclear. I'm glad they at least listed it as a solution but I feel that there's way too much agenda in here that isn't based on the science. It has potential to avoid emissions, but there are many reasons for concern: deadly meltdowns, tritium releases, abandoned uranium mines, mine-tailings pollution, radioactive waste, illicit plutonium trafficking, and thefts of missile material, among th…

"there's way too much agenda in here that isn't based on the science"

1) The concerns they list are the actual concerns of significant segments of the population. Such as e.g. an overwhelming majority of the German electorate. 2) I personally think that some of those concerns are overweighted. You apparently do as well. 3) Failing to weigh those concerns the way you and I do does not constitute "having an agenda not based on the science", key word "the". 4) They are evenly applying "the" science of GHG reduction to all solutions. It's not their job to follow a specific agenda on the debated science of side topics such as those you single out.

Nuclear power activates identity framing for a lot of people. For some it is anti-, but for others it is pro-. The anti-nuclear people typically own the identity issue. The pro-nuclear people sometimes do, but sometimes want to claim a "these are the scientific facts with which it is irrational to agree" kind of super-identity.

Re: Drawdown: The most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse Global Warming

#55

Post by freshhawk »

guscost wrote: post #35
yulaow wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the economical background of our society is based on exploiting all resources and pushing the limits of the society itself (both with high reproduction rates and in mass production of goods). If we want to change the climate situation, we first need to change the whole economic system and related political measures.

Speaking more as an engineer than as a contrarian here: If that's your plan, you're going to fail at it.

That's definitely what Kings used to say. And chieftains of hunter/gatherer tribes before them.

Re: Drawdown: The most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse Global Warming

#56

Post by im3w1l »

dlwdlw wrote: post #42
freshhawk wrote: post #20

So zero political solutions here? Just a list of technological aspects of a solution? How can people not know that the problem here is getting people to do something, it is definitely not that we don't know what to do which is a minor problem in comparison. What about a group who have starving children and will clear-cut a forest to feed them no matter what agreements are in place? How much violence is used to enforc…

I have a pet theory that there is some self indulgent delusion in not recognizing the real issue in order to preemptively take the high ground for an "I told you so." In many multiplayer games for example, I've seen many support or healer character be the most toxic. By playing the non-fun helper healer, he or she takes the high ground to blame the rest of the team, oblivious that the toxicity is destroying the real…

Counter theory: People who really really want to win play less-fun more-important characters.

EDIT: And then when they don't win they get upset.

Re: Drawdown: The most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse Global Warming

#57

Post by spenrose »

mchannon wrote: post #18

Let's assume that for a moment all their numbers are correct (it's a huge assumption) and let's also assume that they will all be achieved (cough). Their numbers add up to approximately 100% of 2017 annual fossil fuel emissions. That means that all of the excess CO2 currently in the atmosphere is beyond the reach of the combined 80 solutions they propose. Greenhouse gas production rates continue to increase (Earth ha…

"Let's assume that for a moment all their numbers are correct (it's a huge assumption)"

The entire framing of their approach is to only consider peer-reviewed literature -- holding themselves to the highest standard we have, the one most free of "assumption." It is rhetorically deceptive to open by characterizing them as making assumptions.

Re: Drawdown: The most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse Global Warming

#58

Post by biot »

winstonewert wrote: post #41
biot wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you agree that air which is less polluted is a good thing? Or that rich soil which has a variety plant growth is better than a lifeless desert? Or that clean water is better than polluted water? And so on. Much of this boils down to "stop polluting the environment we live in". Focus on means of reducing pollution and the labels (global warming or not) will take care of themselves.

The problem is that we have to make trade-offs between different types of pollution: https://www.euractiv.com/section/sustainable-dev/news/trade-... So, your line of reasoning doesn't really work: if CO2 weren't a threat we would make entirely different pollutant trade-offs then the case where CO2 threatens to end life as we know it.

I admit that my reasoning is overly simplistic but, for those who struggle with whether or not global warming is scientifically sound, focusing on the basics will often result in them arriving at similar conclusions as to how to act (eg: using energy from the sun when possible is better than using energy from coal), and that's a good thing rather than arguing over any particular label.

Re: Drawdown: The most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse Global Warming

#59

Post by spenrose »

zitterbewegung wrote: post #23

My personal thought is to make a geoengineering company to perform carbon sequestration. At first you would figure out how to grow large amounts of switchgrass and or algae using some type of automated planting either in deserts or in the ocean. Then start breeding or make GMO plants that would more efficiently sequester carbon. Also, try to make other systems that would lower temperature like a space based shade or…

These approaches are discussed in the book.

Re: Drawdown: The most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse Global Warming

#60

Post by melling »

sgc wrote: post #53
lumberjack wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Paris Agreement was an attempt at fixing that problem. I think it's still the way forward.

No it wasn't. It was an attempt to start thinking about the problem. Everyone knows it is completely insufficient. I agree that we need it, even dearly, but we do need to focus on creating easier and more commercially advantageous solutions to reduce the amount of force (political or otherwise) required to implement an effective solution. Otherwise, frankly, forget it. People are going to be kicking and screaming aga…

The Drawdown looks like it’s trying to help the policy makers on how to effectively reduce CO2. Different countries are making different decisions that work for them.

I’m not sure why someone is complaining about this book. It seems like it would quite helpful.

The Paris Agreement, for example, lets countries decide what’s best for them.

For instance, according to the site, onshore wind turbines appear to be one of the better solutions for generating electricity.

84.6 GIGATONS REDUCED CO2

$1.23 TRILLION NET IMPLEMENTATION COST

$7.43 TRILLION NET OPERATIONAL SAVINGS

Post reply on HN