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

Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 130 posts

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#81

Post by CuriouslyC »

evilsetg wrote: post #66
marvin wrote: post #34

Is there a way to plausibly and without corruption just tax these externalities at least more than the cost of repairing the damage - and spend the tax money actually doing that?

There is some problem in competitive systems that somebody will have an advantage over you once you tax these externalities. For this to work you would need the world (or a big enough part of it) to cooperate on this issue.

Tariffs and boycotts. The internet has collaborated to give mumble rap videos billions of views, I don't see why it couldn't drive cooperation among good actors to change something.

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#82

Post by didgeoridoo »

wombatmobile wrote: post #53
akvadrako wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also there is more forest than before.

Where? Could you quantify that in hectares or acres?

The trend is upward over the last 40 years (about 7% more global forest cover now than in 1982[0]) but I don’t think the data exist to extrapolate further back to, say, the beginning of the 20th century.

[0]: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-global-forest-loss-years-offse...

Edit: oh god 1982 was almost 40 years ago not 30. Tempus fugit.

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#83

Post by eznzt »

A12-B wrote: post #77
eznzt wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's the result of decades of shaming by the mass media. They make people feel guilty about not caring, so they won't say it out loud, but they still don't care, so they won't change their choices.

Your justification for not caring is a circular "because it is the most popular position". You still know it's wrong and have no good justification for it, of course people are going to shame you. It's not some media agenda.

No, that is not my justification for not caring. I said it is the most popular position because I wanted to avoid being downvoted.

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#84

Post by bezout »

taneq wrote: post #48
wombatmobile wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it's a natural phenomenon?

Uh, yes. No other animal species pontificates about living in harmony with nature, or preserving the balance, or anything of the sort. They're all fighting tooth and nail to survive and, if successful, outcompete. We're only exceptional in that we're so successful, and that we sometimes contemplate deliberately limiting our growth.

It’s true that - as far as we know - no other animal species cares about preserving the environment. But, you could argue that we care because we must. We worsen our chance of survival by messing up the environment to a point where it heavily affects our lives. Maybe, animals don’t care because they can’t do as much damage as us.

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#85

Post by ciconia »

sprash wrote: post #31
ciconia wrote: post #8

There's no two ways about it: economic growth means more ecological damage. Technology will not save us. IMO the only way to mitigate the onslaught of climate change is to do a controlled contraction of the world economy. If we do not do this willingly, nature will force it upon us.

You are wrong. The earth is getting bombarded with free (as in money) energy from the sun at all times. It is a matter of logistics and political will to use that energy to its fullest extend. There can be prosperity and nature preservation at the same time thanks to technology. My sister is building an off grid house right now with a huge solar array and a tesla power wall. If all goes well she won't have to pay for…

If only this were that simple. To make electricity out of the sun's energy and in addition to store it, you need some materials coming from the depth of the earth: lithium, silicate, copper, iron, and I guess dozens of metals and rare earth metals. Have a look at how those are extracted, and the (fossil) energy used in extracting, refining, transporting and fabricating all those solar panels and batteries.

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#87

Post by hot_fuzzybear »

7952 wrote: post #76
hot_fuzzybear wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although humanity sucks for centuries, we could make the argument, that the 20th century was the century where there was more done for the environment than in the last millennia. Many species that were considered displaced or even extinct have returned to their natural habitat and reclaimed their native land. Science and education showed us the right way forward, making cities way cleaner than ever before. I do not k…

But the environment is deeply political! A seemingly simple decision can be fraught with unintended consequences across different groups of people. Just allowing or banning a pesticide could have impact on human health, insect population, birds, pollinators, the livelihood of farmers, and rural economies. Politics is the system we have invented to deal with this complexity, and we should accept that people will have…

"a politicised issue (in a sense that facts are neglected by both sides of the debate and are replaced by empty rhetoric and disinformation that is used for political gains and moral high-ground...)"

Perhaps I was not clear enough, which is quite typical for me, BUT I agree with you 100%! It is important to question and debate this issue through a political system.

What I mean is that the current political culture in various countries has turned this process into a joke and I am not sure if we can even have a civil debate on this topic ever again. Hell, most conversations I have regarding pesticides end up in name calling and ridiculous oversimplifications of reality. I actually gave up on having these discussions altogether. That is my point, I hope I am more clear this time as I do not wish to cause any confusion.

Edit: tone...I unintentionally sounded passive-aggressive

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#89

Post by refurb »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #79
refurb wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not watching your video but prosperity (as most people define it) and economic growth are very closely linked.

Prosperity is about having an abundance of the things in life that really matter. That only requires economic growth when there aren't enough of those things to go around. Right now, there are enough of those things to go around, and way more, if all the people doing stupid useless shit like working in advertising became farmers and makers. Our society is being held hostage by plutocrats.

This is a fantasy that sounds good in practice, but sucks in reality.

You’re dying of incurable cancer. Do you have enough or do you want more economic growth so we can try and cure it?

If you're willing to die from stepping on a nail, then ok. I'm not.

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#90

Post by ciconia »

aboringusername wrote: post #71

Part of me wonders whether Covid-19 was natures way of allowing it a little breathing space, there are many studies about the results of shutting society away for a time and the positive impacts it had on nature (in some cases) Yet, when I think to what has actually changed, I can't think of much. There were supposed to be more cycle lanes, more pedestrianized areas and less reliance on cars/transport and more emphas…

According to J.M. Jancovici in order to keep climate change under 2ºC in 2100 we would need to contract the global economy by 5% each year for about 20 years (IIRC). Basically, an additional Covid-19 crisis every year.
Post reply on HN