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

Canada battles more than 180 wildfires with hundreds dead in heat wave

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 160 posts

Re: Canada battles more than 180 wildfires with hundreds dead in heat wave

#81

Post by vegetablepotpie »

mercy_dude wrote: post #75
vegetablepotpie wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not OP, but I can address this. Leading by example does not compel anyone to act, it works the same way that nuclear treaties do not reduce nuclear arms. But we still have treaties and we have had no nuclear war in the last 70 years. Leading by example is necessary but not sufficient for carbon reduction. But it removes accusations of hypocrisy when talking about solutions, which makes discussions much more productiv…

> China does have climate policy and it’s and issue that they do not ignore. They plant trees at the interface of deserts to prevent their expansion, they produce 80% of the worlds solar panels. China is the world's leading country in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over double the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States. Sounds like you are avoiding the core question su…

> There is no policy that can change that fact.

That statement is completely false. There are many policies that China and India can enact to reduce production of greenhouse gasses.

- put a price on carbon emissions (ex: California cap and trade)

- put a tax on carbon (ex: Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act)

- provide grants or tax breaks to clean energy projects

Re: Canada battles more than 180 wildfires with hundreds dead in heat wave

#82

Post by hedora »

akarma wrote: post #74
xroche wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Chernobyl was a traumatic event And yet the number of casualties is lower than the number of casualties caused every year in Europe by coal: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/12/european... I don't deny it was a traumatic event. But like airplane crashes, the emotion can differ from cold numbers.

I think that's exactly what the above commenter was saying in: "European nuclear advocates really don’t have a satisfactory political response to Chernobyl and Fukushima." If a country experiences a nuclear accident like Chernobyl or Fukushima, your "number of casualties is lower than if we moved to coal" argument won't work. Cold numbers won't beat emotion. Edit: On downvotes, it's very demographically consistent of…

It’s more like cold numbers won’t beat lobbying. It’s not “if we moved to coal”. It’s “coal definitely killed more people than Chernobyl every few months for the last 100 years and is now literally burning the planet down, but somehow that’s OK.”

Re: Canada battles more than 180 wildfires with hundreds dead in heat wave

#84

Post by bckr »

xwolfi wrote: post #51
elric wrote: post #3

And yet we'll continue to treat climate change as an inconvenience that can be addressed in 20 years, when - to quote Alex Steffen - we're not yet ready for what's already happened. https://alexsteffen.substack.com/p/were-not-yet-ready-for-wh...

But this is not climate, it's weather. Like you look like a fool on a cold winter mocking global warning, maybe wait a bit to call summer fires in Canada hottest summer in recent memory a direct climate change effect, or it'll just be invalidated next coldest summer in recent memory... I remember forest fires in my country decades ago and they reduced a lot recently, so what, positive result of global warming and cli…

> it'll just be invalidated next coldest summer in recent memory

that's why scientists are using terms like global climate disruption or global heating. Hotter hots and colder colds fit the model.

Re: Canada battles more than 180 wildfires with hundreds dead in heat wave

#85

Post by itsoktocry »

garyrichardson wrote: post #68
itsoktocry wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And yet we'll continue to treat climate change as an inconvenience that can be addressed in 20 years According to the EPA, wildfires over the past 40 years are slightly down. Can you point to different data that ties these wildfires to climate change? https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica...

Anec-data: I’m in my 40s and live in the Vancouver area. The first time in my life that I ever experienced a smoked in summer was about 5 years ago. Actual data: the link you posted shows a decrease in fires overall, but the size and damage of them increasing. I guess when the fires are so big and start merging your overall count goes down.

>but the size and damage of them increasing

Is your assertion that climate change is causing bigger fires, or could there be other contributing factors ie controlled burning, development etc?

