Did Setting a Timeline Doom the Fight Against Global Warming? • Hacker News Board

Re: Did Setting a Timeline Doom the Fight Against Global Warming?

#41

Post by roywiggins » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 1:33 PM UTC

bjt2n3904 wrote: post #7

You know, there was this guy that made a fool of Christianity when he predicted Jesus would return in 2011. When nothing happened, he said oops and adjusted the date. (People fortunately paid much less attention to him then.) Kinda getting tired of hearing "the sky is falling" all the time from environmental folks. When you hear "the world is ending next year, it's gonna be too late" every single year, it seems like…

Climate change doesn't work like the Second Coming. It's not a catastrophe until a cat 5++ hurricane hits your city, and then it is. It's not evenly distributed, it does not happen all at once everywhere.

Re: Did Setting a Timeline Doom the Fight Against Global Warming?

#42

Post by luckylion » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 1:33 PM UTC

RubenSandwich wrote: post #18

Ensorceled wrote: post #4

There was a lot of talk about how the world will be "uninhabitable by 2050" or "civilization will crumble by 2050" and anecdotally, that really backfired for all my elderly aunts and uncles. They happily admit that climate change is real but don't care because they will be dead by 2040. Hell, I'll be in my 80's.

Not doing something because "you'll be dead before it happens" is pure selfishness. My personal observations from those close to me who don't want to act on climate change seem that their reasons have changed within the last 5 years. They no longer claim that it isn't real or happening, they now dismiss it on grounds of losing the personal liberty provided to them by our over consumption lifestyle. (If you live in th…

> (If you live in the West, then you are likely over consuming.)

Is there any data on the spread of average vs median? From my personal experience, it seems that there are two peaks: one group of people are consuming far above the average while another is far below it (e.g. some travel by plane internationally or intercontinentally two or three times a year, others maybe once every three or five years). If you nag those below the average how they need to stop over-consuming, you'll likely yield nothing but confusion that might turn to anger and fundamental opposition if you continue.

Re: Did Setting a Timeline Doom the Fight Against Global Warming?

#43

Post by noobermin » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 1:35 PM UTC

snikeris wrote: post #8

> The only rational path is a virtuous cycle of better politicians enacting better policies and promoting better public understanding of climate change. But as of today, there is no sign the world is moving in that direction. Suppose my politicians fight the good fight and we enact the necessary policies. What about the other countries, especially those that aren't as well off?

The good news is apart from China which is at least paying lip service, most countries produce much less than we do.

Re: Did Setting a Timeline Doom the Fight Against Global Warming?

#44

Post by CodeCube » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 1:36 PM UTC

snikeris wrote: post #8

> The only rational path is a virtuous cycle of better politicians enacting better policies and promoting better public understanding of climate change. But as of today, there is no sign the world is moving in that direction. Suppose my politicians fight the good fight and we enact the necessary policies. What about the other countries, especially those that aren't as well off?

A well off industrialized nation making progress on energy and pollution reduction would a) demonstrate what things works, and b) provide investment dollars into those technologies, which _usually_ results in optimizations and lowering of costs ... so even if those "other countries" don't follow immediately, their adoption could be enabled by earlier adoption by us

Re: Did Setting a Timeline Doom the Fight Against Global Warming?

#45

Post by hd5eoih » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 1:37 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #14

WhompingWindows wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the BP World Energy statistical review for 2018, they showed that though renewable energy had fantastic falls in prices, there wasn't enough addition to meet new energy demand, especially in China and India for industry, and for the USA regarding its huge growth in natural gas. They then asked the question, how much faster would renewables need to grow to JUST meet this new energy demand (nevermind decarbonizing e…

According to IPCC projections we need to hit zero emissions worldwide within the next decade to avoid a 2C increase. Can politicians do that?

Of course they can, but the radical bleeding-heart environmentalists oppose the idea of nuclear power, they'd rather see this planet boil than accept this as a realistic solution.

Re: Did Setting a Timeline Doom the Fight Against Global Warming?

#46

Post by dependsontheq » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 1:37 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #3

Climate change was never going to be reversible with behavioral measures. Even if everyone had followed the Kyoto protocol to the letter starting in 1992 that wasn’t going to avert climate change, because nobody contemplated how quickly China and India would develop. There is no calculus where you can significantly limit climate change through behavioral measures that also allow the third world to have comfortable, m…

You are totally right and totally wrong at the same time. Yes - the solution must be in large parts a technological and scientific solution, there are so many things we have to change. No - only engineers and scientists will not make a difference, engineers work for the government or companies and both need policies to shape markets for their products or investments. We need the public at the same time to shape the markets and give the engineers something to work with. Addressing climate change means changing the incentives and the direction of our technological development... and in a democracy we all get to decide on that, that politics.

