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

261–270 of 1001 posts

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

#261

Post by w_t_payne »

Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #223
zelphirkalt wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have children, then that is probably the most impactful. They will need/want the same living standards as other people. They get the full package of other impactful things you mention plus some more like house building. For example a young family does no longer live in the same small 2 person flat, but instead builds a house (or lets build). Especially in first world countries and developing to first world cou…

Children are part of the goal. I mean, what's the point of preserving the planet for the future generations if we don't make future generations? If you follow your logic to the extreme, the most beneficial actions would be things like euthanasia or just plain suicide.

Given the state of the world, and a desire to be as helpful as possible, the latter feels quite appealing to me right now.

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

#262

Post by dredmorbius »

fnoof wrote: post #185

Most of the comments here are opinions on what other people should do to stop climate change. For those that have read up on it, What are the highest impact things the average hacker news reader can do over the next few years?

Change policy.

This isn't a problem solved by individualism.

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

#263

Post by whimsicalism »

rob_c wrote: post #212
shadowfaxRodeo wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if every person on the planet did what you reasonably expect of yourself, we would still not even be close to reducing CO2 production. By all means do those things. But if you want to make a real difference you need to look beyond your own activities. Change your community, your company, your industry. What can you do that changes the defaults for everyone else? Try and find low-hanging fruit. Join your local cl…

Not sure what solutions that group is supposed to be espoucing but they're mostly just a political lobbying group. Frankly until the shouting and arguing stops and someone who can make a difference comes to the table I'm out. There is was too much posturing which makes no difference and is bad on both sides from plastic signs complaining about pollution to politicians who travel from ecological disaster to ecological…

What a disingenuous comment.

Of course they are a political lobbying group! No shame in that, if they weren't they would be stupid.

Shouting and arguing is how human beings deliberate since the beginning of our species - and it's how plenty of things have gotten done historically.

Waiting until your age of enlightened and reasoned debate around climate issues comes ensures that you never have to take action at all, which, I suspect, might be your point.

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

#264

Post by scbrg »

Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #223
zelphirkalt wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have children, then that is probably the most impactful. They will need/want the same living standards as other people. They get the full package of other impactful things you mention plus some more like house building. For example a young family does no longer live in the same small 2 person flat, but instead builds a house (or lets build). Especially in first world countries and developing to first world cou…

Children are part of the goal. I mean, what's the point of preserving the planet for the future generations if we don't make future generations? If you follow your logic to the extreme, the most beneficial actions would be things like euthanasia or just plain suicide.

> If you follow your logic to the extreme, the most beneficial actions would be things like euthanasia or just plain suicide.

Absolutely. Any logic followed to the extreme will yield extreme results. It could, however, be argued without much difficulty that people that exist have more rights than people that never will exist, so expecting someone to commit suicide (an extremely angst filled action that is also likely to cause an incredible amount of suffering within the person's close social circles) is not really at all comparable to asking them to not procreate - something that may not happen anyway for a number of reasons, and which does not inflict any particular amount of extra suffering.

It could also be argued that we don't really need to be eight billion, so some/most of us not procreating does not imply that there will be no future generations.

And, it could also be argued that all other life forms on earth are not worthless, and their well being alone - sans humans - could be worth preserving a reasonable climate for.

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

#265

Post by nix23 »

rich_sasha wrote: post #202
czzr wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The inability of the US to pass a carbon tax will be one of humanities great tragedies. That they are the theoretical champions of the free market is just piling cruel irony on top of that.

It's not just US. Is there a real carbon tax anywhere at all?

It is, for example in Switzerland, but it's a bad joke in many ways, the most important for me is:

If you have make a carbon emission high product, you rather change the production country (to a less controlled country, where you even can trow your waste water into a river) then to research the next 20 years on new technology.

And the income from the tax goes to insurance company's and Rent rather then to green projects..it's just another tax without any meaning:

https://www.bafu.admin.ch/bafu/en/home/topics/climate/info-s...

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

#266

Post by virgilp »

brailsafe wrote: post #243
virgilp wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1.5 or 2 degrees do not seem like much Did not seem like much to me, until I realized that 28 degrees inside the house is "comfortable" while 30 is "too hot".

In what world is 28°C comfortable!?

Well, definitely not North America because there it seems to be a mandate that you gotta freeze inside during summer. But trust me, you (still?) can live without AC.

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

#267

Post by truckerbill »

skinkestek wrote: post #255
truckerbill wrote: post #238

Out of curiosity, who here is trying to make a change? Through either lifestyle or lobbying. If not why?

Have been doing a lot of the right things for a couple of decades already, mostly because it is also the smart thing to do from a personal economic perspective though. - reuse / repair instead of throwing away - buying used - put effort into maintenance - avoiding wasteful activities I actually enjoy it and I have a good life.

It's really satisfying to me bypassing the consumer cycle, I agree. Woodworking and electronics is fun and useful.

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

#268

Post by smt88 »

zejn wrote: post #211
rich_sasha wrote: post #170

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 yardstic…

The easiest way to approach this is to "stop burning stuff". Is a material being burned? Then it almost certainly emits CO2. Do you call it fuel? Stop using it or use it as little as possible. Most personal energy use is for heating living spaces and transportation. EVs are great for transportation, e-bikes are even better. Heat pumps are great for heating and cooling living spaces. Using these one can drastically re…

Cows and concrete don't involve burning things, but they do produce a large percentage of total CO2 emissions.

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

#269

Post by zthrowaway »

oliwarner wrote: post #207
rich_sasha wrote: post #170

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 yardstic…

I think we all have a fairly good idea of some things that would help, it's the scale we struggle to comprehend. But even if you could find out the magic threshold for what it would take , if there's anything that lockdown and covid restrictions in the UK have taught me in the past 18 months, it's that we all need to follow the rules or it's pointless. It's so disheartening to see others not pay these taxes, to not r…

The attempt to force people into limiting their lives for CO2 concerns falls into environmental authoritarianism. That’s why. Lots of people see it that way and when you mix hyperbolic environmentalist doomsday predictions that never actually happen people stop taking this seriously.

Additionally, the US is built on the foundation of personal freedom and autonomy. We would be the last country where people would willingly restructure and restrict their lives for someone’s agenda.

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

#270

Post by kebman »

rich_sasha wrote: post #170

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 yardstic…

The emphasis many countries take is to focus on car owners and drivers by taxing private commuters to death, with dubious environmental gains outside of increasing state income. Meanwhile one cargo ship or cruise liner arguably pollutes way more than millions(!) of cars. I'm not sure that's a great route to take politically, no pun intended. They seem to go for the lowest hanging cash grab before going after those where it's actually the easiest to get the biggest gains in terms of environment and actually lowering of negative emissions.
Post reply on HN