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

221–230 of 279 posts

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

#221

Post by svnt »

rayiner wrote: post #206
runarberg wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we have a different understanding of what a green new deal means. For me it means investing in green infrastructure, an amount that the global economy is already spending on carbon polluting ventures (including the military). I can’t possibly see how reducing (in my opinion) stupid and corrupt business investments and increasing in sustainable infrastructure that will lower our carbon footprint can cause more…

The Green New Deal is a specific set of proposals with that name: https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/12/21/181441... It advocates a “World War II” style mobilization, of the sort that existed back when the federal government took over almost half the entire economy. I understand that’s not what you support, but people do support massive efforts like this to combat climate change. My point is simply that…

Have you considered that someone might use an extreme starting point in a political negotiation in order to achieve something less extreme but generally in the same direction?

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

#222

Post by 29athrowaway »

baron_harkonnen wrote: post #219
saagarjha wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans tend to stop multiplying exponentially, though.

You should spend some time researching the estimated carrying capacity of the Earth for humans without fossil fuels . Last I check most agreements were around 1 billion people. We’ve artificially bumped that up with an unsustainable energy source that we have no viable pathway for replacement. It doesn’t matter if growth caps off soon, we’ve already exceeded the bounds. We’re in overtime now seeing how limited resour…

Fish and topsoil are also among the resources that are at high risk of being depleted within our lifetime.

Groundwater in many places is running out as well.

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

#224

Post by rayiner »

svnt wrote: post #221
rayiner wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Green New Deal is a specific set of proposals with that name: https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/12/21/181441... It advocates a “World War II” style mobilization, of the sort that existed back when the federal government took over almost half the entire economy. I understand that’s not what you support, but people do support massive efforts like this to combat climate change. My point is simply that…

Have you considered that someone might use an extreme starting point in a political negotiation in order to achieve something less extreme but generally in the same direction?

In a real negotiation, you select a high opening bid to leave yourself some wiggle room, but not one that’s extreme because that signals to the other side you’re unreasonable and it’s not worth negotiating.

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

#225

Post by ericd »

rayiner wrote: post #211
baron_harkonnen wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of the RCP scenarios assume large scale carbon capture and storage, a technology we have no pathway to scaling. None of the RCP scenarios consider potential positive feed back loops. This is understandable because from a climate modeling perspective these are complex and involve a lot of uncertainty/unknowns. However historical evidence suggests that in all mass extinction events involving rapid increase in atmos…

No, all the scenarios do not assume carbon capture and storage. The RCP 8.5 scenario is actually a high emissions scenario that experts think overestimates carbon emissions given existing trends. As to the other point, the IPCC has studied the possibility of positive feedback loops and has concluded they’re unlikely.

Does that scenario include destabilization of societies and war? If the current level of migration is causing political strife in the US and EU, do you think that orders of magnitude more might cause much more severe problems?

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

#226

Post by redisman »

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.

That’s kind of absurd though. Destroying large swaths of nature for good isn’t well reflected in “what % of GDP is that?”

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

#227

Post by Geminidog »

29athrowaway wrote: post #187
baron_harkonnen wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 so…

In ecological terms, we are an invasive species without a predator multiplying exponentially. We either accept reality and live and adapt to the limits imposed by nature or prepare to live in permanent war for resources.

We're no longer invasive. Almost every wild animal on every continent has evolved an innate fear of humans as a defense mechanism. We have been the apex predator across the world for a long long time and animals have evolved to deal with this fact.

Only in small islands cut off from humanity for eons will you find wild animals that feel no fear against humans.

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

#228

Post by 29athrowaway »

saagarjha wrote: post #216
Retric wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So do rats with abundant food in an enclosed environment, it doesn’t end well. https://www.gwern.net/docs/sociology/1962-calhoun.pdf Which isn’t to say the same rules apply to humans, but it’s also critical to get this right.

I think that most modern countries are doing a reasonable job.

No, they are not. They are not treating the problem as the emergency that it is.

Wasteful consumerism is legal everywhere.

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

#229

Post by [deleted] »

redisman wrote: post #226
rayiner wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That’s kind of absurd though. Destroying large swaths of nature for good isn’t well reflected in “what % of GDP is that?”

[deleted]

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

#230

Post by davidgay »

citilife wrote: post #25
savanaly wrote: post #10

Is it possible that Sars-cov-2 epidemic will eventually save more lives than it cost, through the long term and short term effects of decreased pollution and climate change? If that's true, we have to entertain the theory that the virus was purposefully initiated by a time-traveler charged with averting climate catastrophe through the only means possible.

> Is it possible that Sars-cov-2 epidemic will eventually save more lives than it cost, through the long term and short term effects of decreased pollution and climate change? Climate change wont directly lead to death, we'll have to adapt, but there are models showing more food produced from climate change. Simply put, we don't know what potentially will happen. We highly suspect there are 150 thousand increase in d…

> In contrast... there are 135 - 270 MILLION people on the verge of starvation now; due to the policies around covid (or >2% of the worlds population).

This looks like a misquote of: "Likewise, David Beasley, Executive Director of the World Food Programme (WFP), warned of alarming global hunger and food insecurity, with the number of people “marching towards starvation” spiking from 135 million to 270 million as the pandemic unfolded." (from https://www.un.org/press/en/2020/ga12294.doc.htm)

[Not that it isn't bad, but it's a doubling of an existing problem from X to 2X, not a new problem of size X-2X]

Post reply on HN