Charts show how little progress has been made in limiting greenhouse emissions • Hacker News Board

Re: Charts show how little progress has been made in limiting greenhouse emissions

#131

Post by eloff » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 1:06 AM UTC

titzer wrote: post #81

eloff wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is going to drown. People will do some combination of building walls, raising land, and moving. It will play out over a period of a thousands years or more. There will be a non-zero cost associated with diverting resources for these things, but that's not the end of the world. I'm not saying it's an excuse for not acting though. We have a responsibility to take care of our own mess, rather than just dump it on…

> Nobody is going to drown. Well, they probably won't drown by the millions, but sea level rise contributes to coastal flooding in extreme weather events, such as hurricanes and typhoons, and most people who die in those events die due to flooding. So it is not a stretch to stay that thousands of people--perhaps tens or even hundreds of thousands--could actually be drowned by rising sea levels.

Yes, that's true. I'm not sure why you got downvoted for saying that.

Re: Charts show how little progress has been made in limiting greenhouse emissions

#132

Post by eloff » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 1:12 AM UTC

Robotbeat wrote: post #84

eloff wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're the only one talking about not giving a crap. Don't strawman my argument. 50-100cm of sea-level rise over a period of 100 years is a non-issue really. Most places won't be affected and those that will be have time to employ one of the three strategies mentioned. Everyone alive will be dead before it starts to really bite - that does not equate to permission "not to give a crap" to be perfectly clear. It's also…

1 meter is on top of about that much subsidence and storm surge increase. Most of Langley Air Force Base and much of adjacent NASA Langley will be below high tide level, not counting storm surge. My neighbor's house (who are trying to sell) will be under nearly a meter of water. This is not "non-issue." We're talking only about 80 years from now. Within living memory. And we're already seeing impact. https://coast.no…

Yes, it will be extremely expensive and it's a crime that we don't tax fossil fuels to account for those negative externalities. I don't want to downplay it too much here. It's serious business, but is not the end of civilization - unless those feedback loops kick in in a big way. I think the change in sea level will be somewhat gradual, giving time to migrate or fortify infrastructure. Keep in mind few of the roads, bridges, and skyscrapers in our current cities will still be there when the water reaches them. If we write them off and build further inland instead of trying to maintain or rebuild them in place, it will naturally shift part of our infrastructure. It will still be costly though.

Re: Charts show how little progress has been made in limiting greenhouse emissions

#133

Post by wtdata » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 8:52 AM UTC

reitzensteinm wrote: post #130

wtdata wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean? It's not your racism that has you stating that someone in a country with a very good track record when it comes to CO2 emissions (and a number of other environmental aspects) should stop having children, so that someone in a overly populated country, with an appalling record when it comes to all kinds of pollution can have even more children? If it's not racism from your part that makes you ask for…

I'm not telling you not to have children, but it does make you a hypocrite. I'm accusing you of casual racism for drawing a false distinction around the behavior of Indians. They are doing what everyone else has done in the same circumstance. Just because we have gotten our growth spurt and dirty economic development out the way doesn't entitle us to waggle our finger at those that took longer. It's on the first worl…

> They are doing what everyone else has done in the same circumstance.

We already established those aren't the same circumstances at all:

- 1st: we didn't have even 1/4 of the Indian population density when we were having the same birthrates.

- 2nd: When global warming became clear and urgent action was needed, we started reducing our emissions while India during that time already increased them by 400%, and is going to increase them by another 100% in the next decade.

It's not by keep repeating the same lie that you are going to make it a reality.

Re: Charts show how little progress has been made in limiting greenhouse emissions

#134

Post by reitzensteinm » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 9:12 AM UTC

wtdata wrote: post #133

reitzensteinm wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not telling you not to have children, but it does make you a hypocrite. I'm accusing you of casual racism for drawing a false distinction around the behavior of Indians. They are doing what everyone else has done in the same circumstance. Just because we have gotten our growth spurt and dirty economic development out the way doesn't entitle us to waggle our finger at those that took longer. It's on the first worl…

> They are doing what everyone else has done in the same circumstance. We already established those aren't the same circumstances at all: - 1st: we didn't have even 1/4 of the Indian population density when we were having the same birthrates. - 2nd: When global warming became clear and urgent action was needed, we started reducing our emissions while India during that time already increased them by 400%, and is going…

We didn't establish anything. You grasped at the density straw in order to intellectually justify your prejudice.

The poor in India should increase their emissions, because otherwise they'll die. Life expectancy has risen from 40 to 68 years since the 60s. Would you halve your life expectancy to fix global warming? I don't think so.

In any case, the births have already happened, and India is now barely above replacement rates, which you've conveniently overlooked. You want them to die because of the choices their parents made.

If you excuse me, I'm going to go take a shower. I honestly can't believe I'm having this conversation on HN.

Re: Charts show how little progress has been made in limiting greenhouse emissions

#135

Post by wtdata » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 10:17 AM UTC

reitzensteinm wrote: post #134

wtdata wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are doing what everyone else has done in the same circumstance. We already established those aren't the same circumstances at all: - 1st: we didn't have even 1/4 of the Indian population density when we were having the same birthrates. - 2nd: When global warming became clear and urgent action was needed, we started reducing our emissions while India during that time already increased them by 400%, and is going…

We didn't establish anything. You grasped at the density straw in order to intellectually justify your prejudice. The poor in India should increase their emissions, because otherwise they'll die. Life expectancy has risen from 40 to 68 years since the 60s. Would you halve your life expectancy to fix global warming? I don't think so. In any case, the births have already happened, and India is now barely above replacem…

> The poor in India should increase their emissions, because otherwise they'll die. Life expectancy has risen from 40 to 68 years since the 60s.

So, you are saying that CO2 emissions are actually good for the population and the way forward is to actually increase them even more. Interesting turn of events from an environmentalist.

> You want them to die because of the choices their parents made.

Funny thing to say, since you want the West to pay for the choices our grandfathers made and descend into deprivation, so that the rest of the world can go on polluting even more.

Here is the thing, people with your discourse aren't interested in saving the planet but into forcing your ideological agenda - which is got nothing to do with environmentalism but with your personal concepts of morality - upon the rest of us under the threat of environmental catastrophe. And the worst part of it? It does nothing to tackle climate change.

P.S.: > If you excuse me, I'm going to go take a shower. I honestly can't believe I'm having this conversation on HN.

Go easy on that shower, it's a big toll on the environment and, after all, you just spent the last 24h telling us all how those resources actually should belong to be used by people in India and not selfishly by me or by you.

Re: Charts show how little progress has been made in limiting greenhouse emissions

#136

Post by reitzensteinm » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 10:54 AM UTC

wtdata wrote: post #135

reitzensteinm wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We didn't establish anything. You grasped at the density straw in order to intellectually justify your prejudice. The poor in India should increase their emissions, because otherwise they'll die. Life expectancy has risen from 40 to 68 years since the 60s. Would you halve your life expectancy to fix global warming? I don't think so. In any case, the births have already happened, and India is now barely above replacem…

> The poor in India should increase their emissions, because otherwise they'll die. Life expectancy has risen from 40 to 68 years since the 60s. So, you are saying that CO2 emissions are actually good for the population and the way forward is to actually increase them even more. Interesting turn of events from an environmentalist. > You want them to die because of the choices their parents made. Funny thing to say, s…

My ideological agenda is valuing the life of an Indian equally to my own.

Re: Charts show how little progress has been made in limiting greenhouse emissions

#137

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 11:02 AM UTC

wtdata wrote: post #135

reitzensteinm wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We didn't establish anything. You grasped at the density straw in order to intellectually justify your prejudice. The poor in India should increase their emissions, because otherwise they'll die. Life expectancy has risen from 40 to 68 years since the 60s. Would you halve your life expectancy to fix global warming? I don't think so. In any case, the births have already happened, and India is now barely above replacem…

> The poor in India should increase their emissions, because otherwise they'll die. Life expectancy has risen from 40 to 68 years since the 60s. So, you are saying that CO2 emissions are actually good for the population and the way forward is to actually increase them even more. Interesting turn of events from an environmentalist. > You want them to die because of the choices their parents made. Funny thing to say, s…

[deleted]

Re: Charts show how little progress has been made in limiting greenhouse emissions

#138

Post by familysized » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 11:03 AM UTC

reitzensteinm wrote: post #136

wtdata wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The poor in India should increase their emissions, because otherwise they'll die. Life expectancy has risen from 40 to 68 years since the 60s. So, you are saying that CO2 emissions are actually good for the population and the way forward is to actually increase them even more. Interesting turn of events from an environmentalist. > You want them to die because of the choices their parents made. Funny thing to say, s…

My ideological agenda is valuing the life of an Indian equally to my own.

Don't feed that troll, just downvote and move along.

Re: Charts show how little progress has been made in limiting greenhouse emissions

#139

Post by reitzensteinm » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 11:07 AM UTC

familysized wrote: post #138

reitzensteinm wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My ideological agenda is valuing the life of an Indian equally to my own.

Don't feed that troll, just downvote and move along.

Seems we both fell in to that trap.

Re: Charts show how little progress has been made in limiting greenhouse emissions

#140

Post by wtdata » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 4:15 PM UTC

reitzensteinm wrote: post #136

wtdata wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The poor in India should increase their emissions, because otherwise they'll die. Life expectancy has risen from 40 to 68 years since the 60s. So, you are saying that CO2 emissions are actually good for the population and the way forward is to actually increase them even more. Interesting turn of events from an environmentalist. > You want them to die because of the choices their parents made. Funny thing to say, s…

My ideological agenda is valuing the life of an Indian equally to my own.

Well, my agenda is about reducing global CO2 emissions so that we can save the planet.

But, there is nothing wrong with you having your agenda... just don't go around pretending you are pushing it due to environmental concerns.