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

The only thing we should be talking about is the climate crisis

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 198 posts

Re: The only thing we should be talking about is the climate crisis

#41

Post by dpedu »

egberts1 wrote: post #2

Here are some of the many of Los Angeles Times’ newspaper headlines that they used to help with their circulations: 1966 - Oil gone in 10 years 1968 - Overpopulation will spread worldwide 1969 - Everyone will disappear in a Cloud of Blue Steam in 1989 1970 - World will use up its natural resources by 2000 1970 - Urban citizens will require gas mask by 1985 1970 - Nitrogen buildup will make all lands unusable 1970 - D…

Hmm. While I agree with the premise here I decided to track down some of these articles by putting some of them into a search engine.

I found a subset of this list here, with links to sources. But most of the sources aren't LA Times: https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/50-years-of-failed-doomsday-e...

But others, I couldn't find at all:

- 4G cell tower causes cancers.

I'm not sure what to think about this list. I would be extremely interested in the source articles, if they're actually out there.

Re: The only thing we should be talking about is the climate crisis

#42

Post by Cthulhu_ »

False dichotomy; we can - and are - doing multiple things at once. Absolutism isn't going to work, I mean if you want to deal with the climate crisis effectively, just elect me God-Emperor and I'll take care of it. Many of you will die, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.

Re: The only thing we should be talking about is the climate crisis

#43

Post by rhn_mk1 »

fredgrott wrote: post #22
tim333 wrote: post #3

There are lots of things to talk about other than the 'climate crisis' and exaggerating it can lead to a misallocation of resources really.

SO lets apply logic to your statement. How can applying more resources to climate change be a misallocation of resources? Lookat this way, when jobs that are less efficient and re-structured to be more efficient the tendency is that we have job losses. Those can and will be offset by the re-allocation of resources towards green energy in the form of brand new jobs and career opportunities. We can either fear the unkn…

Taken to the extreme: if you allocate literally all resources to fighting global warming, you're bound to end up with no resources for something. Let's take nuclear disarmament as a trivial example.

Moreover, I'm not seeing what job loss has to do with the parent's statement.

Re: The only thing we should be talking about is the climate crisis

#44

Post by bmmayer1 »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #30
vasco wrote: post #16

> Nothing matters as much as our bone-headed, mass-suicidal march toward extreme-weather oblivion. Not COVID-19, not the invasion of Ukraine, not even “The Godfather.” Says a reporter living in Los Angeles, the 49th most expensive city in the world to live in. For a lot of people, what they need to talk about is how they're getting their next meal, how they're going to make rent, or survive a current war. Maybe go to…

If I told a person in a war zone there was a planetary crisis that would guarantee the death of the children or grandchildren, I don't have a doubt in the world they would care about it. Just because someone living in danger or poverty doesn't make them a fool or a coward.

I was in Ukraine yesterday. That is 100% untrue.

When you're in a war zone, even if you're in the country but far from the action, the only thing you can think about is your immediate survival and the survival of your friends and family.

Literally nothing else matters.

Re: The only thing we should be talking about is the climate crisis

#45

Post by tonguez »

Isinlor wrote: post #13
tim333 wrote: post #3

There are lots of things to talk about other than the 'climate crisis' and exaggerating it can lead to a misallocation of resources really.

We are nowhere near exaggerating it. We should be simple executing what was agreed in the Paris Agreement as it reflects our best evaluation of the cost to benefits ratio. But current policies are aiming at 1.5 degree higher than what we evaluated as the optimal solution.

no one who is struggling to survive gives a shit. maybe if wealth were distributed more evenly you could get more people on board to care about this.

Re: The only thing we should be talking about is the climate crisis

#46

Post by throwaway5752 »

Isinlor wrote: post #13
tim333 wrote: post #3

There are lots of things to talk about other than the 'climate crisis' and exaggerating it can lead to a misallocation of resources really.

We are nowhere near exaggerating it. We should be simple executing what was agreed in the Paris Agreement as it reflects our best evaluation of the cost to benefits ratio. But current policies are aiming at 1.5 degree higher than what we evaluated as the optimal solution.

So far we are grossly understating it to avoid mass panic, is my guess. If people all really understood the impact and timeframes, society would fall apart.

Re: The only thing we should be talking about is the climate crisis

#47

Post by gr8tnwz »

egberts1 wrote: post #2

Here are some of the many of Los Angeles Times’ newspaper headlines that they used to help with their circulations: 1966 - Oil gone in 10 years 1968 - Overpopulation will spread worldwide 1969 - Everyone will disappear in a Cloud of Blue Steam in 1989 1970 - World will use up its natural resources by 2000 1970 - Urban citizens will require gas mask by 1985 1970 - Nitrogen buildup will make all lands unusable 1970 - D…

News organizations designing headlines for attention does not undermine the data driven truth; resource consumption is real. Sorry the modeling techniques haven’t been as perfect as you’d prefer.

Your inability to be swayed by Anglo-gibberish is formidable but you’re a non-entity to me and I don’t have to optimize for your preferences.

Sit back down in your bubble and accept on a rock of 7 billion+ you are just one. TL;DR your evidence is insufficient and I’m likewise as unmoved by it as you are from your perspective.

Yes very big strong mtn man effort though cutting and pasting text to reiterate a repetitive rhetorical point as evidence of how stoic you are.

Re: The only thing we should be talking about is the climate crisis

#48

Post by lordnacho »

The thing about a crisis is that it forces you to act on it, right now. Something like being invaded by your larger neighbor is a crisis, because you have to drop whatever you're doing and think about defense, immediately and with all your effort.

The climate "crisis" is a slow boil. Ice caps melt a bit, water goes up a bit, a few houses fall in, no big deal. Drought happens, we have less food, we buy it from elsewhere, no big deal. Hurricanes increase, we fix the damage, no big deal. Everything bad about the climate crisis seems to be localized and episodic, on the scale of how we normally report the news. Put together it may well be much, much, worse, and far more expensive, but the way it happens makes a big difference to whether we do anything about it.

I fear that calling it a crisis trips the wrong false alarm override, there should be some other word. We keep getting told this COP is the last chance, and that we have 10 years at most. But we're still here, so we think the warning was overdone, and maybe we should just ignore it next time.

We should call it "the generational inheritance of our planet project" or something like that. I don't want to be the guy who screws up a crisis and the world ends, but I also don't want to leave a slightly shittier planet for my kids, and for them to do the same.

Re: The only thing we should be talking about is the climate crisis

#49

Post by user982 »

graeme wrote: post #14
egberts1 wrote: post #2

Here are some of the many of Los Angeles Times’ newspaper headlines that they used to help with their circulations: 1966 - Oil gone in 10 years 1968 - Overpopulation will spread worldwide 1969 - Everyone will disappear in a Cloud of Blue Steam in 1989 1970 - World will use up its natural resources by 2000 1970 - Urban citizens will require gas mask by 1985 1970 - Nitrogen buildup will make all lands unusable 1970 - D…

How did you compile this 14 min after the article was posted?

That account copypastes it into climate threads: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30258365 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27447861
Post reply on HN