Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn • Hacker News Board

Re: Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

#261

Post by runarberg » Sun, Sep 13, 2020, 1:29 AM UTC

munificent wrote: post #252

runarberg wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are ways to construct constitutions such that no one person in a democracy has the power to do this much damage. E.g. only a multi-participatory and diverse parliament—and crucially not any government; especially not any president—has the power to enact laws which can cause such a damage. In a successful democracy, the people don’t have the option to vote them self a dictator.

One of the core beliefs I have for understanding the world is that equality is an unstable equilibrium. Imagine an almost perfectly balanced democracy where everyone has nearly equal agency and power. At some point, maybe at the political level of brownian motion, someone will have a tiny edge. They will naturally use that bit of extra power to garner a little more power. Because the most useful thing to with a littl…

> One of the core beliefs I have for understanding the world is that equality is an unstable equilibrium.

I think this has been statistically proven[1]. So I should probably add that in addition to a well crafted constitution that prevents any single party from enacting a damaging law, such a constitution needs to be revised or rewritten whenever a single party has been deemed to gain such power.

Revising and rewriting the constitution needs to be done with the utmost care off course and have ample democratic safeguards to prevent a dictator.

A true democracy has the power to revise its constitution when that constitution is no longer able to protect the democracy it defines from a dictator.

---

1. Almost 10 years ago I learned D3 by building an interactive graph testing this in a game of capitalism. After a few rounds of completely fair zero-sum trades where all parties start with the same amount, the bulk of the wealth will always accumulate on few hands.

https://runarberg.github.io/paelingar/kapitalisk-audsofnun/

Re: Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

#262

Post by acituan » Sun, Sep 13, 2020, 1:57 AM UTC

throwaway894345 wrote: post #231

acituan wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just about everything humans do is an exogenous intervention on markets, one way or another Markets is simply the name for a particular collective of human interactions in response to pricing signals based on supply and demand, it is not a separate entity of its own. Taxes are exogenous in that they distort the equilibrous price points. That is not saying that it is always bad, because markets do fail. > The notion…

Can you elaborate on multiagenct cooperation? I grant your abstract point that markets are hard, but carbon taxes specifically are pretty straight forward and we can see that Europe has no disastrous consequences in their implementation. Further, we know to a very high degree of confidence that continuing our carbon subsidy will have disastrous consequences. A carbon tax is the simplest and most elegant solution.

> Can you elaborate on multiagenct cooperation?

In short what Paris Agreement intends and what it fails to achieve. It assumes signatories will be voluntarily reducing their carbon emissions without binding enforcement, and they don't.

For a while let's assume that energy production is the only activity that causes carbon emission. Compared to staying at status quo, reducing carbon emissions is at least expensive for its infrastructure transition costs, but can also be more expensive for its operating costs if the country was particularly rich in non-green energy resources. This means, making a transition while others are not is particularly disadvantageous to that state's economy; they will be producing everything for more expensive while buying cheaply produced non-green imports from non-abiding countries. This is even worse if we consider that no single country's carbon neutrality means much for meeting global warming targets.

This means defecting is very profitable for any given country, which creates a game theoretic equilibrium at no one doing any decarbonization. Transitioning to the other equilibrium (where everyone is handicapped equally with green production) requires every agent to be ensured that other agents are not defecting in a lockstep fashion, and current policy tools cannot achieve that (at least yet).

Re: Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

#263

Post by acituan » Sun, Sep 13, 2020, 2:45 AM UTC

throwaway894345 wrote: post #260

acituan wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anyway, you don’t have a market at all without government That is not true, in fact most of the markets in history operated either without currencies (e.g. barter, farm labor etc) or with currencies that have inherent value (e.g gold, silver). A switch to fiat money implies state backing indeed, but a) it doesn't have to be one particular state (e.g. can do business with US dollars in some 3rd world countries) and…

Government != currency. In the most general sense it’s just the system that defines, interprets, and enforces property rights. That can be a tribal chief or the US government or the WTO. > That is the crux of the criticism you say you find silly. How exactly? Please show your work, because I am curious how we can subsidize China or India's emissions resulting from their domestic economy Writing them a check would be…

> Writing them a check would be the most obvious way.

How much the check should be for exactly? This is important because even if we assume we can get perfect compliance if we paid for it, you might find the amount required surprisingly, I dare say impossibly, high.

As a thought experiment let's say we are going to subsidize the transformation of China's non-green energy production. For comparison I will use a levelized cost of energy which rolls in capital costs, operating costs, operating capacity efficiency (which is low for renewables) and depreciation. The figures are about 0.1$/kWh for new coal (though most coal already has the infrastructure so will only have non-capital costs) and roughly 0.2$/kWh for solar (similar for other renewables). If you write a check to convert 2019 China's non-green energy production (7000TWh * 70%) the figure we get is $1 trillion, which is roughly the discretionary spending of annual federal budget, %5 of US's GDP and 1.3% of the world's GPD. That is for China only.

No political apparatus in a democracy can muster the political will to justify subsidies of this scale.

