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

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

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 349 posts

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

#281

Post by iostream25 »

lesuorac wrote: post #178
user3939382 wrote: post #136

We are too politically polarized to solve problems in this class, which requires political unity because of the scale, cost, and speed requirements. All of our major political forces play games, constantly make moves in bad faith, talk out of both sides of their mouths publicly vs privately, so we are screwed. The reality is that IF climate change science were a big hoax (sadly, it's not) there WOULD be a team using…

> Maybe if we didn't spend decades politicizing every microscopic issue including in science, technology, and medicine, we could have policy makers advocate for positions based on science and everyone would trust it. `we` isn't the common people. It's a very concerted effort to keep the status quo [1]. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/02/us/a-call-for-softer-gree...

[dead]

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

#282

Post by iostream25 »

rowanG077 wrote: post #204
abyssin wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And we’re busy decreasing the surface of woodlands on the planet.

Huh I thought the world has more trees now then ever before.

No post body was provided.

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

#283

Post by afarrell »

aww_dang wrote: post #155
zb1plus wrote: 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…

When the problem can only be solved with global governance and the "proper morals and intelligence", I think it is worth questioning the premises. How much more apocalyptic fear mongering do we need to rationalize increased governance? When is enough enough? Cold war, drug war, war on terror, financial meltdown, pandemic emergency powers, nuclear apocalypse and of course climate doom. All used to rationalize further…

No, what you are feeling is the natural exhaustion that comes from being absorbed in drama.

The reality is that the situation is not an emergency. It is a slow-rolling problem that calls for sustained creativity.

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

#284

Post by mistermann »

NickM wrote: post #150
globular-toast wrote: post #87

I used to be really depressed about this sort of thing. It caused me to severely limit my lifestyle out of a desire to "do the right thing". I didn't own a car. Very low consumption and minimal waste (no takeaway food, coffee etc., very frugal, didn't use things like paper towels and napkins). I cycled and walked everywhere. Didn't go on holidays abroad or even very far away. Then I looked around and noticed that eve…

It sounds like you're bitter because you think having all people take personal responsibility for their own actions is the only solution, and you don't see people doing that. I used to feel similarly. But I think the real problem is not the moral failings of individuals; I think the real problem is that we've collectively built a system that rewards people for doing the wrong thing. If we can collectively decide to f…

When you say systemic change, do you extend that to actually serious discussions of rewriting the system from the ground up?

Of course, most everyone will think this is absurd and no one will agree with it, but that does not prevent some of us from talking about it.

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

#285

Post by mistermann »

a_shovel wrote: post #27
jcbrand wrote: 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.

To be fair, thinking and writing without error (on topics like this) is hard, and it's rather culturally frowned upon here and elsewhere.

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

#286

Post by kolinko »

anton96 wrote: post #184
kelseyfrog wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where does your 5x-10x number come from? I sense that it's a guess, but the cool thing about stats is that we can actually find a redundancy ratio for a given probability of shortage.

Because at best, Renewables run at 20% percent of their installed capacity comparing to more 80% for nuclear.

You are confusing efficiency with some other metrics. Solar is 20%, but there is no point comparing it to efficiency of gas or nuclear - it's apples to oranges.

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

#287

Post by ericmay »

benj111 wrote: post #271
ericmay wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So what you're saying is that we should tax carbon so that it correctly reflects the externalities and let the market sort it out from there? I think carbon pricing is a great idea from what I've learned about it. Though, I disagree with you that the lack of carbon pricing is the fault of capitalism and I feel like you are kind of making that argument by saying that emissions don't cost anything so how would a mark…

1. I wouldn't say that capitalism, at its core is a government construct. 2.capitalism is about valuing things to allow / encourage efficient allocation. There is a cost to pumping co2 into the atmosphere. Capitalism doesn't take that into account. And as that is what it should be doing, failing to do so is a failure of capitalism. Now the government could (and should) step in to fix that failure. Their failure to st…

I don't know what you mean by construct, but capitalism is an economic system that is regulated and enabled by the government because in order to own private property either you have to defend it yourself or you have the government set rules and act as the enforcement mechanism. Capitalism is one type of economic system that operates with the blessing of the government but there are others. Soviet Russia is an example of a different type of economic system. Capitalism couldn't flourish there because the government decided to not allow it to exist.

> capitalism is about valuing things to allow / encourage efficient allocation.

I think you are confusing a market pricing mechanic which is a feature of capitalism with the core tenet of capitalism which is the existence of the private ownership of the means of production.

> There is a cost to pumping co2 into the atmosphere. Capitalism doesn't take that into account. And as that is what it should be doing, failing to do so is a failure of capitalism.

For me the blame will always go to the government (and people) for failure to regulate because a market in a capitalist economy cannot value something that isn't being bought or sold. You point this out yourself by saying "capitalism is about valuing things...". The value is either 0 (until global warming starts getting nasty) or undiscovered. Nobody is buying or selling carbon (so far), so there's nothing for market economies to do with it. That's part of why a carbon tax in my mind seems like a great idea because we can introduce a pricing mechanic into a market economy and then allow efficient allocation of resources.

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

#288

Post by 93po »

user3939382 wrote: post #136

We are too politically polarized to solve problems in this class, which requires political unity because of the scale, cost, and speed requirements. All of our major political forces play games, constantly make moves in bad faith, talk out of both sides of their mouths publicly vs privately, so we are screwed. The reality is that IF climate change science were a big hoax (sadly, it's not) there WOULD be a team using…

I don't think it's fair to blame "we". It's fair to blame very powerful interests that control media and politics. "We" are a product of the information that we receive, and so many people receive bad information that is paid and influenced by people who value money over preserving life on this planet.

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

#289

Post by kolinko »

tgv wrote: post #107
tuvi13 wrote: post #81

What is Deloitte saying about that? https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Docume... and a short analysis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--QS_UyW2SY

They're just trying to extract a few more dollars out of it.

My GF works and Deloitte, and they are really, honestly, pushing fighting climate change agenda.

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

#290

Post by abyssin »

togs wrote: post #254
abyssin wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m still on the side of cyclists. I don’t think I’d be able to stand a lifestyle where I’m surrounded by people in denial. I have a child but I don’t think I’ll raise her in the belief that only a comfortable life is one worth living. I’m also wondering by who childless people expect to be taken care of when they get older, if not by their children in a broad sense?

Your comment annoyed me so I started typing a response but then I remembered that you might be a real person with debt who worries about a sick relative, so it’s just not that big a deal. I think about giving up around 30 almost every day, but am scared I won’t have the courage to do so. More realistically I see my end in the cold on a street saying random things out loud while someone walks by feeling a mixture of d…

Hey, this second paragraph is really dark. I don't really know how to say it right but I wish you something better, more comfortable, more exciting, and guilt-free.
Post reply on HN