Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity' • Hacker News Board

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#111

Post by hootbootscoot » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 9:40 AM UTC

pcthrowaway wrote: post #74

skinkestek wrote: post #31

So now we can get rid of fast fashion, mandate reusability for products, reintroduce basic woodworking, metalcrafting and sewing/repair work in school and with that get rid of a huge chunk of the needless shipping? Or are we still going to go after individuals eating traditional food while thought leaders fly across the globe in private jets (no kidding) telling us we need to change our diet? PS: I'm already a enthus…

> Or are we still going to go after individuals eating traditional food I mean, yes, we should continue doing that. Our relationship with food is unhealthy and also a massive contributor to environmental decline. I'm not sure why you contrast this with other improvements we can make, many of which, individually, would be less impactful than a transition to a more sustainable diet.

The point I got from the OP was that traditional culture was low-carbon from day 0, and that at least Britain's climate change minister was jetting about an AWFUL lot, and there are plenty of jet-setters pushing a vegan diet upon the world when home-kept chickens are obviously a net plus, both in terms of food waste (accounts for a significant carbon and other pollution footprint, as we pay to produce it) and in terms of proteins that don't require killing your chickens over (eggs). Contrast that with having a cat or dog (look at amount of animals slaughtered for pet foods)

I agree that our systems need revamping in a large-scale way, particularly agriculture, as you imply.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#112

Post by roenxi » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 9:40 AM UTC

dkdbejwi383 wrote: post #60

headmelted wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also people need to be presented with the consequences. I still know a lot of people who genuinely believe it means slightly warmer summers. They think I'm a crazy person when I mention the never-ending storms and lack of drinking water. Also just dropping this link here as I remember watching it at the time and thinking isn't it great we're not there yet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CXRaTnKDXA

Yeah, I don’t mean to be disparaging but the average person doesn’t really seem to grasp this beyond: it’ll be slightly warmer. And in a cold European climate, most people seem to think that’s a good thing. Warm summers are enjoyable when you’re swimming in the sea and having barbecues in the park. Maybe there should be more focus on the frequency and intensity of storms, floods, extreme heatwaves, etc. Although to b…

What is the thesis here, that storms are a new hitherto unknown phenomenon that are radically outside the human experience?

There has never been an era where humans didn't have to put up with horrific storms. It took Pompeii 4-6m of volcanic ash to stop humans picking up the pieces and carrying on.

I don't think a focus on "oh there'll be more storms" is going to cut it. We have to be ready for storms anyway, having more of them doesn't change the risk calculations all that much in my mind. I'd rather pay the taxes for a big well air conditioned community centre to deal with heat waves. It'll be cheaper than what gets wasted on sporting venues.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#113

Post by QasimK » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 9:41 AM UTC

mtekman wrote: post #13

eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's instead get rid of private air travel. Has caused a pandemic and millions of deaths. And the emissions are very likely larger than those of Bitcoin. People can go on vacation by train instead. If you demand people use slow legacy money then I can demand slow legacy travel, ok? ;)

Emissions from aviation contributes 3% to greenhouse gasses.

The emissions from aviation are increasing every year, the majority of flights are for holidays rather than business, and only a very small minority of people globally actually take flights.

However, I belive the parent commenter was more pointing out the unfairness of picking and choosing what to ban rather than imposing a blanket charge on carbon.

This seems to have been missed by most, even when considering that the parent is likely correct that flights have a greater, and increasingly greater, impact on climate change than bitcoin does.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#114

Post by automatic6131 » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 9:41 AM UTC

ur-whale wrote: post #96

Every one is focused on climate change. But climate change is just a symptom, and absolutely not the disease. No one seems to want to discuss or even mention the actual root cause of climate change, namely: there are simply too many people on the planet. Go back to less than 1B human on planet earth, and climate change will stop being a problem in a heartbeat. But the implications of such a drastic population decreas…

Yeah, how do you think planning the largest genocide in history sounds to people? Do you even hear yourself? Do you want to go to 6 out of 7 people and tell them they cannot breed? What will be the punishment if they do? Or will you forcibly sterilise them?

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#115

Post by tromp » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 9:41 AM UTC

ealexhudson wrote: post #24

avnigo wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's an informed article on bitcoin's energy use [0]. [0]: https://hbr.org/2021/05/how-much-energy-does-bitcoin-actuall...

"The vast majority of Bitcoin’s energy consumption happens during the mining process. Once coins have been issued, the energy required to validate transactions is minimal." Honestly, that doesn't seem particularly well-informed. I wonder how this person thinks transactions are committed to the blockchain, and how this is separate from the mining process? Unless they literally mean "the energy required to consult the…

The confusion comes from how the miners are compensated for their energy burning. Currently, it's mostly by the block subsidy, which is independent of the amount of transactions in a block. But in a decade or two, that will be dominated by transaction fees, and we can actually attribute the energy cost to the transaction amount.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#116

Post by malwarebytess » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 9:41 AM UTC

At some point we need to consider ramping down mass production no matter the consequences. This is getting out of hand.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#117

Post by dredmorbius » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 9:42 AM UTC

fifafu wrote: post #27

charlesmunger8 wrote: post #9

Edit: bad boy

> World crisis! Quick! Give your money to or help elect these people! Save the world! Do it for the children. Stupid. Nothing about this is quick. Climate scientists have told us for > 20 years. But sure let's post stupid bullshit on the internet and continue to do nothing.

I was studying this in uni 30 years ago.

There are general-interest educational videos on global warming from the 1950s:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=T6YyvdYPrhY

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#118

Post by hootbootscoot » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 9:42 AM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #80

konschubert wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we should do neither. Impose a co2 emissions tax and let the market figure it out.

A carbon tax that would be high enough to force changes quickly enough would also be devastating for the poorer segment of the population and hence very hard to pass in a democracy. I mixture of a carbon price and other measures can be easier to sell to the voters.

needs to be coupled with subsidies for alternatives, transport (public, electric vehicles, etc) and with the knowledge that a poor person will drive that old diesel car into the ground, so give them an incentive to switch.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#119

Post by gspr » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 9:42 AM UTC

mytailorisrich wrote: post #77

As usual the elephant in the room is the global population. We can't eradicate poverty, protect the environment, and maintain the human population we currently have. Bikeshedding is always easier than facing hard issues so people focus on marginal things, like air travel or plastic cups, rather than facing the root cause of it all. Do we want all humans to have a good life with high living standards among a thriving…

> As usual the elephant in the room is the global population.

No. Thankfully, the global population is more or less levelling off. We know the recipe by now: lift people out of abject poverty (wherein children are the only ones providing for you at old age), combat child mortality (under which people have far more children to be sure that at least some grow up), and give women control of their own bodies and education (so that they no longer have to be child-bearing machines).

We've seen this work again and again, most strikingly in Asia. We know it works. If the same process happens for Africa, the world population will certainly level off.

There's plenty of problems ahead for humanity, but it seems that we don't have to panic about the global population anymore!

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#120

Post by rcMgD2BwE72F » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 9:42 AM UTC

mytailorisrich wrote: post #95

skinkestek wrote: post #31

So now we can get rid of fast fashion, mandate reusability for products, reintroduce basic woodworking, metalcrafting and sewing/repair work in school and with that get rid of a huge chunk of the needless shipping? Or are we still going to go after individuals eating traditional food while thought leaders fly across the globe in private jets (no kidding) telling us we need to change our diet? PS: I'm already a enthus…

These are all marginal issues. Even at the current level of population demand on resources is too great and will be massively too great if poverty is eradicated (as it should). The long term solution for both the environment and people's quality of life (I don't think that not being able to travel, not being able to eat what one wants, having to live in a small flat in a dense city with mass transit only is a good li…

>The long term solution for both the environment and people's quality of life is not only to have an objective to cut emission but to have an objective to cut population. > >Now, that is a very sensitive topic and so everyone prefers to ignore it.

No. You are ignoring that countries whose population is increasing are, per capita, not emitting much. Please compare the eqCO2 per capita in Africa vs Europe or USA. If we ask a minority to curb their pollution, we can easily fix the climate problem. But those who emit the most ask everyone to not have children... because they refuse to change their behavior. This is a sensitive topic only to the minority that is responsible for the catastrophe.

Again, I beg your to research who are polluting more that what our ecosystems can endure and tell me why we should block human beings from procreating vs asking the culprits to curb their crazy consumption/pollution and leave the rest of the world alone.