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

Ask HN: What can be done to prevent a climate catastrophe?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 523 posts

Re: Ask HN: What can be done to prevent a climate catastrophe?

#271

Post by JoeAltmaier »

domlebo70 wrote: post #102
raquo wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that relevant? Areas where more than a billion people live today will become uninhabitable to humans if they warm up by 14 degrees. Actually, much sooner than that.

But why? Why can't we adapt to those environments using technology? This is what the OP comment is saying.

Coral reefs and their ecosystem lie at a precise depth - where water clarity, temperature and sea floor cooperate to provide enough sunlight and energy to allow corals to grow. A change in sea temperature of a degree or two, or a rise or fall of a few inches, and existing coral reefs collapse. And it takes centuries for them to regrow.

Many things are like that. And we don't have decades to wait for the Earth to become congenial again, we need to eat every day.

Re: Ask HN: What can be done to prevent a climate catastrophe?

#273

Post by haihaibye »

RickJWagner wrote: post #245

In the final analysis, it seems that a smaller population base is the answer. People are not easily motivated to give up creature comforts. (Though they often tell others they should.) Fewer people == fewer negative influences on the earth.

If altruism is heritible (like almost every other personality trait) won't this just select for a world of selfish people?

Re: Ask HN: What can be done to prevent a climate catastrophe?

#274

Post by thinkcontext »

xupybd wrote: post #32
jonstewart wrote: post #16

Give money to Democratic candidates challenging Republican incumbents, right now. If we believe in evidence-based science, then all evidence points to Republicans being anti-science. You don't have to be a committed lifelong Democrat to see that the current Republican party is fighting climate change efforts at every turn and needs to be displaced in order for political progress on the issue to happen.

Maybe trying to win over republicans would be better? The culture wars don’t help this issue.

Fox News is the a major barrier to that happening. There are those on the right that believe in climate change and think that we need to take action but they are vastly underrepresented on Fox. With that being the case most Republican voters will believe that its a worldwide leftist conspiracy and few Republican politicians will dare defy this orthodoxy.

That's why we have Republican congressional leaders saying things like people can't change the climate only God can (Inhofe), that sea level rise is caused by rocks falling into the ocean, and that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels are the result of more people exhaling.

Short of one of Murdoch's children changing the Fox line, only losing elections will change this behavior.

Re: Ask HN: What can be done to prevent a climate catastrophe?

#275

Post by qsdevacc »

adrianN wrote: post #204
xupybd wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think the result would be good. All that would do is destabilise the world crash our economies and set back our green tech.

Crashing the economy has historically been the most efficient way of reducing CO2 production.

And ensuring mass depression, deaths and misery.

Re: Ask HN: What can be done to prevent a climate catastrophe?

#276

Post by plopilop »

gpm wrote: post #261
plopilop wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My bad, here it is. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/09/26/1807522115

That shows health effects (which we already know exist) - why does it support the claim that the human body is unlikely to reach mars? My understanding is that without shielding about 5% of the voyagers will get cancer, and that many people consider this a reasonably acceptable risk. Does this make that number substantially worse?

It's also affecting nutrient absorption. I don't see any quantitative number about this in the paper but it's been mentioned several time as having an impact.

Re: Ask HN: What can be done to prevent a climate catastrophe?

#277

Post by TheAceOfHearts »

What's your source for this 12 year figure? What exactly happening in 12 years? What scientists are saying it's our "final chance"?

I don't think being hyperbolic is constructive or helpful in the slightest when you're looking to have a serious discussion. To be clear, I'm not saying there isn't a problem. I agree that there are a multitude of problems and that we must take action to address them. But over the last few decades a few people have made a name for themselves by making crazy allegations, and I believe this has done nothing but make people take the issue less seriously than they should.

I'm happy to be corrected on this, since I'm not an expert and I haven't done that much research. When I last looked into this topic it didn't seem like there was consensus among the scientific community about the predicted timelines for future climate events or even a clear understanding of what those events would be. Again, I'm very happy to be corrected on any of this, as I take the topic of climate change incredibly seriously. It is my belief that allowing climate change issues to run loose is one of the biggest risks to our civilization.

Re: Ask HN: What can be done to prevent a climate catastrophe?

#279

Post by TeMPOraL »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #262
TeMPOraL wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because our technology doesn't magically appear out of nowhere. Even the simple DIY "lifehack" you can assemble from $5 worth of RadioShack parts has huge supply chains hidden behind it, staffed by hundreds of thousands of people. On top of that, all those supply chains are full of circular dependencies. A chip needs a fab. A fab needs computers. Computers need chips... and screws. Screws need metal and precision man…

That's a common trope in Science Fiction. But modern technology is different from the Iron Age. It uses vastly less energy for the same result; its honestly simpler in many regards than what came before. Sure there are dependencies, and some technologies will collapse and become unachievable for generations. But others are essentially free of dependencies - the germ theory of disease, the staff system, democracy, air…

That's a fair observation. In fact, applying modern scientific and engineering knowledge to tech built from ground-up is something I'm interested in[0]. The post-collapse life would be better thanks to all this knowledge (as long as people keep copying books instead of burning them), but I still maintain we'd end up in a pretty dire situation.

Consider that food production is very much dependent and looped with all the existing supply chains. As some say, modern agriculture is essentially pouring petroleum into the ground and harvesting crops that grow from it. Could we use our scientific knowledge to get better results than preindustrial people did with the same tech level? Sure. Will it be enough to feed even 20% of current population, especially given the battered climate? I doubt it. And the way I see it, a lot of our "social technologies" - as well as more "physical" ones - seem to depend on population size and density.

Speaking of science fiction tropes, I read an interesting book once - "The Windup Girl". It featured a post-climate-change world with depleted fossil fuels and collapsed technology, that still sort-of worked thanks to machines being powered by mechanical work (with spring systems for storage and special breeds of animals providing muscle power). I wish more books and movies would go into this territory.

--

[0] - not just because it's what we'll need come climatepocalypse, but also because I believe there are many unexplored "low-tech/hi-science" solutions that could let us achieve similar results in many areas of life, while using much less energy, or with much less dependence on existing infrastructure. For instance, I feel that mechanical energy storage (springs) and gliders are underexplored and underapplied, since energy today is too cheap to bother.

--

EDIT and a tangent: I am really interested in the possibility of combining gliders with computers and sensors to enable extremely energy-efficient (if not time-efficient) flight. If anyone knows of work being done in this space, I'd love to get some directions or resources about it.

Re: Ask HN: What can be done to prevent a climate catastrophe?

#280

Post by claydavisss »

jonstewart wrote: post #16

Give money to Democratic candidates challenging Republican incumbents, right now. If we believe in evidence-based science, then all evidence points to Republicans being anti-science. You don't have to be a committed lifelong Democrat to see that the current Republican party is fighting climate change efforts at every turn and needs to be displaced in order for political progress on the issue to happen.

California is majority-run by Democrats with a Democrat Governor who isn't seeking re-election (so he can do whatever he wants)...

When asked if he would stop offshore drilling, Jerry Brown responded that he refused to put that many people out of work.

This is in a state where Democrats have effectively no opposition

The idea the Democrats are even one iota different on climate is ridiculous and dangerous. If Democrats won't act when they have majorities, a sympathetic electorate and no opposition, when will they act?

Please show me ONE piece of real evidence or instance where a Democrat willingly sacrificed REAL economic gain to achieve a climate goal...and before you mention solar, wind or carbon credits, keep in mind the US only engaged these policies when it was economically feasible to do so. Show me where a Democratic put a voter out of work to save a polar bear.

By the way if you look at where US wind assets are, it's primarily "red" states

Shall we mention All Gore? Asks me to live in a tent while living in a 12k sq ft mansion and traveling on a private jet..

Lastly, all of the evidence on climate we have now was available to Obama...what did he do? People act like it has been decades since a Democrat lived in the White House. Where was the indignation three years ago?

I expect this comment to just be downvoted without reply...

Post reply on HN