Re: Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

#264

Post by throwaway894345 » Sun, Sep 13, 2020, 5:00 AM UTC

acituan wrote: post #262

throwaway894345 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate on multiagenct cooperation? I grant your abstract point that markets are hard, but carbon taxes specifically are pretty straight forward and we can see that Europe has no disastrous consequences in their implementation. Further, we know to a very high degree of confidence that continuing our carbon subsidy will have disastrous consequences. A carbon tax is the simplest and most elegant solution.

> Can you elaborate on multiagenct cooperation? In short what Paris Agreement intends and what it fails to achieve. It assumes signatories will be voluntarily reducing their carbon emissions without binding enforcement, and they don't. For a while let's assume that energy production is the only activity that causes carbon emission. Compared to staying at status quo, reducing carbon emissions is at least expensive for…

It seems like you’re correctly identifying the tragedy of the commons nature of environmentalism, but then advocating that we ruin the environment because if we don’t someone else will, which is to say the only sure-fire way to lose. Maybe I’m misreading—it’s late. Hopefully you will correct my error.

Re: Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

#265

Post by throwaway894345 » Sun, Sep 13, 2020, 5:19 AM UTC

acituan wrote: post #263

throwaway894345 wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government != currency. In the most general sense it’s just the system that defines, interprets, and enforces property rights. That can be a tribal chief or the US government or the WTO. > That is the crux of the criticism you say you find silly. How exactly? Please show your work, because I am curious how we can subsidize China or India's emissions resulting from their domestic economy Writing them a check would be…

> Writing them a check would be the most obvious way. How much the check should be for exactly? This is important because even if we assume we can get perfect compliance if we paid for it, you might find the amount required surprisingly, I dare say impossibly, high. As a thought experiment let's say we are going to subsidize the transformation of China's non-green energy production. For comparison I will use a leveli…

I’m not arguing that we should subsidize China at all. Frankly we subsidize them too much already, but that’s a separate topic. My only point is that we taxing carbon doesn’t preclude subsidizing them to whatever extent we choose. It seems like you’re arguing that if we pass a carbon tax it will hurt China’s economy because business will move to greener countries (countries who are now competitive after adjusting for pollution, which is what a carbon tax aims to do), and that the US has a moral obligation to reimburse them (China) for that lost business. If I’m misunderstanding, I apologize and perhaps you could clarify; however, if I understand correctly, then I strongly disagree. The West in general and the US specifically has already made China’s economy world class and that at the expense of the environment and arguable to our own economic troubles (particularly inequality). We have no moral obligation to China, IMHO.

Re: Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

#266

Post by acituan » Sun, Sep 13, 2020, 6:52 AM UTC

throwaway894345 wrote: post #265

acituan wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Writing them a check would be the most obvious way. How much the check should be for exactly? This is important because even if we assume we can get perfect compliance if we paid for it, you might find the amount required surprisingly, I dare say impossibly, high. As a thought experiment let's say we are going to subsidize the transformation of China's non-green energy production. For comparison I will use a leveli…

I’m not arguing that we should subsidize China at all. Frankly we subsidize them too much already, but that’s a separate topic. My only point is that we taxing carbon doesn’t preclude subsidizing them to whatever extent we choose. It seems like you’re arguing that if we pass a carbon tax it will hurt China’s economy because business will move to greener countries (countries who are now competitive after adjusting for…

I guess I don't quite get what you suggest we should subsidize. China and India are two of the big, emerging polluters, and their exports only account for roughly 20% of their GDP. So a good 80% chunk will run on non-green energy even if we devised the perfect policy to make the remaining 20% of the entirety of their exports green. (US imports only a portion of that but let's assume entire world cooperated).

This is not accounting for the havoc it would wreak in international trade obviously, hurting China's exports is never hurting them alone, because trades not only go both ways, but also through; meaning depending on a lot of Chinese intermediary goods that we export affects US's GDP, and also worlds GDP. If I am understanding suggestion correctly, for example a carbon tax on iPhone's manufacturing would reduce how many iPhones are sold in the entire world, not just US, and ultimately would impact US's economic power in the form of a reduction, which also reduces the ability of "writing checks" for other interventions.

This is why policy design is tricky.

Re: Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

#267

Post by acituan » Sun, Sep 13, 2020, 7:05 AM UTC

throwaway894345 wrote: post #264

acituan wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you elaborate on multiagenct cooperation? In short what Paris Agreement intends and what it fails to achieve. It assumes signatories will be voluntarily reducing their carbon emissions without binding enforcement, and they don't. For a while let's assume that energy production is the only activity that causes carbon emission. Compared to staying at status quo, reducing carbon emissions is at least expensive for…

It seems like you’re correctly identifying the tragedy of the commons nature of environmentalism, but then advocating that we ruin the environment because if we don’t someone else will, which is to say the only sure-fire way to lose. Maybe I’m misreading—it’s late. Hopefully you will correct my error.

