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

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

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 1001 posts

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

#161

Post by mytailorisrich »

gspr wrote: post #119
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 educatio…

Levelling off at 8-9 billions is unsustainable if poverty is eradicated and probably even if it isn't.

The demand on resources is simply too great.

Global population is a key problem for humanity.

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

#163

Post by albertgoeswoof »

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…

> Go back to less than 1B human on planet earth

How do you know it's 1 billion and not 1 million or 10 billion? Hint: you don't know.

This is non-actionable opinion and therefore actively harmful as it further propagates no-action on climate change or solving problems whatsoever.

The population is peaking anyway, growth rates are dramatically slowing, so this is not at all a relevant point.

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

#164

Post by QasimK »

gspr wrote: post #90
matco11 wrote: post #16

> This pact aims to keep the rise in global temperatures well below 2C this century and to pursue efforts to keep it under 1.5C. It seems to me that continuing to communicate just the average temperature increase is a missed opportunity to engage with a greater portion of the population. 1.5 or 2 degrees do not seem like much, but once one understands that’s an average made out of much bigger positive and negative sw…

I see this a lot, too. "It's just 2 degrees" – what the hell is wrong with you? If your body temperature is 2-3 degrees above normal, you feel like absolute shit. Likewise for atmospheric CO₂ concentrations; "it's just 0.04 %" – dude, you surely start noticing the effects of "just" 0.04% alcohol in your blood. Or hey, try cyanide. What is wrong with people?!

If my room was 2 degrees hotter right now, I would barely notice. So "2 degrees" by itself actually really does mean very little even to me - and I already know about the catastrophic effects that are going to come out of 2 degrees. I have to think about the sea level rise, increasing heat waves, more floods, more extreme weather, and so on for it to actually have an impact on even me.

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

#165

Post by rcMgD2BwE72F »

pigeonhole123 wrote: post #100
pcthrowaway wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Farming is a small contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and the recent attacks on red meat for example are nonsensical if you look at the math that is used to justify it.

>Farming is a small contributor to greenhouse gas emissions

This is soo wrong:

>The AFOLU sector is responsible for just under a quarter (~10 – 12 GtCO2eq / yr) of anthropogenic GHG emissions mainly from deforestation and agricultural emissions from livestock, soil and nutrient management (robust evidence; high agreement)[11.2]. Anthropogenic forest degradation and biomass burning (forest fires and agricultural burning) also represent relevant contributions. > >Annual GHG emissions from agricultural production in 2000 – 2010 were estimated at 5.0 – 5.8 GtCO2eq / yr while annual GHG flux from land use and land-use change activities accounted for approximately 4.3 – 5.5 GtCO2eq / yr. > >Leveraging the mitigation potential in the sector is extremely important in meeting emission reduction targets (robust evidence; high agreement) [11.9].

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5...

>(...) nonsensical if you look at the math that is used to justify it.

Please enlighten me!

Technical summary of "Special Report on Climate Change and Land": https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/4/2020/07/03_T...

Also, quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Report_on_Climate_Chan...

>According to the August 8 Carbon Brief in-depth article on the SRCCL, Chapter 2 provides data on livestock methane emissions, about 66% is agricultural methane" and "about 33% of global methane emissions" come from livestock.[22][23]:38

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

#167

Post by zejn »

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…

It is hard to "care".

People are bombarded with articles and viewpoints and even lies to the point that they are unable to orient themselves - and just zone out.

When the easiest thing to say is to just tell them to "stop burning stuff".

Do we call it fuel? Stop using it.

Can't stop using it? Ok, but please use as little as possible.

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

#169

Post by enriquto »

headmelted wrote: post #28
matco11 wrote: post #16

> This pact aims to keep the rise in global temperatures well below 2C this century and to pursue efforts to keep it under 1.5C. It seems to me that continuing to communicate just the average temperature increase is a missed opportunity to engage with a greater portion of the population. 1.5 or 2 degrees do not seem like much, but once one understands that’s an average made out of much bigger positive and negative sw…

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

> They think I'm a crazy person when I mention the never-ending storms and lack of drinking water.

If you put it that way it's no wonder that they think you are crazy. Storms mean heavy rainfall that means more drinking water. What is your point, exactly?

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

#170

Post by rich_sasha »

It’s just so hard to know what actions have what impact on CO2 production. Some are high-pain, low-gain (switching devices off instead of standby?), some are opposite (cycling instead of driving when possible etc).

For that if for no other reason, I’d rather if consumer prices included an explicit CO2 tax. The here can be a rebate for poorer people, or personal allowance, whatever, but there would be a fixed yardstick for measuring your personal impact.

Off the top of my head, I have no idea which if my activities generates the most CO2. My car? Energy use? Diet? Going skiing once a year? No idea.

Newspaper articles only help a little, they usually present an incomplete picture, and optimising against an incorrect utility function is often counterproductive.

I’m imagining something like VAT, where “value added/carbon” adds up over the lifetime of product/service production.

Post reply on HN