Re: Did Setting a Timeline Doom the Fight Against Global Warming?

#47

Post by mola » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 1:38 PM UTC

bregma wrote: post #39

I was alive in the 1970s when folks like the Club of Rome declared we'll all be dead form overpopulation and Malthusian collapse by the year 2000. Those self-same folks told us this century the arctic will be completely ice free by 2013. In the 1980s, others predicted our total demise due to acid rain and ozone depletion. Mean time, people are making good progress on both feeding the masses and curbing the exponentia…

On the other hand, these doomsayers also caused public outcry that changed a few things. We can never know if these changes are the reason doom didn't happen, or because the prospects were imaginary.

Anyway, I believe that it'll be very hard to annihilate humanity let alone the planet, but it'll be very easy to lower the living standards slowly enough that we won't notice the reasons for it.

If you plan to have children, I think it's something you should thinks of.

Ofcourse, I'd prefer a rational discussion regarding the issues. But the powers at be, which usually have what to lose, usually steer the debate to be anti rational. And then you find yourself in a position where you must exaggerate in order to gain attention to your cause. It's a tragedy...

Re: Did Setting a Timeline Doom the Fight Against Global Warming?

#48

Post by pathseeker » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 1:38 PM UTC

ridicter wrote: post #37

rayiner wrote: post #3

Climate change was never going to be reversible with behavioral measures. Even if everyone had followed the Kyoto protocol to the letter starting in 1992 that wasn’t going to avert climate change, because nobody contemplated how quickly China and India would develop. There is no calculus where you can significantly limit climate change through behavioral measures that also allow the third world to have comfortable, m…

It _is_ a political issue. The technology already exists--courtesy of the scientists/engineers of course. Whether that technology is deployed is a problem of politics. For example, if the price of fossil fuels reflected its true cost to society--think climate change, extreme weather, stronger storms, droughts, ocean acidification, etc--then fossil fuels would be prohibitively expensive compared to renewable or nuclea…

>This is what a carbon tax is, and it's what many scientists and economists have been pushing for decades now. But they've been fighting a losing battle against the oil and gas lobby, and one party in particular that is wholly captured by them.

You missed the forest for the trees. As the OP pointed out, the US going to zero emissions overnight will not even help. US politics will not solve Nigeria's, China's, or India's populations from expanding to modern western consumerism.

Re: Did Setting a Timeline Doom the Fight Against Global Warming?

#49

Post by snikeris » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 1:39 PM UTC

ridicter wrote: post #37

rayiner wrote: post #3

Climate change was never going to be reversible with behavioral measures. Even if everyone had followed the Kyoto protocol to the letter starting in 1992 that wasn’t going to avert climate change, because nobody contemplated how quickly China and India would develop. There is no calculus where you can significantly limit climate change through behavioral measures that also allow the third world to have comfortable, m…

It _is_ a political issue. The technology already exists--courtesy of the scientists/engineers of course. Whether that technology is deployed is a problem of politics. For example, if the price of fossil fuels reflected its true cost to society--think climate change, extreme weather, stronger storms, droughts, ocean acidification, etc--then fossil fuels would be prohibitively expensive compared to renewable or nuclea…

You didn't address the problem of Nigeria that the OP brought up. How will a carbon tax in the U.S. address the issue of the Nigerian people rightly desiring a better standard of living?

Re: Did Setting a Timeline Doom the Fight Against Global Warming?

#50

Post by NeedMoreTea » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 1:39 PM UTC

bregma wrote: post #39

I was alive in the 1970s when folks like the Club of Rome declared we'll all be dead form overpopulation and Malthusian collapse by the year 2000. Those self-same folks told us this century the arctic will be completely ice free by 2013. In the 1980s, others predicted our total demise due to acid rain and ozone depletion. Mean time, people are making good progress on both feeding the masses and curbing the exponentia…

Club of Rome predictions are pretty much spot on. It's been re-evaluated two or three times recently and each time has held up an amazingly accurate picture of what has happened since. See here for the graphs filled in the intervening years[1]. I don't recall any ice predictions from Club of Rome - do you have a link?

In the 1980s the world actually came together to phase out CFCs, and fit sulphur scrubbers on coal power stations. Interestingly the builders of Battersea were the first to fit these - in 1925. They took a while to catch on.

The ozone hole has finally stopped increasing only this decade. It's trending to resolve in 50 more years, if and only if, the recent discovery of CFC use in China doesn't grow. So a century to probably solve the man-made problem.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits...