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

171–180 of 1001 posts

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

#171

Post by nathias »

sammalloy wrote: post #140
nathias wrote: post #41

The responses in this topic alone are enough to see the chances of success are very low.

One of the biggest problems I've come across are older people who say or think "I've got mine, I won't be alive when the shit hits the fan, so I don't care." If you can address that aspect of the problem, then you're probably half way there to solving it.

I'd say that a reduction of systemic issues to personal responsibility is a much bigger problem than that. Global warming is a problem of externalities and can only be solved as such.

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

#173

Post by fighterpilot »

dredmorbius wrote: post #142
fighterpilot wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just tax carbon instead of trying to pick winners and losers

In general I agree. In practice, there are behaviours which provide no net social benefit, exact tremendous costs, and yet are inherently self-perpetuating. Legal prohibitions can help in this case. It's a form of demand-dampening.

It's only your opinion that there's no social benefit. Which is a problem, because your opinion might be wrong. If you charge people appropriately for their carbon use such that it's no skin off your back if they continue consumption, then you don't risk destroying value in places where your opinion turns out wrong.

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

#174

Post by Bellamy »

wiz21c wrote: post #67

The article, and many like it, does a poor job of explaining the consequences we will face. 1.5°C doesn't mean much to the lay man. Explain that uncertain harvests, tied to speculation on risks, will much likely lead to an increase in the price of bread. Add to that an increase in oil will also lead to a price increase. Heatwave in Greece ? Greece is usually hot in summer so one doesn't care. Now explain how many hou…

Wildfires in Canada and Russia. Floats in Germany. Etc, etc...

We have known 40 years what will happen and now for our leaders those consequences seem to come as a surprise.

I hope the Germans will vote for the Green party in the September's federal elections and other countries will follow the example.

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

#175

Post by jonpo »

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…

Start with the entirely unnessecary carniverous apex predators (aka pets) people insist on keeping. If people cant get rid of pets, then asking them to avoid replicating their own DNA is going to be a challenge.

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

#176

Post by chronial »

QasimK wrote: post #86
fighterpilot wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just tax carbon instead of trying to pick winners and losers

I was recently thinking about why bitcoin shouldn't just be banned to help mitigate the ongoing climate catastrophe which led to my recent article [0] which equated banning bitcoin to banning ice cream, which I hope helps to illustrate the absurdity of picking and choosing versus just charging for carbon more directly. [0]: https://qasimk.io/2021/bitcoin-and-ice-cream/

Your analysis has one major flaw: It would only make sense if ice cream had as severe a climate impact as bitcoin. I have no reason to believe that it does.

You would have to find a list of things that people enjoy but don't bring societal benefit that add up to bitcoin's climate impact. I assume that list will then either:

• contain things that should actually be banned or

• add up to way more utility for way more people than bitcoin

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

#177

Post by rcMgD2BwE72F »

gspr wrote: post #105
dakra wrote: post #73

I really liked Bill Gates new Book: How to Avoid a Climate Disaster[1]. I liked that it shows what we have to do to get to 0 greenhouse gas emissions. What's the current state of technology and what's still left to do to get there. I often find suggestions like "Meatless Monday" or "Only fly when really necessary" etc, while probably good, not really useful advice. In Gates book he talks about that transportation and…

I very much agree, and as a bonus, these more optimistic solutions – solutions where we do something instead of (just) stopping doing something – seem easier for people to swallow too.

We have the means to stop the catastrophe. We don't need more solutions, just to comprehend that our behavior is destroying our ecosystems and pick the right solutions for the right behavior. We just need to act on it.

Also, no one pretended that violence can be annihilated when we collectively decided to swallow that killing one another is not a right and we outlaw it (except in some context that is defined by laws and treaties).

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

#178

Post by zejn »

Joeri wrote: post #70
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…

Individual action won’t solve this problem. We need to leave the fossil fuels in the ground, which means switching energy sources, which is not something individuals have much influence on. Reducing energy use at the individual level is good, but insufficient if the energy used comes from fossil fuels. I’m not sure we need to switch lifestyles that much, but we will need to radically change energy production. There h…

Individuals can and should reduce their direct CO2 footprint. Most of personal energy budget goes for transportation and heating and/or cooling the living spaces. Two solutions enable you to stop directly burning stuff: EVs and heatpumps.

Beyond that, cap-and-trade scheme has worked to reduce SO2 emissions and it will work to reduce CO2 emissions.

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

#179

Post by thejohnconway »

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…

In every discussion of environmental problems, someone says this like it’s some sort of obvious solution that everyone’s too afraid to discuss. But I want specifics from you — what would the actual policy be, and how would you implement it?

Are you talking about the genocide of billions for people? I mean, that’s far worse than the crisis we face!

Or are you talking about birth control? That would have to be radical and start right now to have much of an effect, and how on earth would you get everyone to agree with it?

Both these “solutions” seem utterly absurd on their face, and WAY harder to implement that even to most radical non-genocidal environmental policies.

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

#180

Post by dredmorbius »

thewhitetulip wrote: post #152
dredmorbius wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Covid-19 deaths have been all but invisible in the larger scheme, at least to date. Far more signficant has been the global economic shutdown imposed by quarantine and containment efforts. That's somewhat reduced fossil fuel usage, though that effect has also been limited. It was enough to show up in BP's annual review of global energy usage though, released about a month ago in July: https://www.bp.com/en/global/cor…

Since lockdowns have been lifted I don't thin this will be relevant anymore.

I'm not grasping your point.

Your question was what the impact of Covid on population (and hence climate) might be. As I said, it is minimal, effectively nonexistant.

To date, 4 million deaths have been reported. There's been substantial undercounting, that total might be low by as much as a factor of ten (at an extreme case), or 40 millions out of a total population of slightly under 8 billions. That's 0.5% of world human population, on the high side.

Most of the dead were elderly, and would likely have died relatively soon regardless, though I don't have figures for estimated life-years lost. A human tragedy in many cases yes. But not something that shifts the baseline on global warming threats.

It's possible that Covid might flare up again, that there will be new (a) new variant(s) with vastly greater infectivity and lethality. I suspect this is unlikely, though the pandemic is likely to be with us for a number of years more. (I'm not an expert, some have suggested another several years, I'm thinking 2--3 is likely, and perhaps as many as 5, given the spectacularly bungled response to date.) Both deaths and lockdowns as well as voluntary withdrawal from economic activity (something that's been seen even in the absence of government-ordered quarantines) ... could extend further.

BP's estimate is that global energy consumption fell by 4.5% in 2020 over what was expected absent Covid. That's the impact so far. https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/stat...

Consider that that 4.5% might be repeated for another few years, possibly at a greater or lesser extent (e.g., 2.25% or 5%). It's still less than a ten-percent impact on global energy consumption, likely a short-term effect, and would have little impact on long-term energy usage patterns. So long as energy usage is growing (as it has, typically at about 2--3% annually IIRC), it will double given time (in 25--35 years at those rates, using the rule of 72).

I can't give you a hard answer, but can give you the outline parameters of what will effect the response:

- Covid net population effects are effectively nil.

- Energy impacts are measurable, but small and likely temporary.

- The overall impact of COVID-19 on global warming patterns is detectable, but insignificant in the big picture, especially against longer-term trends.

Post reply on HN