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

‘Collapse of civilisation is the most likely outcome’: top climate scientists

voiceofaction.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 49 posts

Re: ‘Collapse of civilisation is the most likely outcome’: top climate scientists

#11

Post by obiye »

LatteLazy wrote: post #6
lcam84 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can try degrowth. We need to find a way to live well and decrease the GDP. The article talks about the limits of growth for, those who don't know what it is you can watch this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz9wjJjmkmc

No, we can't try that I'm afraid. People won't accept that. People have chosen to doom the planet. The problem here isn't technology or economics. It's people and politics. People don't want to survive, they want cheeseburgers and air-conditioning.

At some point things will start to get prohibitively expensive. There will never be a world where 10 billion people live like Americans. And there will probably start to be environmentally minded sabotage of industry at some point. Hopefully soon.

Re: ‘Collapse of civilisation is the most likely outcome’: top climate scientists

#13

Post by n4r9 »

lcam84 wrote: post #7
wcerfgba wrote: post #2

Fellow techies interested in helping solve the climate crisis may be interested in https://climateaction.tech/ :)

I am a tech guy, but I am not very optimistic about finding a technological solution for this. The problem is energy, how much energy do we need to change to move to a greener infrastructure? There is also the paradox of jevrons [1]. I need to slow down the economy and, at the same time, ensure that everyone lives a decent life. This would be real progress. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

Is it not possible that we find a way to scrub carbon straight out of the atmosphere and trap it underground? I don't know, and would be happy to pointed towards research on this, but it doesn't strike me as a simple energy-in-energy-out situation. There seems to be the potential for a brilliant technological solution.

Re: ‘Collapse of civilisation is the most likely outcome’: top climate scientists

#14

Post by 11235813213455 »

LatteLazy wrote: post #4

And there is literally nothing any of us can do about it.

Paradoxically, it's only us, more or less "consumers" that can do something. I did, and it's just a matter of how many of us stop being over-consumerists to stop this environment destruction mode

If consumerists become marginals (currently minimalists are marginals instead), things change dramatically, in the good side

Re: ‘Collapse of civilisation is the most likely outcome’: top climate scientists

#16

Post by mc32 »

lcam84 wrote: post #5
LatteLazy wrote: post #4

And there is literally nothing any of us can do about it.

We can try degrowth. We need to find a way to live well and decrease the GDP. The article talks about the limits of growth for, those who don't know what it is you can watch this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz9wjJjmkmc

How are you going to tell subsistence populations to stagnate?

Are we going to tell high fertility populations and high density populations that they must stop and reduce growth for the future of the planet?

All of the above are necessary but you have to achieve it through growth (i.e. middle class economies)

Re: ‘Collapse of civilisation is the most likely outcome’: top climate scientists

#17

Post by LatteLazy »

lcam84 wrote: post #8
LatteLazy wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, we can't try that I'm afraid. People won't accept that. People have chosen to doom the planet. The problem here isn't technology or economics. It's people and politics. People don't want to survive, they want cheeseburgers and air-conditioning.

Maybe you are right, but we need to try something and for me this is what make sense. For instance did you notice the effect of covid in the environment? We need to challenge assumptions. The assumption of growth is one of them. We need to have intrinsical objectives. The goal should not be to save the planet but to act in the best possible way to make it happen.

How do you and me try degrowing the world economy? We can't.

>The goal should not be to save the planet but to act in the best possible way to make it happen.

Sorry, but this sort of thinking is exactly what has gotten us nowhere for the last 50+ years.

Re: ‘Collapse of civilisation is the most likely outcome’: top climate scientists

#18

Post by LatteLazy »

11235813213455 wrote: post #14
LatteLazy wrote: post #4

And there is literally nothing any of us can do about it.

Paradoxically, it's only us, more or less "consumers" that can do something. I did, and it's just a matter of how many of us stop being over-consumerists to stop this environment destruction mode If consumerists become marginals (currently minimalists are marginals instead), things change dramatically, in the good side

Yeah, but 7bn people aren't going to give up consumption in the next few years are they?

Re: ‘Collapse of civilisation is the most likely outcome’: top climate scientists

#19

Post by korantu »

> “senior U.N. environmental official” claims that if global warming isn’t reversed by 2030, then rising sea levels could wipe “entire nations . . . off the face of the Earth.” > Crop failures coupled with coastal flooding, he said, could provoke “an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ ” whose movements could wreak political chaos the world over. Unabated, the ice caps will melt away, the rainforests will burn, and the world will warm to unbearable temperatures. > Governments “have a ten-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effects before it goes beyond human control,” said the U.N. official. [0]

the above was published by U.N. official in 1989, with point of no return being year 2000, not 2030. People knew it for more than 20 years already.

It is important to keep in mind that alarmism can actually be harmful, where instead of doing anything people just have their burger whole try can, as there is no point doing anything anymore. [1]

[0] https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25...

Re: ‘Collapse of civilisation is the most likely outcome’: top climate scientists

#20

Post by gshdg »

n4r9 wrote: post #13
lcam84 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a tech guy, but I am not very optimistic about finding a technological solution for this. The problem is energy, how much energy do we need to change to move to a greener infrastructure? There is also the paradox of jevrons [1]. I need to slow down the economy and, at the same time, ensure that everyone lives a decent life. This would be real progress. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

Is it not possible that we find a way to scrub carbon straight out of the atmosphere and trap it underground? I don't know, and would be happy to pointed towards research on this, but it doesn't strike me as a simple energy-in-energy-out situation. There seems to be the potential for a brilliant technological solution.

They’re called trees.
Post reply on HN