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

251–260 of 279 posts

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

#251

Post by jessaustin »

bluGill wrote: post #192
jessaustin wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please be specific. Liquid anhydrous ammonia is a common fertilizer. John Deere still sells e.g. the 2430 and the 2510. How did the hypothetical "very much wanted" products differ from those applicators? Are we talking about a handheld model? (That might have been a bad idea!) One suspects the hypothetical "evil persons" whose threat delayed product development were more interested in cooking meth than in terrorist a…

None of them can be controlled from the internet.

John Deere is to be commended, one supposes, for being much more concerned about blackhat terrorists than e.g. Siemens with all their internet-accessible SCADA installations, but neither ISIS nor Putin care about killing a couple of farmers in western Iowa. Thread parent was about automobiles, and while maybe professionally-operated vehicles like semi trucks or buses would be better with which to start using ammonia on a large scale, vehicles are unlike applicator implements in that they aren't actually designed to release ammonia into the environment. Conceivably a car could be hacked to lock the brakes at high speed, but there's just no mechanism to pour out its fuel tank.

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

#252

Post by jessaustin »

WalterGR wrote: post #233
djrogers wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s also tragic that the changes we made cost 20+ million jobs, and dramatically increased income inequality.

Could there have been structural issues that existed before COVID that led to this outcome, but that COVID itself revealed? Much like certain pre-existing conditions lead to a greater chance of loss of life from COVID? Some people blame COVID and some people blame the pre-existing conditions. Is COVID to blame for the economic costs that you mention, or are the pre-existing conditions?

Absolutely, yes. In normal nations, mechanisms existed to pay for both health care and lost wages for all citizens. Those mechanisms don't exist in USA. We only have mechanisms to give lots of money to the already-rich people who control our elections. So, we got "The CARES Act".

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

#253

Post by jessaustin »

conk wrote: post #174
snoshy wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Perhaps parent meant DC is easier now than DC used to be? We can't use transformers, but power circuitry has improved with better FETs.

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

#254

Post by djrogers »

jessaustin wrote: post #252
WalterGR wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could there have been structural issues that existed before COVID that led to this outcome, but that COVID itself revealed? Much like certain pre-existing conditions lead to a greater chance of loss of life from COVID? Some people blame COVID and some people blame the pre-existing conditions. Is COVID to blame for the economic costs that you mention, or are the pre-existing conditions?

Absolutely, yes. In normal nations, mechanisms existed to pay for both health care and lost wages for all citizens. Those mechanisms don't exist in USA. We only have mechanisms to give lots of money to the already-rich people who control our elections. So, we got "The CARES Act".

To say that we have no mechanism to pay for unemployment or health care for the unemployed is disingenuous at best. The poor are exactly the people whose healthcare the government does pay for. And the CARES act largely just expanded existing welfare and unemployment benefits.

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

#255

Post by djrogers »

WalterGR wrote: post #233
djrogers wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s also tragic that the changes we made cost 20+ million jobs, and dramatically increased income inequality.

Could there have been structural issues that existed before COVID that led to this outcome, but that COVID itself revealed? Much like certain pre-existing conditions lead to a greater chance of loss of life from COVID? Some people blame COVID and some people blame the pre-existing conditions. Is COVID to blame for the economic costs that you mention, or are the pre-existing conditions?

> Is COVID to blame for the economic costs that you mention, or are the pre-existing conditions?

I fail to grasp what you’re getting at here - what pre-existing conditions could possibly lead to millions of people losing their jobs because they’re employers were forbidden to do business?

Unless you’re suggesting that people should not own businesses or be employed by those who do...

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

#256

Post by miltondts »

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.

Are we an invasive species?

wiki: "An invasive species is a non-native species that has become naturalized and negatively alters its new environment."

Seems about right.

No predator. Also yes.

Multiplying exponentially. In the past century, yes. It seems to be slowing down, and so one might argue that it is a logistic growth.

If we exceed the limits of the environment we either suffer massive problems and eventually a die-off, or we manage to invent some new tech that expands the carrying capacity of Earth.

This is all pretty much factually correct. So, can someone explain the down votes?

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

#257

Post by 29athrowaway »

Geminidog wrote: post #249
29athrowaway wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- Non-native organism to most places around the world: check - Negative environmental effect: check We are an invasive species. Our species originated in Africa, then as we expanded we negatively affected our environment worldwide.

