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

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

#661

Post by phreeza » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 2:50 PM UTC

I recently learned about the idea of the "global carbon reward", which is an idea to create a monetary (meaning not fiscal) incentive to reduce or capture carbon emissions. Kind of like a gold backed currency is based on gold mined from the ground but based in carbon "mined" from the air. And through the monetary route it doesn't create any direct expenditure or debt on govt balance sheets, a bit like quantitative easing that is happening anyway.

There is a summary video here: https://youtu.be/Kmd2TSHsdoM

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

#662

Post by amanaplanacanal » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 2:50 PM UTC

mytailorisrich wrote: post #529

bko wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Believe it or not, western countries have reduced carbon emissions over the last ~15 years, in both absolute and per capita terms (despite a growing population). The only countries that are growing their carbon emissions are developing countries; mainly China, India and Russia. China is particularly troubling since they make up 28% of all emissions (US is 15%) and they have both a growing population and growing emiss…

> China is particularly troubling since they make up 28% of all emissions (US is 15%) and they have both a growing population and growing emissions per capita. That is just providing proof that we cannot eradicate poverty on the planet without destroying it in the process with 8 billion human beings. And this is just CO2 emissions but the issue is with consumption of resources in general: What is happening is simply…

Not sure why you are being devoted. Having say, half our current population would have made this problem considerably easier.

People do seem to cut back their baby making as they move from agricultural to industrial, it’s just a much slower process than we would prefer to help with this issue.

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

#663

Post by serverholic » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 2:50 PM UTC

jsonne wrote: post #360

If there is anything covid has taught me its that collective action isn't something we can rely on and is a lot more wishful thinking about the state of humanity rather than a sober look at the reality. Governments need to tax CO2 emissions on the business side and pour the money into carbon capture technology in the private space through investment and perhaps some sort of bounty program (you get $x for each ton you…

This is why libertarianism doesn't work. Some things need a central authority to enforce it.

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

#664

Post by cblconfederate » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 2:51 PM UTC

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…

If the premise is that it is caused by humans, then start by reducing them

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

#665

Post by rcMgD2BwE72F » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 2:51 PM UTC

habosa wrote: post #621

Just. Tax. It. We have warmed the earth because we love comfort and money. We will never stop loving those things. So instead let's use the same systems to fix this (or at least slow things down). As an individual my largest carbon impact is air travel. I like to go places, it's one of the main things I work to afford. Every single plane ticket I take should have a tax which is used to offset or capture the carbon em…

>We will never stop loving those things

Did we just tax tobacco? People loved tobacco. At some point, with the right information (e.g media not bought by big business), we can realize that things that are bad for us are just bad for us.

We can avoid telling us that and have someone take money from our wallet to prevent us from buying the things that kill us, but why not just better inform ourselves about the way we're killing us?

Anywhere I go now, I'm overwhelmed by ads telling me to buy a big SUV, go flight somewhere every weekend, buy something new because I deserve more, etc.

Of course, those paying for the ads say they're advertising because I want those things... but why are they advertising, then? If I wanted a bigger SUV/picker so much, they would not keep the ad spend and keep that as profit for their shareholders.

The whole system wants more, more, more stuff and they know the more addictive are the bigger/larger/shinier/louder/anything-er and that takes energy and pollutes. They need that more than the consumers.

I stopped loving this shit (no car, no flight, small flat, etc), and I'm still flooded with "BUY" orders. Employers will do everything to have me buy a car (I don't need) instead of taking the money of that car for myself.

It isn't a problem of wish or desire but we're told it is, because the consumption system keeps playing with these desires. I should just watch Century of the Self again...

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

#666

Post by dredmorbius » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 2:51 PM UTC

mempko wrote: post #575

jsonne wrote: post #360

If there is anything covid has taught me its that collective action isn't something we can rely on and is a lot more wishful thinking about the state of humanity rather than a sober look at the reality. Governments need to tax CO2 emissions on the business side and pour the money into carbon capture technology in the private space through investment and perhaps some sort of bounty program (you get $x for each ton you…

What did Musk or Bezos build? What did they invent? Nothing. Everything built and invented was by their workers. The success of Amazon and SpaceX/Tesla is a form of collective action. The collective action of employees, and the collective action of government policy which provided the playground that Bezos and Musk play in.

This is a frequent but weak argument.

If you've ever tried to organise a group lunch for a party of more than two, you've got some sense of how difficult it is to orchestrate group activities.

Whatever you think of Musk and Bezos, and I'm not much of a fan of either, they've both led organisations to transformational accomplishments.

That in itself is something, notable, and has been recognised throughout history.

The question of whether those accomplishements are good or worthwhile, or how reward and profit should be allocated, are separate ones.

