Wildfires Are Raging Outside Every Major City in Australia • Hacker News Board

Re: Wildfires Are Raging Outside Every Major City in Australia

#151

Post by sheepfreedom » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 3:14 PM UTC

DraftDodger67 wrote: post #131

spodek wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the costs of de-carbonising the economy Global warming is important, but only one environmental problem, so important to consider here, but not the only environmental issue. Contributing to every environmental issue, including this one, is overpopulation. Humans have altered every continent, reducing biodiversity, introducing species that don't handle local climates as well, or too well and displace existing ones,…

The biggest driver of Australia's increased emissions is the increasing population: https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2017/07/greenhouse-gas-emis... Under current immigration settings Australia will reach 40 million people by 2050. With zero net overseas migration, the population would stabilise at 27 million then fall slightly. This is the most important change that could be made to assist the Australian environment,…

I think the thing that you’re not addressing though is that this isn’t a national problem, it’s global. Australia isn’t on fire just because there are too many people within the borders of Australia, it’s on fire because of global changes caused by growing populations that don’t care about being sustainable.

Re: Wildfires Are Raging Outside Every Major City in Australia

#152

Post by xoa » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 3:14 PM UTC

perfunctory wrote: post #140

xoa wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately, I don't believe voting one way or another will make much difference. One party might be slightly better than another, but ultimately none will dare to implement sufficient measures. Then you are simply giving up on the whole thing? Because there is no other way to make much difference. If the current party platforms aren't sufficient, then those who care must first work to change those too. Become pa…

> The civil rights movement had organized leadership that used the protests to mobilize voters, to gain public interest and recognition, etc., all with the ultimate aim of changing politicians/parties I was trying to say more or less the same, but maybe a bit too terse. [edit: with the qualification that I believe that protests and civil disobedience are essential means in "changing politicians/parties"] What I was t…

>Which ones do you have in mind specifically?

It's almost easier to ask the inverse, what modern "crowd movement" has had lasting effects at all? I'm thinking of big ones like Occupy, or Remain, or the Women's Marches, or Extinction Rebellion for really recent. What actual, tangible change did they directly effect? What concrete legislation? The US civil rights movement actually ultimately resulted in the enormous Civil Rights Act of 1964. Various movements created a full umbrella group, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, to coordinate lobbying efforts and help translate public will into Congressional action. And it was needed, because passage was fought vigorously all the way to the end, with heavy filibustering, rule maneuvering, etc. It passed not through some grand awakening but through sustained, multi-faceted application of power, including skillful use of grubby politics by supporters. And of course even it's passing was still only part of a process, there was resistance to implementation, lawsuits, and on and on. Yet none of that diminished the accomplishment or the lasting effect it's had on society.

I'm definitely worried there is an increasing movement towards flashy, feel-good and "exciting" efforts without the necessary accompanying political party effort needed to actually do the work of translating popular will into concrete power. And as there isn't an unlimited budget of political capital or popular attention there really is something of a zero-sum aspect to all this, if people are spending their time and resources on ineffective measures that's quite harmful. We need full carbon cost internalization for example, which will not just dramatically aid in finding the most efficient ways to go carbon neutral but also be helpful in the critical next step of going carbon negative. Protests are likely a necessary component of getting carbon cost internalization laws passed, but we do in fact need those laws passed so while necessary they're not sufficient.

Re: Wildfires Are Raging Outside Every Major City in Australia

#153

Post by apexalpha » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 3:43 PM UTC

jrziviani wrote: post #150

apexalpha wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We do, it's in the news non stop.

Is Macron saying anything about "world intervention" as well? Otherwise it might look like Europe is only interested in forests that compensate their CO2 emissions. Should I stop burning CO2? nahhh, it's too expensive. Let's pretend we care about others forests and blame on them.

Is the AUS government actively incentivizing people to burn down patches of forest to turn into economically viable land?

Re: Wildfires Are Raging Outside Every Major City in Australia

#154

Post by perfunctory » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 3:46 PM UTC

xoa wrote: post #152

perfunctory wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The civil rights movement had organized leadership that used the protests to mobilize voters, to gain public interest and recognition, etc., all with the ultimate aim of changing politicians/parties I was trying to say more or less the same, but maybe a bit too terse. [edit: with the qualification that I believe that protests and civil disobedience are essential means in "changing politicians/parties"] What I was t…

> Which ones do you have in mind specifically? It's almost easier to ask the inverse, what modern "crowd movement" has had lasting effects at all? I'm thinking of big ones like Occupy, or Remain, or the Women's Marches, or Extinction Rebellion for really recent. What actual, tangible change did they directly effect? What concrete legislation? The US civil rights movement actually ultimately resulted in the enormous C…

One might say Extinction Rebellion is still too young to be judged on lasting effects, isn't it? Also, getting arrested and going to prison is not something I would call a feel-good effort.

Re: Wildfires Are Raging Outside Every Major City in Australia

#155

Post by roenxi » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 4:13 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #144

roenxi wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Greta is 16. A 16 year old brain is literally not fully developed. A global movement should be able to muster a better spokesperson than a child. No matter how earnest and scared a child may be, it is still a mistake to make major policy decisions on their say-so.

Greta was effectively chosen by the press. Yours is a standard attack line, because it allows you to pretend that it's only her saying this, and ignore all the thousands of others who've been saying similar things, from the IPCC to the Green Parties of the world.

