Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal” • Hacker News Board

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#101

Post by CalRobert » Fri, Jun 16, 2023, 1:55 PM UTC

ianai wrote: post #44

CalRobert wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's solarpunk, at least. Also, I think there's optimism in people talking about how living a happier, more social life can also be one that happens to be lower in carbon intensity. I currently live in a very car-dependent detached house on an island (so reliant on planes to go anywhere) and am viewing flats now in a place where I can live car-free and go places via train. And on top of all that, every time I have…

There’s stuff people can do. Eat less/no meat. Buy an EV. Etc. But then commentators will refute that with all sorts of stuff “one person can’t make any sizable impact,” “EVs are powered from the grid which isn’t carbon neutral”, “EV tires spread particulate emissions.” Etc. Thing is, denialism and stopping progress makes people looking for solutions also more extreme. So who knows. Maybe part of the answer is partia…

EV's are a half-assed patch and meant to be a drop-in replacement for ICE's until we can do something better, but sadly they've mostly been an excuse for even bigger, faster, heavier, more dangerous vehicles.

I just want to ride my bike and take the train for most of my daily needs, maybe using an hourly car hire for the other trips.

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#102

Post by swader999 » Fri, Jun 16, 2023, 1:55 PM UTC

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #91

swader999 wrote: post #8

What happened in Alberta was just a couple weeks of warm weather after a fairly cold winter. The timing was right when new growth hadn't had a chance to take hold so all the dry grass and tinder was perfect fuel. The rap attack helicopter crews were dismantled in both BC and Alberta to save a few millions at best. Easily doubled the size of the burn area not having this capability. This is normal but not new. Alberta…

"Just a couple weeks of warm weather" is precisely the problem though; it's hot dry weather at a time of year when this historically does not happen. The problem is that the statistical variance of events is going crazy. It's not that there's some sudden break and the temperatures are unilaterally higher, it's that the plot drawing the standard deviation in temperatures (and precipitation) now looks much crazier than…

It's hard to find decent data on Alberta but here's Canada: https://cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/ha/nfdb

Hard to find a trend in that and if you go back eighty more years we are about two thirds less area burned than in the 20's to the 40's. Mapping of area burned has become better every decade too.

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#103

Post by hospitalJail » Fri, Jun 16, 2023, 1:56 PM UTC

starbugs wrote: post #7

How about not calling something a crisis if it isn't? A crisis is usually short-lived, not a permanent state.

I got one better. Use actual math to decide how bad it is.

COVID 1% death rates among the elderly, sick, and obese? Not a crisis, that is essentially a bad flu year prior to 2020. (And 2018 and 2019 had a relatively low excess winter mortality, keeping the people on the brink of death, alive).

There is a particular issue the news loves to report on in America, its basically a rounding error, but when children are involved, its especially emotional.

Climate crisis that could kill 100% of humans, all hands on deck.

Obesity related issues, nearly all hands on deck. Cancer, just past fixing obesity. Car accidents are something worth extra investment too.

Not even sure how to take this problem on, you mention the irrationality of an issue, and people get even more emotional.

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#104

Post by CalRobert » Fri, Jun 16, 2023, 1:57 PM UTC

inconceivable wrote: post #74

boredumb wrote: post #3

I think all the alarmist language is doing a massive disservice to environmental concerns for the reason the author is portraying but also a much different reason where a lot of people tend to greet hysterics with absolute doubt and discern. When environmentalists decided instead of having a real public conversation and resorting to what a lot of people perceive as the people screaming on the corner about the end tim…

okay so don't eat meat, take public transit, don't live in a suburb, never run AC or use gas stoves, and never fly in an airplane. is that about right? this is such a bad pitch that it makes me wonder if it's actually a conspiracy funded by the energy incumbents.

Eat less meat (especially beef)

live in a well designed suburb (like Houten, NL, for instance https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/may/16/welcome-cycle...)

use AC powered by solar or wind or nuclear

use an induction stove (they're way better)

build enough excellent rail that flying is unappealing for most options aside from transoceanic journey.

Doesn't sound like a bad life to me. It's the one I'm trying to achieve.

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#105

Post by CalRobert » Fri, Jun 16, 2023, 1:58 PM UTC

hermannj314 wrote: post #52

2023throwawayy wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. But we really should be eating less red meat.

