Live data from Hacker News

UN says “No credible pathway” and “woefully inadequate” to stop global 1.5C

bbc.co.uk

41–50 of 349 posts

Re: UN says “No credible pathway” and “woefully inadequate” to stop global 1.5C

#41
post #28

Maybe then we should consider not kneecapping our economy and driving people into poverty? The worst thing for the environment is poverty. I'm convinced most of the measures put in place to fight climate change have been a net negative to the environment, when you consider how much they are impoverishing people and thus driving more people to disregard environmental concerns for survival.

Isn't it common sense that the wealthy are the ones who produce / emit the most CO2? Maybe I'm missing the point here, but I can't understand how poverty is the worst thing for the environment seeing that it restricts consumption.

Poor people care less for the environment than wealthier people, as a general rule. So if you push more people into poverty you get a population that will care about environmental concerns less. E.g. they will overharvest fish populations, or care less about other environmental pollution because their primary concern is getting food on their table and surviving. It's like maslow's heirarchy of needs. People generally need to look after their own and their family's survival first before they look at the survival of the environment.

Re: UN says “No credible pathway” and “woefully inadequate” to stop global 1.5C

#42
post #22
post #8

I wish humanity could discard narrow-minded nationalist/short-sighted capitalist tendencies and unite against this threat. Imagine a climate pact between the US, EU, China and India where each society placed a similar focus on pivoting to renewables and developing reliable fusion energy as the Allies devoted to winning ww2 and developing atomic weaponry. Amusingly, the end of our dependency would also resolve many ge…

> focus on pivoting to renewables and developing reliable fusion energy... You know that this would be accomplished through capitalism right? The more we rail against capitalism and free markets (which every successful country from Denmark to Australia uses) the less likely we'll ever be to solve any problems. The market is an unwieldy force that can be generally shaped in a direction by the people (purchasing decisi…

I actually think capitalism and free markets are the most viable solution. The problem is "short-sighted" capitalism that focuses on quarterly "hand to mouth" profits as opposed to people seeing the long-term business opportunities that lie in pivoting to renewables. As much as I detest Elon Musk, I think making the eco-friendly option cool and desirable for reasons beyond environmental impact is one of the best ways to encourage growth towards a more eco-friendly society.

Re: UN says “No credible pathway” and “woefully inadequate” to stop global 1.5C

#43
post #8

I wish humanity could discard narrow-minded nationalist/short-sighted capitalist tendencies and unite against this threat. Imagine a climate pact between the US, EU, China and India where each society placed a similar focus on pivoting to renewables and developing reliable fusion energy as the Allies devoted to winning ww2 and developing atomic weaponry. Amusingly, the end of our dependency would also resolve many ge…

> similar focus … as the allies devoted to winning ww2

Given a choice between diverting attention & resources to alleviate a 1943 famine in Bengal and keeping transport ships available for the war, Britain chose to allow the famine. As a result, an estimated 2.1 to 3.8 million Bengalis perished.

If you want people to take your vision seriously enough to follow it, you’ll need to engage seriously with the horrors of what you praise. Please consider reading the book Slaughterhouse Five.

Governments across the globe are run by people whom I hope remember to be humble about their intelligence and moral wisdom.

Re: UN says “No credible pathway” and “woefully inadequate” to stop global 1.5C

#44

> "Into the classrooms, into the boardrooms, into the voting booth, over the dinner table. We cannot let go of climate change." I wonder if this is the right approach. It certainly is the approach we have been following for years. But I think that has just lead to empathy fatigue. Edit: added empathy

I'm not sure it's appropriate to call it an "approach". These are just the things a human does when they care about a society-scale issue that seems important. Yes, there surely may be a reason to modify this attitude as part of a strategy based on a somewhat pessimistic/realistic view of human psychology, but that modification is probably not a realistic goal.

Re: UN says “No credible pathway” and “woefully inadequate” to stop global 1.5C

#46
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However, governments across the globe are run by people who lack the proper morals or intelligence to see what needs to be done. So we should just put you in charge and then you'll sort it out? Have you considered the possibility that it's not about morals or intelligence but that it's actually an intractable problem?

> So we should just put you in charge and then you'll sort it out? Have you considered this is exactly the kind of narrow-mindedness they're probably talking about? If I had written the parent post, that's what I would mean by that. This simple-minded paranoia that any proposal from anyone else is secretly an evil plot to take over the world is ridiculous.

>> Have you considered the possibility that it's not about morals or intelligence but that it's actually an intractable problem?

I don't think they're saying, "this person is secretly plotting to take over the world".

I think they're saying, "have you considered that this is actually a hard problem and not as simple as you make it out to be?"

Re: UN says “No credible pathway” and “woefully inadequate” to stop global 1.5C

#47
post #22
post #8

I wish humanity could discard narrow-minded nationalist/short-sighted capitalist tendencies and unite against this threat. Imagine a climate pact between the US, EU, China and India where each society placed a similar focus on pivoting to renewables and developing reliable fusion energy as the Allies devoted to winning ww2 and developing atomic weaponry. Amusingly, the end of our dependency would also resolve many ge…

> focus on pivoting to renewables and developing reliable fusion energy... You know that this would be accomplished through capitalism right? The more we rail against capitalism and free markets (which every successful country from Denmark to Australia uses) the less likely we'll ever be to solve any problems. The market is an unwieldy force that can be generally shaped in a direction by the people (purchasing decisi…

I really can't find any substance in this argument. You're just saying "capitalism isn't the problem, it's the solution!" without offering anything that would convince someone who doesn't already believe that.

Re: UN says “No credible pathway” and “woefully inadequate” to stop global 1.5C

#49

Not a surprise, since co2 is an oxide, and therefore very stable in the athmosphere. It would take a huge amount of energy to remove it, and we don't even stop putting it in there. Janvici had a nice way to put it: the 1.5C are already signed for, which means we won't ever see the climate of today again in the next 5000 years.

The best way forward is to reject parts of the consensus Green approach. In particular, investment in nuclear, and a plan to augment wind+solar expansion with a large nuclear (and later fusion) buildout is the way to go.

The rationale for this is that only by raising the living standard of the third world can the world’s population be stabilized without a major die-off (not to mention a reduced quality of life for just about everyone going forward). Further, only with massive amounts of clean energy can we clean up the ecosphere and effectively fight atmospheric CO2 buildup as needed.

There are plenty of resources on Earth if they’re managed well. Only with plentiful energy can we afford to have treat the Earth as the precious resource it is - as we begin to inhabit the rest of the Solar System!

Re: UN says “No credible pathway” and “woefully inadequate” to stop global 1.5C

#50
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not replying to a comment saying "poor people are the biggest contributors of CO2 emissions", you're replying to a comment saying "driving people into poverty is the biggest contributor of CO2" So the thing to look at isn't poor people's emissions, it's rich people's emissions, given that (relatively speaking, bc increasing money supply just decreases its worth) the richer rich people are, the more poor people…

The parent comment was about a knee-capped economy which would also affect the rich, wouldn't it?

Imagine if everyone made a little more money, except for rich people who made considerably more money. Prices would go up and pretty much everyone would struggle to consume as much (or, consume things of as high quality, or perhaps as eco-friendly), but rich people wouldn't really see much of a change in their spending power, since there's few of them and they're making considerably more. I'd argue that idea counters your argument.

Unfortunately, that idea is more than just an idea: https://www.epi.org/blog/inflation-minimum-wages-and-profits...

Post reply on HN