But your object is a lazy and tired one.

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

#667

Post by amanaplanacanal » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 2:54 PM UTC

wutbrodo wrote: post #599

jsonne wrote: post #360

If there is anything covid has taught me its that collective action isn't something we can rely on and is a lot more wishful thinking about the state of humanity rather than a sober look at the reality. Governments need to tax CO2 emissions on the business side and pour the money into carbon capture technology in the private space through investment and perhaps some sort of bounty program (you get $x for each ton you…

> Governments need to tax CO2 emissions on the business side and pour the money into carbon capture technology in the private space through investment and perhaps some sort of bounty program Unfortunately, getting this proposed, passed without mutilation, and enforced is also a collective action problem. Though I agree with your implied point that decentralized solutions should be the baseline, especially as they don…

In the US, I expect solar and wind plus storage is cheaper than nuclear. It doesn’t really matter though, if you put high enough taxes on carbon the market will sort it out. The government shouldn’t be picking individual technologies, because they are likely to fuck it up.

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

#668

Post by mark_l_watson » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 2:55 PM UTC

My gut feeling is that a combination of naturally recurring chaotic weather cycles, together with human produced damage will either be fatal to humanity, or cause huge problems.

I also believe that the Universe is teaming with life, intelligence, and love, and in the grand scheme of things, how important really is human life on this one planet. As individuals people tend to over emphasize their own importance, and I would argue that as wonderful as human culture is, an asteroid or weather knocking us out is sad, but that is about it.

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

#669

Post by phreeza » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 2:57 PM UTC

lordnacho wrote: post #203

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 wrote about this not long ago, the problem with the climate crisis is there's no crisis point. In a "proper" crisis or perhaps "ordinary" is a better term, there's a point where the leadership needs to drop all other agenda items and focus on the crisis. Whether that's bailing out the economy, starting a war, or calling a new election, there's a time when nothing else matters. The climate crisis is a thousand indiv…

I sincerely hope it won't be necessary, but in Kim Stanley Robinsons book Ministry for the future, there is a wet bulb heat wave that kills hundreds of thousands that serves to at least somewhat galvanize the world into action. Perhaps something like that could be a plausible thing to happen.

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

#670

Post by salmonfamine » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 2:59 PM UTC

robinsoh wrote: post #646

bko wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Believe it or not, western countries have reduced carbon emissions over the last ~15 years, in both absolute and per capita terms (despite a growing population). The only countries that are growing their carbon emissions are developing countries; mainly China, India and Russia. China is particularly troubling since they make up 28% of all emissions (US is 15%) and they have both a growing population and growing emiss…

> Believe it or not, western countries have reduced carbon emissions over the last ~15 years, in both absolute and per capita terms (despite a growing population). The only countries that are growing their carbon emissions are developing countries; mainly China, India and Russia. USA: 15.50 metric tons (2016) India: 1.82 metric tons (2016) Source: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?location... One Am…

> One American is emitting 15 Indians worth of carbon emissions.

> it is important to realize that increasingly developed countries have been outsourcing most of their high polluting industries.

Neither of these points apply to the OP. They did not make the claim that the US emits more than India per capita. Secondly, your rebuttal of the point that "western countries have reduced carbon emissions" is not a rebuttal at all -- the OP specifically addressed this point in their comment if you read it. 90% of China's emission are directly caused by consumption, not manufacturing or export.

Of course the per-capita carbon footprint of the USA is unfairly high, and the result of a consumerist culture with poor urban planning, a legacy of racialized housing discrimination, etc. Although these are all very important concerns, they are ethical concerns. And the climate simply does not care about ethics.

The fact is that western countries are decreasing emissions and decarbonizing infrastructure, while China is still building coal plants for domestic consumption and attempting to export coal projects to poorer countries abroad in order to expand geopolitical soft power. If you believe that high levels of climate change have the potential to cause mass suffering around the world -- and particularly in the Global South -- then you must agree that the risk and harm involved in expanding coal outweighs the ethical concerns regarding per-capita carbon disparity.

That said, the Paris Accords specifically allow developing countries (China included) more time to lower their emissions compared to Western countries, precisely to account for inequitable per-capita carbon footprints. All western countries are on the right path -- the only question is if they're decarbonizing fast enough. The question for China is: will it even start decarbonizing soon enough?

China produces most of the world's solar panels and has amassed a wealth of research and development potential for renewable energy. The fact that they choose to continue building coal plants is inextricably tied up in political and geopolitical reasons.

As far as India goes, they have made a tremendous effort to meet their climate goals and the world owes them a huge debt.

Politically, I identify as a socialist, but I recommend this critique of the so-called "climate left" which includes analysis of some of the claims you made: https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/the-climate-left-is-a-usef...