I agree. But we should limit crop yields by restricting human manufacture of ammonia and return to 1890 levels of population.

Fortunately it becomes easier to reach that goal if you eat less red meat because most crops are grown as animal feed to produce meat.

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#106

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jun 16, 2023, 1:59 PM UTC

PheonixPharts wrote: post #87

While I agree with the title, I think the author misses the real reason not to refer to the "New Normal". David Wallace-Wells sums it up pretty well: > It is tempting to look at these strings of disasters and think, Climate change is here ... this is how California governor Jerry Brown first described the state of things in the midst of the state's wildfire disaster: "a new normal" > The truth is actually much scarie…

[deleted]

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#107

Post by _ea1k » Fri, Jun 16, 2023, 1:59 PM UTC

ip26 wrote: post #83

swader999 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smoke in New York from Canadian boreal fires happened in the May 2010 fire and the May 1870 Saguenay fire. In 1870 parts of Europe were covered in smoke from the Canadian fire. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saguenay_Fire

1870, 2010, 2023, ????

1870, 2010, 2023, 2146, ????

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#108

Post by CalRobert » Fri, Jun 16, 2023, 2:00 PM UTC

hospitalJail wrote: post #103

starbugs wrote: post #7

How about not calling something a crisis if it isn't? A crisis is usually short-lived, not a permanent state.

I got one better. Use actual math to decide how bad it is. COVID 1% death rates among the elderly, sick, and obese? Not a crisis, that is essentially a bad flu year prior to 2020. (And 2018 and 2019 had a relatively low excess winter mortality, keeping the people on the brink of death, alive). There is a particular issue the news loves to report on in America, its basically a rounding error, but when children are inv…

Covid was a sad reminder that we can rally the troops and make huge society-wide changes to protect old people, but won't lift a finger to protect kids from climate breakdown.

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#109

Post by letsawaytoday » Fri, Jun 16, 2023, 2:00 PM UTC

derefr wrote: post #51

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just stop letting them buy gas? That would take either: - That companies (plural) stop selling gas. That's coordinated action, because you need all the oil companies (or all the gas stations) to agree. - That the government decides it. But in a democracy, that takes coordinated action too. The president does not have the constitutional authority to decree "no more sales of gasoline for passenger vehicles".

On the top level: OPEC (a coalition of mostly totalitarian states) can decide to restrict sale of petroleum to only be purchased by states, not private companies. Where that decision could be forced by just a few other states, at gunpoint. Let me put it this way: why do you think there isn't an OPEC-like private marketplace for uranium? Because states don't want there to be such a thing. States make themselves an oli…

People are ok with Uranium being controlled because they know that in a concentrated form it is hazardous and they have no use for it in their daily lives. Oil and gas are the complete opposite, they're safe enough for anyone to handle and they are incredibly useful for just about everything you do in your life. If you just tear those away from people without replacing them with something better then at best those people will vote you out or just leave the area you govern for somewhere else. If you make it so they can't do either of those then congratulations you've just created a totalitarian police state with unelected leaders and guards at the borders that shoot you if you try to leave.

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#110

Post by nologic01 » Fri, Jun 16, 2023, 2:00 PM UTC

PheonixPharts wrote: post #87

While I agree with the title, I think the author misses the real reason not to refer to the "New Normal". David Wallace-Wells sums it up pretty well: > It is tempting to look at these strings of disasters and think, Climate change is here ... this is how California governor Jerry Brown first described the state of things in the midst of the state's wildfire disaster: "a new normal" > The truth is actually much scarie…

Climate change from anthropogenic green house gas emissions is an example of "fiddling with systemic parameters" and hoping that all response is linear.

Its not just CO2 and friends. Any shifting around of systemic chemical compositions (whether in air, water or soil) has similar potential for difficult to predict (and hard to reverse) damage.

Given our role and abilities fiddling with these types of systemic abundances does not lead to immediate feedback loops. It takes generations to move the needle. But tipping points are real in any complex system. The biosphere is not a static something that can be tuned at the service of homo sapiens. It will rebalance. And the new equilibrium might not be to our liking.

Surviving this "slow cooking of the frog" phenomenon will require us to develop behaviors that we have never before contemplated. Developing a web of trust, objectivity and sense of responsibility not only among all living individuals but also all future generations.