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

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

#281

Post by whimsicalism » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 10:53 AM UTC

ugjka wrote: post #236

nosianu wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s just so hard to know what actions have what impact on CO2 production Not really. For some reason the actually quite simple problem is needlessly complicated in the discussions. Stop digging up ANY carbon from below ground where it was safely buried. Any carbon above ground is part of the cycle that includes atmospheric CO2. You need huge effort to change how much of it is in CO2 form at any time while still ha…

It is too late for everything, there are cascading effects that are completely out of control like the permafrost melting and releasing methane. What are you going to do about that?

There is no evidence we have reached runaway warming yet, and while there are positive feedbacks, there are also negative ones as well. We have not accounted for all of them, which means we should keep trying.

The evidence is not there to suggest fatalism yet, and even if it were, the impacts occur on a spectrum.

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

#282

Post by thendrill » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 10:54 AM UTC

Can someone please explain why should a middle class, middle aged blue collar worker care about this? How does any of this make his life better or worse?

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

#283

Post by spockz » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 10:54 AM UTC

rich_sasha wrote: post #219

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…

It's a start though. It makes the CO2 use visible and transparent . I reckon so many people would care a lot about carbon in electricity if their itemised power bill included a fat slice of 'carbon'. Suddenly there would be pressure to decarbonise etc. Large companies could optimise their (significant at scale) bill for carbon use. Do the PCs really have to run 24/7 for example? It's the old 'you cannot improve what…

Yes, sure, make it visible!

I think the GP was that many things happen outside the normal consumer flow and the choices of impeach individual have a minimum direct impact.

Also, I’m not sure just forwarding the CO2 tax to the consumer is the best way to go, it still puts to responsibilities with the consumers instead of everyone.

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

#284

Post by zthrowaway » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 10:55 AM UTC

czzr wrote: post #194

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 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.

What’s with the hyperbole when this topic is discussed every time? It doesn’t add weight to your argument after a certain point. With the US being no where near China and India in CO2 production I think it’ll be fine. You can sleep safe and sound at night.

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

#285

Post by walton_simons » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 10:55 AM UTC

h4kor wrote: post #92

We are running head first into the Great Filter.

This has been my pet theory for a while. What if the actual great filter for an intelligent species is the difficulty of escaping your home planet _before_ you've consumed all of its resources? I will — naturally — have a human-centric view of this, but it does seem like a very hard thing to do, given the physical and technical challenges of getting out of the gravity well, and actually surviving for extended periods in the harshness of space. Not to mention the travel time of getting anywhere worthwhile!

It seems pretty clear to me now that we're not going to make it. We need to cut global emissions by 15% a year, every year, starting in 2020[1]. As a species, we aren't capable of the kind of global organisation and foresight it will take to achieve this. I'll suspect we'll continue hurtling headlong towards the edge of the cliff (although there's a good chance we're already over it, and currently hanging in the air like Wile E. Coyote) until there's a war over the last dwindling resources, or a simultaneous worldwide failure of food production.

I've wondered a few times that if we were to go back in time to the start of human civilisation, knowing what we know now, would we be able to direct our energies more appropriately, and make it off earth in sufficient numbers to enable us to become a spacefaring species? Then I remember that science predicted all of this back in the 19th century[2]. We did nothing then, and we're doing nothing now. Alok Sharma says it's a catastrophe, but "also insisted the UK could carry on with fossil-fuel projects."[3] We're in real trouble.

[1] https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2020/1/3/21045263... [2] https://daily.jstor.org/how-19th-century-scientists-predicte... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/07/were-on-...

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

#286

Post by Gigachad » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 10:55 AM UTC

danybittel wrote: post #260

nosianu wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s just so hard to know what actions have what impact on CO2 production Not really. For some reason the actually quite simple problem is needlessly complicated in the discussions. Stop digging up ANY carbon from below ground where it was safely buried. Any carbon above ground is part of the cycle that includes atmospheric CO2. You need huge effort to change how much of it is in CO2 form at any time while still ha…

I really like your post! It's not rocket science. Too many interest groups are convoluting the issue. But, I think to clearest, easiest way is to just ban "coal, gas, oil". Then let the lack of it "tickle" through the economy. Not by tomorrow, mind you, have it gradually reduce. Where there are problems, help with tax money. We've done it before, with asbestos, lead in gas, ..

CFC gasses where a big one. They were hugely useful for many things but were found to be breaking down ozone and were very rapidly banned effectively.

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

#287

Post by zelphirkalt » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 10:55 AM UTC

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.

Then don't follow "to the extrem"? Why do you think that it has to be taken to an extreme?

There are many ways in between reproducing ever more humans and not reproducing at all. For example if people really want to have children, they can adopt children instead of making even more ones. There are sooo many children in the world, who do not have a bright future, whom one could adopt. If one really loves children for the reason of seeing them grow up, develop, learn, become good human beings, then adopting one should not be a big problem compared to making one.

Then there could be a rule similar to the following: First child is OK to make, second child needs to be adopted. If the second child is not adopted, but instead made, then there are financial penalties for that.

In any case, how do you propose to get back to perhaps half of current population?

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

#288

Post by skinkestek » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 10:56 AM UTC

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…

> Individual action won’t solve this problem.

Not sure if we agree or not.

To make it clear, what I write is not about individual actions but about smart legislation and massive campaigns:

- mandate teaching practical repair work instead of todays "feel good"/"feel bad" subjects environmental studies in school

- a giant hike on import taxes on fast fashion and cheap "use once" gadgets and electronics

- gradually increase mandatory warranties until selling low quality is a losing prospect

- make "news anchors" - at least in public tv stations - use more ordinary clothing, and reuse it.

- do make ads and tv shows about cobolt mining

- do inform the public about our unhealthy dependency on China

- do make ads about the stupidity of living in wastefulness

- edit: do mock "individualism" that consists of having to go to exotic places

- edit: do tax food import! Urge other countries to do the same! Especially anyone who burns rainforest.

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

#289

Post by sokoloff » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 10:56 AM UTC

fighterpilot wrote: post #101

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #23

> Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity' What almost alarms me more than the thought of a climate apocalypse is that I don't think this (a UN report) is going to have any effect on the opinions of 40% of the public who see climate change as some kind of job destroying conspiracy. Nothing short of Florida disappearing under the sea is going to make any difference, perhaps we (as a species) don't deserv…

They see it as a socialist ploy. The best solution is to propose a revenue neutral carbon tax and promise not to use it to increase total revenue. Offer to cut other taxes by a proportional amount and have that as a central part of the pitch. It'll get more political support.

I agree with the idea. At the same time, plenty of people have seen Lucy hold the football this way before.

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

#290

Post by 542458 » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 10:56 AM UTC

kebman wrote: post #270

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 wh…

Is that true? I’m seeing that cruise ships emit a lot of particulates (namely sulphur dioxide), but the actual co2-equivalent numbers I’m seeing are 0.8t/passenger for cruise ships - which is bad, but not quite as bad as described in your post.

https://www.tourismdashboard.org/explore-the-data/cruise-shi...