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

Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 279 posts

Re: Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

#171

Post by imtringued »

nostrademons wrote: post #97
breakfastduck wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All it does it prove how fruitless the prevention of climate change is. A total shutdown of the entire world economy on an unprecedented scale still doesn't track enough to prevent climate change. If that isn't a clear indicator of how severe the situation is then I don't know what else is.

Unpopular prediction: we're going to solve global warming by the 22nd century, but we're going to "solve" it with nuclear winter and the destruction of 80-90% of humanity. Once we're down to a billion people or so and most of what passes for advanced civilization has been destroyed, carbon emissions and warming won't be a problem.

That's a very stupid solution when you consider how much money you could make from reducing CO2 emissions. People just have to stop have an intensive desire to harm themselves. That is all.

The idea that you can gain anything from denying climate change and skip out on preventative measures is just wrong. The economics alone tell you that this is a losing play and I am not even talking about the impact on the climate, just the potential for economic growth that you end up denying by denying climate change.

Re: Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

#172

Post by mark-r »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #24
kristopolous wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard people actually say this. The horror, the horror.

For a lot of people it was their only alone time.

My (former) boss uses the time for audio books. If traffic is bad, he doesn't care - it gives him more time with his book.

Re: Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

#173

Post by imtringued »

jessaustin wrote: post #119
hammock wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bill Gates wants to test an artificial nuclear winter... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7350713/Bill...

Albedo modification is the obvious response to the situation. Of course testing should start small, but the idea that 2 kg of material in one location could lead to a runaway deep-freeze earth situation is not plausible. Those global warming enthusiasts who oppose this research seem more interested in political implications than in actually reducing warming.

There are simple ways to avoid resorting to desperate measures like these. Just do them and stop worrying about extreme situations.

Re: Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

#174

Post by conk »

snoshy wrote: post #48
jackdeansmith wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why de-centralized power generation? I was under the impression that the electrical distribution system is very efficient in the US and economies of scale make large scale renewables much cheaper.

Electrical distribution in the US is actually aging quite badly and is in deep need of replacement of large parts of it. Inefficiency isn't entirely the problem, although many (including me) would argue that it isn't as efficient as it could be. DC power transmission at high voltages is now feasible due to new technologies, and it is more efficient as well as easier to step up/down. At large scale, even such seemingl…

How is stepping DC up/down easier than AC?

Re: Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

#175

Post by epistasis »

WhompingWindows wrote: post #168
epistasis wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beef is only 3% of US emissions, meat has very little to do with the US's climate woes. The big problem is transportation. Ideally we'd have lots more muxed-use walkable neighborhoods than we have. Roughly 50% of people want to live in walkable neighborhoods, but centralized planning has virtually banned this type of low-carbon living over the past 75 years.

First off, it's probably higher than 3%, I found estimates of 4% in an ARS study. Also, if beef is a full 1/3 of our agricultural emissions (9-10% overall), then that's a massive amount so a few people can have their cherished foods, at everyone else's expense (tragedy of the commons here). Second, beef is proportionally MUCH worse than all other foods: we can't afford to leave a full 1/25th of our emissions on the t…

Even if all US emissions from beef stopped tomorrow, it would have far less effect than the US's drop in 2020. And the drop that we saw last year is similar to what we need to continue with each year this decade. Sure, beef emissions must be dealt with, but it's a fraction of a year's decreases, it's not "huge".

When it comes to climate (the topic here), banning beef is being used by climate inactivists as a cultural wedge issue to stop climate action. Michael Mann, a vegan, has strong opinions on not harping about beef out if its true importance in the climate policy fight:

https://theclimatepod.libsyn.com/dr-michael-mann-on-the-new-...

As for the non-climate concerns for beef, sure, but that's not the topic here.

Re: Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

#176

Post by roenxi »

rmk wrote: post #155
roenxi wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...that will be paid by generations to come... I think the lockdowns could be revealed as a costly mistake and there is a great hubris among the well off in thinking that because they aren't struggling everything is fine. But this is particular argument is unsustainable. A lockdown can have generations of consequences - what doesn't? - but it cannot be paid for by generations to come. It was paid for now, resources…

I'm talking about the debt incurred by the Government in order to provide assistance to the unemployed and the businesses that were struggling. Trillions of dollars of debt (in addition to 20-30 trillion dollar debt already incurred) is not something that one generation can manage.

I'd guessed. Lets say they wait one generation then just say "nah, we're not paying. Just ignore that debt". Who loses? Did the losers deserve to win? These are tricky questions.

There isn't a reason to think that the US taxpayer is going to pay back their debts (in real terms). The numbers have gotten large enough relative to GDP that they aren't realistically going to honour those promises.

It may get ugly, but that debt isn't going to last generations.

