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

91–100 of 160 posts

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

#91

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.

>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.

And up until last week, almost no one alive in BC had lived through record-setting temperatures, most of which were set in the 1930s.

It just seems so counter productive to point to every single weather event now and say "see? climate-change". That's why people ignore the issue. They're inundated with it.

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

#92

Post by mastax »

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…)

I'd usually suggest someplace away from the equator to get cooler temperatures, and close to a large body of water to reduce temperature swings. Good supply of fresh water is a plus as well. Lower population density reduces the risk of social unrest.

Great lakes, Maine, Northern Europe, Japan, Southern Chile, New Zealand?

Of course, what BC is experiencing right now demonstrates that it may be more complicated or impossible to predict.

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

#93

Post by choeger »

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.

Modern reactors are also much more expensive and take literally decades to build. Right now the option is to choose between comparatively cheap solar and wind energy (and their immense land usage) and nuclear power plants that are decades old. If we could build modern fission reactors more cheaply and quickly and if we had the water to operate many more of them they would be an option. Right now, they are not.

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

#94

Post by hhw »

vegetablepotpie wrote: post #81
mercy_dude wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Why focus on China and India, when on a per capita basis they have a small fraction of the carbon footprint that we have in Canada and the US? When we can get our per capita carbon footprint down below theirs, then maybe we'll have a right to criticize their environmental policies. But in the meantime if we're being at all objective, trying to point a finger at them makes us look like absolute hypocrites.

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

#95

Post by rocknor »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #27
chmod775 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Naive is only considering the absolute amount of emissions within some arbitrarily drawn lines on a map. The only metric that is fair, and countries like China will consider fair, is per-capita emissions. A Canadian can't justify causing three times as many CO2 emissions as a Chinese by virtue of being Canadian alone.

Per-capita emissions may be fair if it looked at where products are consumed , but in my experience the data only looks at emissions produced divided by population. Producer countries like China and especially Canada with their energy industry will look worse than they actually are because other countries have effectively outsourced their CO2 emissions to these countries.

We do have that data:

https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$model$markers$line$data$fi...

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

#96

Post by xroche »

choeger wrote: post #93
jcfrei wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Modern reactors are also much more expensive and take literally decades to build. Right now the option is to choose between comparatively cheap solar and wind energy (and their immense land usage) and nuclear power plants that are decades old. If we could build modern fission reactors more cheaply and quickly and if we had the water to operate many more of them they would be an option. Right now, they are not.

> cheap solar and wind energy

You don't have a baseline energy with wind and solar, which are not on-demand. That's the big issue.

And nuclear _can_ be cheap if (and only if) funded by states, that can borrow zero-interest loans.

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

#97

Post by sandworm101 »

poutine wrote: post #59
sandworm101 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> If you think China gives a crap about your example you’re horrendously naive. Tell that to the legions of Chinese immigrants who have flocked to Canada in recent years. It happened during the Hong Kong handover too. The Chinese see Canada as the more tolerant alternative to the US. Canada's opinion on China matters because that opinion is shared by the many Chinese people living in Canada. What is naïve is to igno…

By and large the CCP shapes the internal narrative with respect to China, and increasingly globally. Social connections be damned. The Chinese will think what the CCP wants them to think. I say this as someone who has lived in China and with family in China.

There are different groups in China. The bulk of the people will never travel internationally. They don't have much money/influence in the country. The ones that visit Canada are the rich and powerful. They are the leaders. They are the ones that will go home and set CCP policy. They visit Canada and see clean water and reasonable living standards are possible. When they go home they will demand those things. They will demand change when their college-age kids studying in Canada don't want to come home, or don't stay long when they do. That sort of slow influence can be more effective than the threat of violence.

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

#98

Post by brandon272 »

fatsdomino001 wrote: post #77
chmod775 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Naive is only considering the absolute amount of emissions within some arbitrarily drawn lines on a map. The only metric that is fair, and countries like China will consider fair, is per-capita emissions. A Canadian can't justify causing three times as many CO2 emissions as a Chinese by virtue of being Canadian alone.

yes we can. We live in a more northern environment, necessitating high CO2 emissions. Maybe not three times, but factor in the fact that Canadians are so distantly spread out adds more weight to the necessity of Canadians having higher CO2 emissions per-capita than China. It's not apples to apples comparison.

Why is it China's problem that Canadians choose to live in a northern climate in a "distantly spread out" fashion? They could just as easily argue that their higher absolute CO2 emissions is "necessary" given their higher population.

Every country can come up with a list of excuses as to why they should be entitled to produce CO2. At the end of the day we need to start with taking responsibility for our own emissions before we start telling other countries what to do.

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

#99

Post by LightG »

poutine wrote: post #89
LightG wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm 100% against the embargo of Cuba ... but let me use that as an example of: "it's not as if the US hasn't/isn't doing exactly that in other arenas".

But I take your point, and I'm not sure of the solution.

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

#100

Post by rocknor »

poutine wrote: post #55
chmod775 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Naive is only considering the absolute amount of emissions within some arbitrarily drawn lines on a map. The only metric that is fair, and countries like China will consider fair, is per-capita emissions. A Canadian can't justify causing three times as many CO2 emissions as a Chinese by virtue of being Canadian alone.

Staking the future of the climate on trusting countries to be fair is childish thinking. The ONLY metric that matters is global gigatons of CO2 emitted per year. This needs to decrease. Playing hand waving games with per capita between countries is pure nonsense and provides cover for emitters.

Countries are sovereign units of control that we've divided ourselves into. To actually get some meaningful work done we have to hold some countries into account. Example: the US obviously needs to be held to account for pulling out of the Paris agreement, since it's the worst offender in both per-capita and total consumption-based emissions, despite having the capabilities to change that (being rich).
Post reply on HN