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

Arctic Summer Melt Shows Ice Is Disappearing Faster Than Normal

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 114 posts

Re: Arctic Summer Melt Shows Ice Is Disappearing Faster Than Normal

#71

Post by dashundchen »

adrianN wrote: post #18
sunshinelackof wrote: post #12

It's scary, but there's nothing I can do. We need approachingly authoritarian action on this issue by world leaders. They've had the data for decades. And the longer they wait, the more dramatic the changes to everything will be. Certainly economic freedoms taken for today will be a thing of legend (and possibly horror.)

Dumping a trillion dollars over twenty years into wind turbines, solar panels, batteries and power-to-gas would go a pretty long way without draconian measures. Providing strong monetary incentives to insulate buildings and install heat pumps doesn't have to be authoritarian either.

This! If we, the US, have the money to spend trillions to spend subsidizing the fossil fuel industry and the military industrial complex behind it, we have the money to green the economy, rebuild infrastucture and develop countless new industries and technologies.

There is so much upside and opportunity in attacking climate change and pollution, I cannot understand why so many are willing to bury their heads in the sand. Decarbonization and undoing the damage we done is the chance for a second industrial revolution, with a much higher quality of life.

Re: Arctic Summer Melt Shows Ice Is Disappearing Faster Than Normal

#72

Post by Aloha »

MegaButts wrote: post #58
Aloha wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could just build fission power plants, they're reasonably safe, not too expensive and we know how to store the waste safely, heck - we've built a place to store it, but until there is political will to overcome the NIMBYism of not wanting to live in the next potential Pripyat (no matter how remote that risk is) nothing will change, except the climate of course.

> We could just build fission power plants, they're reasonably safe, not too expensive and we know how to store the waste safely I'm not convinced this is true. Obviously there is Chernobyl, but the failures and shortcomings seem to not only be understood but popularized by Western media and we can say "oh that was just the Soviet Union." Then Fukushima happened, in a country which seems to be far better than the US…

The fukushima plant had a poor safety factor, in re the backup cooling power source. It's not as if the disaster happened in a vacuum, there was also a tsunami and the plant was not build outside of a potential tsunami zone.

Re: Arctic Summer Melt Shows Ice Is Disappearing Faster Than Normal

#73

Post by LoSboccacc »

Will_Parker wrote: post #55
seem_2211 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up in New Zealand, and now live in America. In New Zealand, people with high carbon lifestyles say "well regardless of what we do, nothing matters if Americans don't change" Now I live in America, where people with high carbon lifestyles say "well regardless of what we do, nothing matters if the Chinese don't change" And I'm sure in China they say the same thing back to the US. It's fun shifting the blame.

> It's fun shifting the blame. I don't think blame is a useful concept at all. The question is, within the complex world of economics and politics, starting from the point we are at today, what would a pragmatic solution look like, that is actually possible? It is far from obvious that the best solution is to make local sacrifices, then hoping the world will follow. It might be that we all (in the world) need to agre…

> It is far from obvious that the best solution is to make local sacrifices, then hoping the world will follow.

case in point: Europe. taxes over taxes over taxes has pushed energy cost to the point production is non competitive https://businesstech.co.za/news/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/G...

net result: local decade long slump plus most heavy industry moved to countries that have less energy cost and less regulation, so it's not clear if the world is actually better off, since you also get pollution from naval transport

Re: Arctic Summer Melt Shows Ice Is Disappearing Faster Than Normal

#74

Post by epistasis »

Aloha wrote: post #24
ForHackernews wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do what ? Normal people can't do anything worthwhile. Unless you're in a position to personally bankroll the research and buildout of fusion power (hi, Jeff) the only thing you can do at this late date is get in the face of your government representatives: Jam up their phone lines, sit in at their offices, back primary challengers who will address the problem.

We could just build fission power plants, they're reasonably safe, not too expensive and we know how to store the waste safely, heck - we've built a place to store it, but until there is political will to overcome the NIMBYism of not wanting to live in the next potential Pripyat (no matter how remote that risk is) nothing will change, except the climate of course.

> not too expensive

The evidence does not bear out this part, unfortunately. It's not NIMBYism that has killed the reactors in South Carolina, or is on the way to killing Vogtle's expansion in George, that's just mere construction incompetence.

The time to start building nuclear was in 2000-2010; we started, perhaps too small to make a big difference, but in the end it was good that more weren't attempted because it was a gigantic failure and drew far too much money away from better projects.

The problem with nuclear power aren't accidents during operation, or NIMBYism, the problem is that we no longer know how to build it. (And once you start looking into the history of construction in the US, it was also often the case that we didn't know how to build them 40 years ago.)

Re: Arctic Summer Melt Shows Ice Is Disappearing Faster Than Normal

#75

Post by darkpuma »

LoSboccacc wrote: post #67
Will_Parker wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you decide the baseline emissions for the tax and tariffs, internationally? China emits about half the carbon as the USA, per capita. So is the USA willing to pay tax to China unidirectionally, until we get to their level? Does China need to keep their current per capita levels to avoid extra tariffs? How, roughly, could this work politically at a global level, in a way that also works within the politics of e…

china measured emission are about half of usa measured emission. china non measured emissions are another story. soot is yet another story, because not all co2 is created equally efficiently. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-climatechange-insig... oh, and there's all the other shit china does of course https://nationalpost.com/news/world/scientists-discover-chin... but somehow people dodge the issue every tim…

If that is true, then the situation seems intractable. The Chinese government won't want to pay for anything beyond it's official figures, but the rest of the world has no interest in those bogus figures being used.

Re: Arctic Summer Melt Shows Ice Is Disappearing Faster Than Normal

#76

Post by wpears »

xoraes wrote: post #69
pjkundert wrote: post #34

There is something that you can do. Advocate that governments cut down on soot emissions. This accounts for a significant portion of the current temperature rise in the Arctic -- but, most importantly -- an unknown amount of the loss of snow and ice cover. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-track-... Unfortunately, this form of carbon (soot) is not as useful for funds transfer... Between cutting do…

Can you elaborate on what you meant by "funds transfer" or "wealth transfer"? I'm genuinely curious.

I took the parent comment to be making the assumption that politically attractive options for responding to emissions and climate change tend to be "market-based" solutions or activities that are picking winners between industries (say solar manufacturers and installers vs. coal plant workers). If there is a choice where there is a "winner" with money on the line there will also be lobbying money put toward that effort and so consensus building is easier.

There isn't necessarily anything nefarious about this, just that it may be incapable of dealing with the enormity of climate climate and also, as OP intimates, there may be a class of solutions that are better/cheaper/more efficient from a policy perspective, but that don't have anyone positioned to gain financially from them and so are harder to garner support for.

Re: Arctic Summer Melt Shows Ice Is Disappearing Faster Than Normal

#77

Post by bubblewrap »

"Ice flows are melting faster than average rates observed over the last three decades"

This is actually normal for averages - some years are higher, some are lower. Otherwise it wouldn't be an average.

Maybe the state of affairs is still alarming, but then they should describe it better.

Re: Arctic Summer Melt Shows Ice Is Disappearing Faster Than Normal

#78

Post by ridgeguy »

xoraes wrote: post #69
pjkundert wrote: post #34

There is something that you can do. Advocate that governments cut down on soot emissions. This accounts for a significant portion of the current temperature rise in the Arctic -- but, most importantly -- an unknown amount of the loss of snow and ice cover. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-track-... Unfortunately, this form of carbon (soot) is not as useful for funds transfer... Between cutting do…

Can you elaborate on what you meant by "funds transfer" or "wealth transfer"? I'm genuinely curious.

I took it to mean that a different form of carbon (diamond) is more suitable for wealth transfer than soot.

Re: Arctic Summer Melt Shows Ice Is Disappearing Faster Than Normal

#79

Post by agumonkey »

ssnistfajen wrote: post #61
agumonkey wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It won't be effective rapidly but: - walk as much as possible - buy as less as possible (if the sales plummet, less sending products overseas I suppose) or local - plant trees

The amount of emissions reduced by these acts, multiplied by the tiny portion of the society that actually bothers to do these, is so insignificant compared to overall carbon emissions that it may as well be a rounding error. I use to believe doing my part helps the planet -- I still try to be as environmentally-conscious as possible, but I no longer believe it has an effect on the fate of our society. What one/dozen…

rounding errors accumulate

unlike zeros

I know very well that people consumption aren't the main polluting factor but we.. are the people, we can divert part of the cycle

Re: Arctic Summer Melt Shows Ice Is Disappearing Faster Than Normal

#80

Post by gervase »

xoraes wrote: post #69
pjkundert wrote: post #34

There is something that you can do. Advocate that governments cut down on soot emissions. This accounts for a significant portion of the current temperature rise in the Arctic -- but, most importantly -- an unknown amount of the loss of snow and ice cover. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-track-... Unfortunately, this form of carbon (soot) is not as useful for funds transfer... Between cutting do…

Can you elaborate on what you meant by "funds transfer" or "wealth transfer"? I'm genuinely curious.

Pollution is a commonly-used example of a negative externality [0], or a way to shift business costs onto a third party.

In the parent example, the implication is that rather than investing money in reducing pollution, that money can instead by returned to the investors as dividends, and the global public must bear the impact of the unmitigated soot emissions.

The "wealth transfer" in this case is represented by the costs absorbed by the public (in terms of increased healthcare costs, endangered coastal real estate, disaster relief costs, etc which may result from pollution and/or anthropogenic climate change) being transferred to the investors/owners/operators of the polluting companies in the form of reduced spending on mitigation technology.

That was my interpretation of the parent's meaning, at least. At the time I posted this comment, there were three different interpretations of the same comment, which is very interesting.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Negative

Post reply on HN