Re: Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

#177

Post by rmk »

roenxi wrote: post #176
rmk wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm talking about the debt incurred by the Government in order to provide assistance to the unemployed and the businesses that were struggling. Trillions of dollars of debt (in addition to 20-30 trillion dollar debt already incurred) is not something that one generation can manage.

I'd guessed. Lets say they wait one generation then just say "nah, we're not paying. Just ignore that debt". Who loses? Did the losers deserve to win? These are tricky questions. There isn't a reason to think that the US taxpayer is going to pay back their debts (in real terms). The numbers have gotten large enough relative to GDP that they aren't realistically going to honour those promises. It may get ugly, but tha…

As I have argued elsewhere in this thread, default or monetizing the debt has consequences, including permanently higher borrowing costs that will exact a heavy price from future generations if they choose to go those routes. That's what history teaches us.

The biggest loser will be the (US) general public, because it holds the majority of the debt. Foreign adversaries (such as China) hold a much lower percentage of the debt (and USD-denominated instruments).

Re: Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

#178

Post by baron_harkonnen »

rmk wrote: post #133
just_steve_h wrote: post #70

The biggest takeaway here for me is that we collectively achieved something previously considered impossible: by making different behavioral choices, as a species, we achieved the largest cut in CO2 emissions in 75 years. It's tragic that only the threat of a deadly disease could compel such a change, but perhaps we may find other levers to help us achieve such widespread beneficial changes in the future?

We did not simply make "behavioral choices". Whole swathes of humanity were ordered indoors! It was achieved at untold cost (actually, much greater than the trillions of dollars that have been given away already by governments) that will be paid by generations to come. Only people who were lucky to hold a job that wasn't affected made a conscious decision to cut down. I am willing to bet that come 2022 or so, emissio…

> It was achieved at untold cost

This is just evidence of what we already know: our current society is unsustainable.

> will be paid by generations to come

I think you're pretty optimistic about how the future will develop given that we have not only just demonstrated our society is unsustainable, but that we are not capable of making serious progress towards a sustainable society.

Large portions of are planet are soon to become uninhabitable by humans. Major disruptions in our food supply are likely not that far off. The idea that we need to get back to "business as usual" means these things are all the more certain.

Re: Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

#179

Post by florimondmanca »

lcamach84 wrote: post #154

This proves that we need a system change. Covid made that, we change from a system with the objective of producing stuff to a system with the goal of saving lives. People of HN should take a look of the clube of rome book "limits of growth". GND will not save us beacause it will demand energy and resources to swap all the infraestructure. At most developed countries will shift their enviromental cost to the poor ones

This. Thank you for bringing this up. My take:

Thermo-industrial consumer societies don’t need to change. Rather, as you said, we need a system change. We need to swap our current model for something else. The outcome should (and will) be different from a thermo-industrial society — it will be another society altogether. What sort exactly I don’t know yet. But « a systemic problem can only be approached by systemic solutions » seems like a reasonable assumption to make. :)

If we don’t do it ourselves, then the currently overstretched Earth system will just regulate itself, causing pain and suffering. COVID might just be an appetizer of what lies ahead if we don’t realize old ways (more technology, keep the economy growing at all costs, etc, ie things that demand more or too energy or impede resiliency) are very likely to fail the test.

I like how you mentioned the Club of Rome’s report because it was an early work that goes beyond the scope of IPCC (whose role is limited to climate change, which to be clear has a ton of merits in its own right) and presents the problem for what it is: a systemic problem that is riddled with feedback loops and that has deep ties with the roots of our society model as it developed over the 20th century.

I don’t like the idea of a systemic change. It’s uncomfortable, and at first it sounds ludicrous. But if we’re serious and dig into the topic with a critical eye towards our own mental models, that’s a conclusion we reach very soon.

Re: Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

#180

Post by baron_harkonnen »

rayiner wrote: post #165
bamboozled wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whole swathes of humanity were ordered indoors! It was achieved at untold cost Climate change has untold cost too, so what you’re saying doesn’t have much weight.

No, climate change has costs that we can estimate and base our decisions on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impacts_of_climate_ch... The foregone economic activity in just one year of lockdowns in the US is a significant fraction of cumulative worldwide damages anticipated from climate change through 2050.

I have never read any serious research that proposes what you are proposing: that climate mitigation is going to cost more than the consequences of failing to mitigate it.

We're on the path to a 4C world by something like 2100. An increase by that much might possibly wipe out the species. If it fall short of that forecast the damage will be far greater.

Not to mention that pandemic shares the same root cause as climate change. Destroying our ecosystem has increased the incident of zoonotic spillover. We'll see more pandemics as we continue on this path. And the costs of these are not separate from the costs of climate change.

Post reply on HN