So every species on the face of the earth that ever expanded its territory is invasive? That's basically every living thing on the face of the earth. Make no mistake, almost every living thing that expanded its territory had a negative effect on that territory that was expanded into which will make every species "invasive" under your hair brained extreme technical definition. Most humans can catch the drift of what I…

Most species on earth have a habitat, a well defined reproduction rate and population capacity, and relationship to other species.

When you take a species out of its habitat and introduce it to another habitat, and they start cause harm to other species and their relationship to other species, we call them invasive species.

It is not that hard to understand. Humans are an animal species after all.

You brag about your soft skills, but are unable to explain a simple concept succintly and without aggression. That is prime evidence of poor soft skills.

Btw, name calling is also against the rules, and invoking the rules is against the rules.

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

#258

Post by Geminidog »

29athrowaway wrote: post #257
Geminidog wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So every species on the face of the earth that ever expanded its territory is invasive? That's basically every living thing on the face of the earth. Make no mistake, almost every living thing that expanded its territory had a negative effect on that territory that was expanded into which will make every species "invasive" under your hair brained extreme technical definition. Most humans can catch the drift of what I…

Most species on earth have a habitat, a well defined reproduction rate and population capacity, and relationship to other species. When you take a species out of its habitat and introduce it to another habitat, and they start cause harm to other species and their relationship to other species, we call them invasive species. It is not that hard to understand. Humans are an animal species after all. You brag about your…

>You brag about your soft skills, but are unable to explain a simple concept succintly and without aggression.

I never bragged about my soft skills. I targeted you as someone who's using the extreme technicality of a definition to serve your agenda. It appears to be an intelligent maneuver but it is not.

>Btw, name calling is also against the rules, and invoking the rules is against the rules.

Name calling? You mean Savant? You know a savant is a genius right? It's a compliment..

>Most species on earth have a habitat, a well defined reproduction rate and population capacity, and relationship to other species. And when you take them out of their habitat, they may cause harm to other species and their relationship to other species.

Yeah and it's not that hard to understand that global human expansion already occurred millions of years ago. The harm as an "invasive" species was already done because ecosystems have already evolved features and qualities designed to fend off humans. My example of all wild animals basically having an instinctual "fear of humans" is evidence for this. Predators actively avoid hunting humans even though many hikers are vulnerable due 100% to this instinct.

The harm to the environment we're seeing today is not the result of "invasion" which already occurred eons ago, but the result of technological change.

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

#259

Post by 29athrowaway »

Geminidog wrote: post #258
29athrowaway wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most species on earth have a habitat, a well defined reproduction rate and population capacity, and relationship to other species. When you take a species out of its habitat and introduce it to another habitat, and they start cause harm to other species and their relationship to other species, we call them invasive species. It is not that hard to understand. Humans are an animal species after all. You brag about your…

>You brag about your soft skills, but are unable to explain a simple concept succintly and without aggression. I never bragged about my soft skills. I targeted you as someone who's using the extreme technicality of a definition to serve your agenda. It appears to be an intelligent maneuver but it is not. >Btw, name calling is also against the rules, and invoking the rules is against the rules. Name calling? You mean…

Savants are mentally impaired people with unusual abilities perfect memory and calculator-like ability to compute math operations, etc. Calling people mentally disabled is not a compliment.

Then, anatomically modern humans did not start expanding millions of years ago. And most species do not have an innate fear of humans.

Pretty much everything you said is a bunch of nonsense. I regret having read that. Clearly the educational system failed you. I do not have an agenda. Preserving the environment is not a political agenda (or at least, it should not be), it is an extension of our survival instinct. Just like food security is not treated as a politically charged topic because everyone can agree that they need food.

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

#260

Post by TheCoelacanth »

francisofascii wrote: post #32
badRNG wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source? Anecdotally most folks I know have had to burn through their savings after living off of unemployment or going through underemployment this past year.

A recent episode of NPR: The Indicator covered this. "real disposable income per capita in the U.S. has gone up by about 6 percent year-to-date from last year. Right now, it's on track to reach the fastest rate of growth since 1984." Basically the super high savings rates by people who stayed employed and didn't vacation, go to restaurants, drive, etc. outweigh those getting hammered by unemployment. Also the stimulu…

This is the problem with averages. For a majority of people, it is up. For a large minority, it is down catastrophically. That averages out to slightly up.
Post reply on HN