Re: Canada battles more than 180 wildfires with hundreds dead in heat wave

#86

Post by choeger »

newleaf wrote: post #83

As an insurance policy, where would be the best places to live or buy land now given forecasted trends? I’m primarily thinking of the US, but interested any idea (well, maybe not Siberia…)

Germany. Seriously, I don't know of any other country with such a combination of industry, education, social security, and absence of natural disasters as well as poisonous animals.

Re: Canada battles more than 180 wildfires with hundreds dead in heat wave

#87

Post by akarma »

jcfrei wrote: post #62
nicklecompte wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

European nuclear advocates really don’t have a satisfactory political response to Chernobyl and Fukushima. Truthfully, the best argument for nuclear power is an extremely unpleasant one: a bit of radioactive contamination (an immediate and visceral threat) is a small price to pay for the emissions offset (still a somewhat abstract and distant threat). The numbers check out but it is undeniably ghoulish. But pretendin…

Calling my explanation condescending seems exaggerated. The opposition against nuclear energy makes sense if Chernobyl is your reference in terms of safety. But modern reactor designs are a lot safer than Chernobyl and Fukushima. That's why I'm calling it nonsensical - the skepticism was warranted at the time but it's outdated now.

I agree with you that your comment wasn't condescending like the above commenter suggested, but disagree about modern reactor designs. They'll always carry this risk.

Sure, reactor design has changed since Chernobyl in various ways that help mitigate it, but what about Fukushima?

Fukushima was devastating, and the result was the NRC asking US reactors to reconfirm their flooding and earthquake preparedness. I don't know of any measures taken in European countries.

As climate change progresses, there could be some disastrous consequences, and it's unfair to say that the skepticism is outdated.

This isn't to say that nuclear is worse than coal (it's not), but that it isn't just handwaving.

Re: Canada battles more than 180 wildfires with hundreds dead in heat wave

#88

Post by swarnie_ »

jcfrei wrote: post #32
xroche wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is even more hilarious: Germany oppose nuclear, which is the greenest energy source in terme of emissions, but managed to get funding to use "green" gas: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_...

A big part of the problem are the green parties themselves. They were in many cases started as a youth movement against nuclear power in the 60s. The basis of these green parties consists of people who are ideologically opposed to nuclear energy and their youth rebellion against it is now part of their identity. This is why the leadership of green parties cannot support nuclear energy even though opposing it is compl…

We have a weird situation in the UK where the green party oppose nuclear power and public transport development in England but are all for an independent Scotland reliant on north sea oil to stay solvent.

I expect very little from our political class but these ones are especially bizarre.

Re: Canada battles more than 180 wildfires with hundreds dead in heat wave

#89

Post by poutine »

LightG wrote: post #79
poutine wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lead by example? If you think China gives a crap about your example you’re horrendously naive.

If that's true, then it's doesn't take a genius to sugget a multi-pronged strategy. 1) Lead be example. If that fails: 2) Import-tax the f@ck out of them, unless they comply with regulations. 3) Goto (1).

Carbon taxes and tariffs would work yes. But you're imposing serious costs on people that they haven't shown any desire to support. Further, tariffs would disproportionately impact the poor in the developing world.

Re: Canada battles more than 180 wildfires with hundreds dead in heat wave

#90

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

newleaf wrote: post #83

As an insurance policy, where would be the best places to live or buy land now given forecasted trends? I’m primarily thinking of the US, but interested any idea (well, maybe not Siberia…)

Ultimately, anywhere that is relatively wet and/or not located in a forest is probably decently safe from forest fires. In terms of safety from heat waves, there are a few good hedges: a very well insulated house, ideally with some sort of reflective roof. A backup battery system that allows you to run independently in the case of a grid failure. Solar panels that work when the grid is off, which have excess capacity. Redundant cooling systems? If you really wanna go crazy, build a small underground bunker like Colin Furze did.

With these things in place I think you'll be safe enough during any foreseeable heat waves. You still wouldn't be able to go outside on really hot days, but you wouldn't likely die due to overheating.

Post reply on HN