Then they should find a spokeswoman among all those thousands who is both charismatic and also competent.

A line of attack being standard doesn't make it bad. Putting forward a child to speak to world leaders and get worked up on behalf of other children isn't going to do the movement any favours. Greta is a puppet chosen because someone cynically thinks that putting a child on stage is going to tug on people's heartstrings. They might be right, but she doesn't have anything going for her that should command respect.

Re: Wildfires Are Raging Outside Every Major City in Australia

#156

Post by jrziviani » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 4:20 PM UTC

apexalpha wrote: post #153

jrziviani wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Macron saying anything about "world intervention" as well? Otherwise it might look like Europe is only interested in forests that compensate their CO2 emissions. Should I stop burning CO2? nahhh, it's too expensive. Let's pretend we care about others forests and blame on them.

Is the AUS government actively incentivizing people to burn down patches of forest to turn into economically viable land?

I don't know. But Europe did that for centuries in Latin America, Africa, India, and got very rich with that. Ok, they didn't know how dangerous it could be.

But now Europe has the 'moral authority' to prevent poor countries from explore their own lands to give a decent life to their citizens, that have been left in misery after decolonization.

BTW, Europe talk so loud about climate changes, sign agreements and so on but do nothing relevant about it. Do you know why?

Re: Wildfires Are Raging Outside Every Major City in Australia

#157

Post by roenxi » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 4:30 PM UTC

Intermernet wrote: post #116

roenxi wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we could magically put a negative in front of Australia's CO2 emissions it would change nothing [0]. Even if we stopped selling coal and absorbed that amount of CO2 instead - and assume that nobody else mines coal to meet the market's demand - we would still easily see 90% of the worlds emissions at play. Australia is a moderate player in global terms, but decarbonising is literally a symbolic gesture with real ne…

Australia is also actively not supporting local research and development into renewable energy technologies. Even if I bought the whole "we're only a small contributor to the problem, so it's not really our problem" argument (which I obviously don't), it'd be nice if we at least supported research and development that could actually make money as opposed to holding to the hard line that "anthropogenic climate change…

We do support research and development in renewable technologies. It gets farmed out to China because they are better at building things cost effectively than we are [0, 1]. And again, while Australia is quite strong per-capita, renewable energy is a very hot focus in any number of research universities with billions of dollars being spent globally with results that are nothing short of miraculous. It isn't obvious that more investment is needed, solar and wind are improving at an amazing pace led by major players.

Germany showed enormous leadership with their Energiewende. It was expensive, convinced nobody and has had what appears to be a marginal effect on their actual emissions emitted. Hoping that Australia charging into the breach would help in any meaningful way is wishful thinking. Business as usual until economic forces cause the US and China to switch away from fossil fuels is what is going to happen, we can't make their decisions for them. Fight that diplomatically, sure. But tank our standard of living for a symbolic gesture and there is going to be very stiff resistance.

[0] https://www.smh.com.au/technology/csiro-sells-concentrated-s...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi_Zhengrong

Re: Wildfires Are Raging Outside Every Major City in Australia

#158

Post by pjc50 » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 4:40 PM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #157

Intermernet wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australia is also actively not supporting local research and development into renewable energy technologies. Even if I bought the whole "we're only a small contributor to the problem, so it's not really our problem" argument (which I obviously don't), it'd be nice if we at least supported research and development that could actually make money as opposed to holding to the hard line that "anthropogenic climate change…

We do support research and development in renewable technologies. It gets farmed out to China because they are better at building things cost effectively than we are [0, 1]. And again, while Australia is quite strong per-capita, renewable energy is a very hot focus in any number of research universities with billions of dollars being spent globally with results that are nothing short of miraculous. It isn't obvious t…

What's the standard of living of being on fire?

Re: Wildfires Are Raging Outside Every Major City in Australia

#159

Post by Nasrudith » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 4:48 PM UTC

marliechiller wrote: post #94

is there any way of harnessing all of that out of control heat energy to try and salvage at least some good from the situation?

Technically yes but not practically because the temperature differential is what is needed and well as considerable logistical and engineering issues of making something which uses it large enough to deal with a moving and raging fire - let alone not interfering with fightint efforts or being accused of arson to not pay for fuel.

Nobody has used Centralia, PA as a generator despite the long burning underground coal fire - it has also been moving underground in a regular pattern.

Re: Wildfires Are Raging Outside Every Major City in Australia

#160

Post by roenxi » Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 4:50 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #158

roenxi wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We do support research and development in renewable technologies. It gets farmed out to China because they are better at building things cost effectively than we are [0, 1]. And again, while Australia is quite strong per-capita, renewable energy is a very hot focus in any number of research universities with billions of dollars being spent globally with results that are nothing short of miraculous. It isn't obvious t…

What's the standard of living of being on fire?

We won't know until the bushfire season ends. There are people who've lost their homes, are in dire straits and need support.

But the raw numbers are not doing the same sort of damage as a 10% increase in general energy costs. So far it has been 1,516 homes. Australia will have something like 5,000,000 homes. That is bad, but entirely tolerable averaged over the continent - we build about that many homes in a month or two. The damage is a small % of GDP contained to one year.

We need to improve our bushfire management & crisis response, but there is no need to do anything rash.