I am not advocating that, in fact I am with you in how bad it is, but I am also telling what the incentive structure looks like and what would it take to move it to the other equilibrium point. There are many and different types of agents in this game and appeals to morality or apocalypticism just don't work on them. There needs to be a concrete, depolarizing, global leadership that coordinates this transition, to make sure parties don't defect despite cheating being very profitable, and they also believe that this will be the case with others.

Paris agreement was an attempt at this but also demonstrated that we still couldn't muster the political will to do anything sufficiently concrete. Unlike nuclear weapons, which has much fewer agents to coordinate with and a more immediately imaginable impact, climate change proves to be difficult problem regarding the nature of coordination it requires and ease of popularizing the policies around it. We need tools to match that difficulty.

Re: Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

#268

Post by feralimal » Sun, Sep 13, 2020, 9:13 AM UTC

runarberg wrote: post #248

feralimal wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we used to call it the greenhouse effect or global warming back then. And before that we were going to have a mini ice age... Also, can I say I find it odd when people talk using the pronoun 'we'. The Queen does that when she talks about her country. That's called the royal 'we'. What global warming effect can you say you've witnessed? I don't think I can say I've noticed a single thing. Nothing. Some warm summers…

Let me get this straight. Your saying there is a conspiracy to fear monger the population with prediction of climate disaster so that we will agree on mass surveillance and to losing other freedoms. While at the same time we have already had mass surveillance and travel restrictions imposed on us from the global war on terror (started under George Bush a year after winning the election against Al Gore), while not hav…

I'm saying it is a long running conspiracy. We lost freedoms with the global war on terror, we have lost freedoms since then, we are going to lose more freedoms in the very near future. I can see the direction we are heading. And no, I'm not cheering it on as you seem to be.

> If this was a true conspiracy so far they’ve done a very poor job with it for the past 20 years.

What's poor about their job? I think they have done an excellent job. Most people defer to experts over their own experience. Imagine, one's own experience not carrying any weight with one's own beliefs! So, they have done an excellent job.

Re: Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

#269

Post by tomhoward » Sun, Sep 13, 2020, 9:29 AM UTC

aporetics wrote: post #235

tomhoward wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer is similar to the one for those who retort to the suggestion that taxation should be higher with: "if you love paying tax so much why don't you just send a big cheque to the government?". In both cases, it is that an individual's actions don't move the needle. Even a low-to-mid double-digit percentage of the population's actions don't move the needle that much. So, to address your accusatory question: no,…

My question is not accusatory, though I did frame it quite specifically, so maybe it feels confining. But, in reading your response I’m not sure what question you’re answering. I didn’t ask why people don’t behave differently. I asked the question that comes before it. Why is it hard to think about the meaning of your actions? In a way, your response does answer it: you said people see that their actions won’t be eff…

The central question of your original comment seemed to me to be: "We’re all ok with this?"

You've followed up pointing out that the actual central question was "So, why is it so hard, when confronted with facts about the consequences of your decisions, to really think about the meaning of your actions".

As I said in the my first reply, I think it's pretty clear that people in this discussion thread, and most people frequenting this website, are not OK with this.

And in response to the more recent comment: plenty of people in this thread are demonstrating that they are thinking about the consequences of their decisions.

But as I, and plenty of others here have pointed out, no amount of "thinking about consequences" will change the fact that the consequences of an individual's actions in insolation are profoundly different to the consequences of the same action co-ordinated across the entire society.

The voting system works (to the extent that it does work - and I must say where I live, in Australia, it works much better through being legally compulsory and therefore not subject to manipulation of eligibility+attendance), because the cost is low (take a few hours out of your day once every couple/few years) and the payoff relatively high (feel you have a stake in your democracy/society, influence policy, celebrate the victory if your candidate/party wins).

Other forms of co-ordinated activity all have equivalent factors of cost vs. payoff that lead to the intended outcome.

So I guess there's your answer: to solve this problem, there needs to be a cost vs. benefit formulation that leads to a widespread change in behaviour.

Re: Wildlife in ‘catastrophic decline’ due to human destruction, scientists warn

#270

Post by feralimal » Sun, Sep 13, 2020, 9:31 AM UTC

abrichr wrote: post #237

feralimal wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd have to watch the film again (no thanks!) to provide more detail, but it was a tirade of fear. Eg: No snow on Kilimanjaro? but: https://glacierhub.org/2018/04/04/greatest-snowfall-on-kilim... 20-foot rise in sea levels caused by melting ice caps? shutting down of the ocean conveyor? Hurricanes are getting stronger? Pacific Islands drowning?

Hurricanes getting stronger: https://www.livescience.com/climate-change-hurricanes-strong... Islands drowning: https://www.businessinsider.com/pacific-islands-stunning-pho... Ice caps melting: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warmin... Oceans rising: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html Ocean conveyor slowdown: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circu... (Courtesy…

I'm not going to get in to a link war. All I'd ask is: in your personal experience, what have you observed? Are the seas higher than when you were a child? Are you struggling to breathe for all the C02?!? Stripping away the news coverage, what real life effects have you experienced personally?

Unfortunately, I'm not prepared to trust what I think are politicised governance authorities. At least not if they go against or do not cohere with my personal experience.