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

Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 210 posts

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#101

Post by lazysheepherd »

netgusto wrote: post #91
lazysheepherd wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am on the watch and in last 5 minutes this submission got 6 new votes but have fallen 8 places! Before we attempt to solve climate crisis, first we should solve BIGOTRY CRISIS. I have seen this happening before too. Why does HN allows anonymous flagging? I bet anything if it were unanimous we would able to frame bigots who only flag because of their stupid personal world view. Has there been any efforts to make fla…

It definitely looks like people are pushing hard on this one. Maybe they disagree with the article, but the tone of the comments does not frankly reflects this rejection.

Yeah, that is exactly what the problem is. If someone finds something against HN rules here, should voice it in the comments. Having not more than few negative comments (I counted 2) and sinking that fast could only mean it is opinion based flagging .

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#102

Post by kerbalspacepro »

jerf wrote: post #60
yesyesno wrote: post #33

Ouch. I read this and I am completely confused about what to do with the rest of the time I have left. Should I even bother with my current career in tech, or would it be better to quit it and do something that could have even a slight impact now? These articles are great, but preaching to the choir. What should any of us do? I'm seriously and sincerely asking. Are there any suggestions, from a personal stand point i…

"I read this and I am completely confused about what to do with the rest of the time I have left." It is a grave life error to assign excessive likelihood to the doomsayers. I've been reading about inevitable doom for 25 years now. Some of what I read as a kid dated to the 60s and the guaranteed dates of inevitable doom had already passed by the time I read them in the early 90s. Even assuming they are completely 100…

It's funny because your concerns are exactly like that of Bush Sr's advisors in the article.

He's also one of the villains.

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#103

Post by arglinugs »

yesyesno wrote: post #33

Ouch. I read this and I am completely confused about what to do with the rest of the time I have left. Should I even bother with my current career in tech, or would it be better to quit it and do something that could have even a slight impact now? These articles are great, but preaching to the choir. What should any of us do? I'm seriously and sincerely asking. Are there any suggestions, from a personal stand point i…

I don't believe the CO2 levels we currently have (and are projected to have) in the atmosphere is a real threat. I don't believe the doomsday scenarios, apparently caused through cow farts and burning natural gas or from combustion engines. Energy must be expended to release CO2, and the energy is almost 0 in comparison to the energy needed to raise sea levels by say, 10 feet. We are talking millions of nuclear bombs worth of energy needed to accomplish that. There is something off with this. I don't believe the tiny amount of CO2 in our atmosphere will enable the sun to heat the planet to the doomsday levels. Predictions were made since the 80s, 90s, 00's that said our coastal cities should be literally destroyed by now... except that they aren't.

There are a lot of people who stand to profit from the climate change lobby: professors, alternate energy producers, politicians, government, media. They all want money invested in THEIR pet projects. And conveniently, it serves as a great distraction from issues on the horizon that WILL have a guaranteed negative affect on your children's quality of life, but I wont get into that, since what I'm writing is divisive enough as it is.

When it comes to the climate, you will be fine, we will be fine, our kids will be fine, the sky will not fall, the seas will not swallow up our cities (excluding regular weather), America will not become a desert (unless that super-volcano blows). It is sensationalism.

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#104

Post by catawbasam »

pier25 wrote: post #65
Comevius wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a physicist, but isn't the second law of thermodynamics puts a limit on what we can do with the excess energy, most of which are being absorbed by the oceans. Besides most of the damage is already done. EPA: It’s as if you’re sitting in your car, in your garage, with the engine running and the door closed, and you’ve slipped into unconsciousness. And that’s it. McAvoy: What if someone comes and opens the door…

Yes, we are too late. Emissions affect the climate decades later, some 40 years later. So we're now only seeing the consequences of the emissions from the 70s-80s. We've emitted more CO2 since the 80s to today, than the previous 150 years.

Too late for what? Yes, there are going to be more impacts. No, it won't mean the extinction of humanity or life on Earth. There still better or worse. Choose better.

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#105

Post by catawbasam »

ForHackernews wrote: post #27
jamesblonde wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have a solution - reduce carbon/methane emissions. Why bet the bank on a technology that hasn't been invented yet? If you said to somebody with 100 billion dollars: capture as much carbon as you can. What would they do? I would just plant trees for that money. Sure, we need basic research on carbon sequestration, but we need fundamental breakthroughs to make it happen. Time, we don't have.

> Why bet the bank on a technology that hasn't been invented yet? Because it's too late. Unless magic non-existent carbon capture technology materializes soon, we're basically fucked. https://www.vox.com/2016/10/4/13118594/2-degrees-no-more-fos... Check out that middle graphic. If we really want to avoid 1.5 degrees, and we can’t rely on large-scale carbon sequestration, then the global community has to zero out its…

But the world doesn't end when we hit 1.5. We'll still be here, and we can still shape how much things change.

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#106

Post by lazysheepherd »

netgusto wrote: post #67

Why is this entry already on page 2 of HN? Seems a bit fast given the popularity and the fact that it was posted 2 hours ago (also, compared to those that are present on p1) -- edit: we're now on page 3 just 30 minutes after my comment.

Slot 103 Points 105 Comments 101

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#107

Post by agumonkey »

zaarn wrote: post #100
agumonkey wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you understand French, there's an engineer called Jean-Marc Jancovici who is deep into the 'nuclear is the only solution so far'. He made talks on youtube on how to decarbonate economies.

I don't think nuclear will be the only solution, solar and wind may be useful in a post-fusion-energy world.

his point is that by looking at numbers, solar and other renewables are orders of magnitude off from being enough. With today's energy consumption of course. If we change our ways, models can be remade.

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#108

Post by netgusto »

lazysheepherd wrote: post #106
netgusto wrote: post #67

Why is this entry already on page 2 of HN? Seems a bit fast given the popularity and the fact that it was posted 2 hours ago (also, compared to those that are present on p1) -- edit: we're now on page 3 just 30 minutes after my comment.

Slot 103 Points 105 Comments 101

Fallen into oblivion.

On the other hand, "Trout tickling" [1] has been on the HP for 10 hours now, with 45 points and 21 comments.

Maybe we're being trout-tickled ourselves.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17652460

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#109

Post by ForHackernews »

toasterlovin wrote: post #89
pier25 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly I agree. Climate change is one of the reasons we're not having kids. In part because they would have had a very bad life, but also because it's the best for the planet. Reducing consumption of resources is not working, so we should start thinking about controlling population growth.

As an individual, you are powerless to control population growth. If you decide not to have kids, the world will get filled with the descendants of other people. The descendants of those other people will probably care less about what happens to the environment than your descendants would. Dealing with the issues of the future will require collective action. In order for that collective action to take place, people w…

You're still pretending like your kids or those other peoples' kids might get together and fix climate change. I'm saying it's too late for that.

Having kids is just condemning them to live in a world ravaged by famine, war and drought. Maybe you're fine with that because you believe on some philosophical level that any life is preferable to never having lived at all, but that's not self-evident.

Post reply on HN