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

Scientists raise alarm over ‘dangerously fast’ growth in atmospheric methane

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–164 of 164 posts

Re: Scientists raise alarm over ‘dangerously fast’ growth in atmospheric methane

#161

Post by julienb_sea »

simion314 wrote: post #43
julienb_sea wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternatively, attempting to curtail human emissions to some arbitrary level will, unquestionably, have drastic impact on human quality of life worldwide and the impact will be particularly acute on the developing world and those in poverty in the developed world. Large, influential emitters like China and India will not play ball. As such, the climate experiment will inevitably continue unabated, despite any of the…

>China and India will not play ball. That is a lame excuse, mostly used by people from developed countries that are responsible for the issue, so you dodge responsibility and also try to put blame on the developing country why you are continuing screwing the environment. It is like you have a history of you and your ancestors abusing your children and you don't want to stop because the new neighbor is also abusing hi…

My phrasing likely could have been more clear. China and India cannot curtail emissions without reducing energy availability and increasing costs to their population. This has direct and immediate impact on quality of life and human development within their borders. It is actually rather hypocritical for the developed world, which has benefitted from years of development on the back of low cost energy, to push for emissions reductions from countries that have decades of development to undergo.

To be clear, there are intermediate actions they could and should take, such as phase out of coal in favor of natural gas.

Re: Scientists raise alarm over ‘dangerously fast’ growth in atmospheric methane

#162

Post by julienb_sea »

p1necone wrote: post #47
julienb_sea wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternatively, attempting to curtail human emissions to some arbitrary level will, unquestionably, have drastic impact on human quality of life worldwide and the impact will be particularly acute on the developing world and those in poverty in the developed world. Large, influential emitters like China and India will not play ball. As such, the climate experiment will inevitably continue unabated, despite any of the…

Watching climate change deniers periodically change up their bullshit because the old bullshit got too obviously wrong has been equal parts hilarious and frustrating. I guess now we're at the "okay okay fine, it's a problem, and humans are causing it. But we should still do nothing to fix it, because... China?" Screaming right past the acceptance stage and in for another loop of denial.

It is interesting that you term me as a climate denier, when in no part did my comment imply I deny the effects and future impact of climate change. I made a point about how global policymaking can and will realistically react to the situation.

Re: Scientists raise alarm over ‘dangerously fast’ growth in atmospheric methane

#163

Post by version_five »

throwawaysea wrote: post #34

Many humans. Rich life (individual freedoms and high material quality of life). Low environmental impact. Pick two. EDIT: this apparently is one of my most disliked comments. To clarify, my point is that we can’t have both unlimited population growth and a high quality of life without accepting environmental impacts. If a high population of people have to crowd into dense micro apartments and give up cars and face co…

Fyi you may be shadowbanned I saw a submission of yours [dead] today (not flagged) and same for your latest comment

Re: Scientists raise alarm over ‘dangerously fast’ growth in atmospheric methane

#164

Post by throwawaysea »

version_five wrote: post #163
throwawaysea wrote: post #34

Many humans. Rich life (individual freedoms and high material quality of life). Low environmental impact. Pick two. EDIT: this apparently is one of my most disliked comments. To clarify, my point is that we can’t have both unlimited population growth and a high quality of life without accepting environmental impacts. If a high population of people have to crowd into dense micro apartments and give up cars and face co…

Fyi you may be shadowbanned I saw a submission of yours [dead] today (not flagged) and same for your latest comment

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN