Live data from Hacker News

Climate change is hitting the planet faster than scientists originally thought

nature.com

91–100 of 147 posts

Re: Climate change is hitting the planet faster than scientists originally thought

#91
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm not sure "former Chief Scientist for the BP petroleum company" is the person I would go to for "a balanced take" on climate change. The IPCC is funded and promoted by the UN because their conclusions align with the UN's agenda. It's very hard to distinguish the legitimate environmental concerns from political and ideological ulterior motivations.

Saying person A is biased does not imply that person B is not also biased. I was responding to a statement that said person A was balanced when they clearly have a bias.

It's balanced because both sides have agendas.

Re: Climate change is hitting the planet faster than scientists originally thought

#92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So techno-optimism is dangerous, but social/political optimism is not? At least we somewhat know how to make technology, but I don't think anyone knows how to force this social change on the world.

It’s not optimism, it’s about where the solution lies. In one case we are wishing for a solution to fall out of some genuis minds. In the other we are taking responsibility for changing behavior which we have control over. That’s not optimism, it’s pragmatism.

> In the other we are taking responsibility for changing behavior which we have control over.

Okay, propose concrete actions, political, legal even military if needed that you think will help accomplish this and could actually work globally?

Re: Climate change is hitting the planet faster than scientists originally thought

#93
post #7

One of my concerns as someone who is part of the tech community is the innovation delusion. Many of us are focused on "magic pill" technology solutions to get us out of this. Things like fusion, carbon capture, electric cars, etc... As someone with an engineering background, I've been guilty of this type of thinking too. Whenever I encounter a problem I think about how I could apply technology to solve it. However, I…

How many times in that past 1000 years have we solved large hard problems through a global agreement to make everyone worse off? We can't pass a carbon tax in the US, imagining China or India doing that with much lower standards of livings is insane. How many times in the past 1000 years have we solved large hard problems through technology? We already have the technology, we can just build a bunch of nuclear reactor…

> How many times in that past 1000 years have we solved large hard problems through a global agreement to make everyone worse off?

People said the same thing: we couldn't afford clean water, emissions controls or fuel economy systems for cars, ending use of DDT (and that even years after its effectiveness had fallen off of a cliff due to selected immunity), power-efficient appliances, replacing incandescent lightbulbs with those using massively less power, etc.

Each and every time they've been completely wrong, and this will be even more powerfully so because one very consistent finding has been that the costs of not dealing with climate change are MUCH greater than the mitigation measures, especially because they happen at uncontrollable intervals whereas you can make plans around something like the need to buy an EV instead of an ICE car.

Re: Climate change is hitting the planet faster than scientists originally thought

#94
post #7

One of my concerns as someone who is part of the tech community is the innovation delusion. Many of us are focused on "magic pill" technology solutions to get us out of this. Things like fusion, carbon capture, electric cars, etc... As someone with an engineering background, I've been guilty of this type of thinking too. Whenever I encounter a problem I think about how I could apply technology to solve it. However, I…

I think it's pretty reasonable to bet on people being incredible stupid and stuck in their ways; concluding that we have a better chance of innovating out of it than changing human behavior is a pretty worthy hedge.

Re: Climate change is hitting the planet faster than scientists originally thought

#95
post #7

One of my concerns as someone who is part of the tech community is the innovation delusion. Many of us are focused on "magic pill" technology solutions to get us out of this. Things like fusion, carbon capture, electric cars, etc... As someone with an engineering background, I've been guilty of this type of thinking too. Whenever I encounter a problem I think about how I could apply technology to solve it. However, I…

We have to do everything. There's no either/or... we HAVE to reduce consumption, we HAVE to find lower-carbon alternatives for everything we continue to consume, and we HAVE to create technologies to remove carbon from the atmosphere. It's not gambling or a delusion to say we must create new technologies to have a prayer of solving the problem. And of course there's no "magic pill" - we need to innovate in a thousand…

FWIW, I am not saying we shouldn't try to innovate and I do very much want us to invest in science and technology that could be helpful.

I don't think we should count on these things such that we don't also take direct steps (cutting consumption where we can) to directly tackle this problem until we have the other options figured out.

Re: Climate change is hitting the planet faster than scientists originally thought

#96

This is a meme now. Maybe we should take every projection and estimate and automatically assume that it's actually much worse.

Why do that when such projections are always wrong?

Have they been? Cite your work.

Here's an example from a decade ago showing the opposite is true — there have been a bunch of industry money spent churning out false claims but the actual scientists' predictions have help up quite well:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2012/12/ipccs-climate-projec...

Re: Climate change is hitting the planet faster than scientists originally thought

#97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The report also references for the first time “historical and ongoing patterns of inequity such as colonialism” Unfortunately these are not scientists. This just one example, but they are ideologues and activists first who wear science as a skin and bully scientists into submission. We saw how disastrous this was for Covid response with how science was treated as religion ("Believe Science"). The first thing we mus…

So what about that? I ignored it. The climate is warming at a dangerous rate for human civilization and focusing non-core one liners is a distraction from the real issue.

If we want change we need a few things...

1. Be open to making real personal changes ourselves. Not just going with the flow and waiting on policy makers. We have individual choices we can make.

2. Look at all the things having an impact. Including the uncomfortable ones. The food supply chain is the one I've most recently become aware of. Take personal action on areas and support policy makers in pushing for changes. They need support because some things are hard (as in making the change means they won't be re-elected)

3. Learn the details. There is a lot of hogwash being thrown around. We should know the details and be able to speak well with people about them. In a persuasive way.

4. Understand people. For example, the #1 cause of death in the US is heart disease. An overwhelming majority of that is based on lifestyle. Most people just ignore future consequences compared to immediate feelings. Expect people to be this way and work with it.

Re: Climate change is hitting the planet faster than scientists originally thought

#98
post #28

This weekend I read about how our food supply chain is responsible for a lot of greenhouse gases. As much as automobiles. That changing it could have a massive impact. But, people don't like change that touches their food and leaders just won't even talk about it. How do we get people to be open to changes in stuff like this?

>But, people don't like change that touches their food and leaders just won't even talk about it. How do we get people to be open to changes in stuff like this?

You don't. I don't know where you get the idea that "leaders won't even talk about it", because I've been bombarded with articles about the GHG costs of agriculture for over a decade. It's everywhere.

And frankly, a lot of it is borderline deliberately misleading. Articles will choose to highlight the fact that about a quarter of global emissions are due to agriculture — but if you stick to developed countries, it's a tenth. You'll hear endlessly about how "potent" methane is, even though all climate models and serious scientific advocacy orgs have already taken this fully into account.

It goes on. The "plant-based" lobby is well-funded and manages to insert themselves all over the conversation while other industries like cement/steel/landfill/heating/shipping get little to no political or regulatory attention.

It's awfully convenient for the fossil fuel industry (responsible for three times as much GHG as everyone else combined) that climate change discussions are constantly diverted to the one topic which not only doesn't involve fossil fuels but also alienates practically everyone. I can think of no better way to sink Miami than to let the screeching vegans run the climate advocacy movement.

Re: Climate change is hitting the planet faster than scientists originally thought

#99
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read what he (Pielke) actually said and backs up with citations. The character-attack-as-argument defense just makes you look unintelligent.

"makes you look unintelligent" I will have to live with that, I'm sorry you are disappointed. I can't vet every source and if someone is a known bad source, there are usually many, many alternatives to invest my limited time reading.

did you vet Dr. Stephen Schneider as well?

Re: Climate change is hitting the planet faster than scientists originally thought

#100
post #50
post #7

One of my concerns as someone who is part of the tech community is the innovation delusion. Many of us are focused on "magic pill" technology solutions to get us out of this. Things like fusion, carbon capture, electric cars, etc... As someone with an engineering background, I've been guilty of this type of thinking too. Whenever I encounter a problem I think about how I could apply technology to solve it. However, I…

You’re not wrong, but hoping people will choose anything other than the default thing is going to result in failure. If you lay out cities for cars, people will use cars. If you build massive urban areas in places that stay in the 90s with high humidity, people are going to blast the AC. If disposable things are cheaper than longer lasting things because there’s no cost to throwing it away, people are going to do it.…

Agree. The climate-friendly path must become the path of least resistance if we want to have any hope of staying within the 1.5C threshold.

Three step process to get there:

1. Identify the optimal "climate path" for every need- transportation, consumer goods, etc...

2. Disincentivize all other paths via penalties (taxes & regulations)

3. Incentivize the climate path via subsidies

It will take large scale government action first. Technological solutions will come as a result of the new financial rules of the game.

Post reply on HN