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

Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

thewalrus.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 179 posts

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

#161

Post by 542354234235 »

exitb wrote: post #19
swader999 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We dealt with the ozone hole fairly well. There hasn't been total nuclear war. The Netherlands is ten feet under sea level and does fine. Polar bears and all other bears are absolutely thriving.

Neither of these things required any change from regular people. In fact, today many people say that ozone hole just disappeared, because the changes needed were so transparent, no one even noticed. Is there a way people can continue their normal lives, but still eliminate the green house gasses emissions?

>Neither of these things required any change from regular people.

Government regulation on business practices. In 1952, London had a smog event that literally killed 12,000 people. Government regulation cleaned up the air and mostly focused on businesses [1]. LA did the same thing [2]. Cap and trade restrictions on SO2 and NOx in the US and EU reduced acid rain causing emissions faster and cheaper than predicted [3]. Force businesses to reduce their CO2 output from their operations and products and they will find they most efficient and profitable way to do so.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London

[2] https://www.aqmd.gov/home/research/publications/50-years-of-...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain

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

#162

Post by runarberg »

FormerBandmate wrote: post #138
jbu wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

News people don't like is often dismissed as 'hysterics', 'alarmism', etc, which is a well known cognitive bias. Nearly all people trying to improve the future do so sensibly, following established processes and norms and trying to be nice, but you haven't heard of these people because that's not how change is made in the face of established power that doesn't want the change. Most of that good work gets sunk. Change…

What change are activists actually making? The only significant change I’ve seen in this field is from green tech

Activist’s goal is to change policy from government, when an activist campaign is successful, the politician takes the credit.

Here is an example of an actual climate activist reacting to an actual policy which he helped influence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw5zzrOpo2s

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

#163

Post by JohnFen »

pif wrote: post #78
Levitz wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The subtext under the headline seems direct enough: >When it comes to the climate crisis, new normals convey a single, grim message: instead of acting, get used to it The idea is to stop calling things "The new normal" since that implies acceptance. Fight instead. Don't go along with the idea that the world has to be like this.

Concerning climate change, the world is going to be like this. All models are clear that global warming cannot be reversed. No "turning green" will lower average temperatures enough in our lifetime. Thus, acceptance is capital, because only acceptance of reality can lead to sensible solutions. As a side note, screaming "It's too late: hurry up!" is really an idiot way to advocate your cause, whatever your cause may b…

What's done may be done, but we could perhaps keep it from being even worse.

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

#164

Post by JohnFen »

FormerBandmate wrote: post #135
Levitz wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The subtext under the headline seems direct enough: >When it comes to the climate crisis, new normals convey a single, grim message: instead of acting, get used to it The idea is to stop calling things "The new normal" since that implies acceptance. Fight instead. Don't go along with the idea that the world has to be like this.

The way you fight is by buying a Tesla and switching your power to clean energy providers. Climate change activists never seem to talk about either of those things tho, it’s always amorphous nonsense like “dismantling capitalism”

> Climate change activists never seem to talk about either of those things tho

They don't? You're listening to a different crowd than I am.

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

#165

Post by JohnFen »

tourmalinetaco wrote: post #79
FrustratedMonky wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that the 'new normal' is lulling people into 'doing nothing'. The 'do Y' is, simply take action to be better. Whatever it is. Each X needs a different Y. So go do Y for that particular problem, instead of nothing. How can this one author tell you what to do for every problem outlined. The point is to stop doing nothing.

The problem is that any good I, as an individual, can produce is far outweighed by the damage a multi-trillion dollar businesses can cause. This isn’t to say that individuals should do nothing, this is to say we need to deconstruct and limit those who actively harm the environment, starting from the largest and working down.

And, individually, we can help that process by reducing or eliminating our support of those companies.

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

#166

Post by jfengel »

FormerBandmate wrote: post #135
Levitz wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The subtext under the headline seems direct enough: >When it comes to the climate crisis, new normals convey a single, grim message: instead of acting, get used to it The idea is to stop calling things "The new normal" since that implies acceptance. Fight instead. Don't go along with the idea that the world has to be like this.

The way you fight is by buying a Tesla and switching your power to clean energy providers. Climate change activists never seem to talk about either of those things tho, it’s always amorphous nonsense like “dismantling capitalism”

Buying a Tesla isn't even close to enough. Climate change activists say amorphous nonsense like "dismantling capitalism" because the changes needed are much, much further reaching than simply buying a different thing.

Transportation is only about 25% of CO2, and cars are only a fraction of that. Even if there were zero CO2 produced in a Tesla's lifecycle (and it's more than that), it wouldn't be anywhere near enough.

You'd also need to turn off all the fossil fuel power plants -- which isn't going to happen without government intervention.

That's not enough, either. Food and concrete are also massive producers of CO2. Again, corporations aren't going to voluntarily stop raising cows or making concrete. Laws are required -- the kinds of laws that make people scream "socialism".

Nor can it end there. To reach net-zero, we're going to have to balance out the inevitable remaining human-produced CO2. Some of that will be carbon capture -- not something corporations do unless forced. Some will be reserving large swathes of fertile land for trees -- probably owned by the government, i.e. socialism.

That's probably still not enough. Try this on for size: we eliminate a lot of bullshit jobs that require commuting, energy, and other sources of carbon. Maybe a universal basic income that drives up the cost of workers, and a lot of workers just drop the hell out. Maybe then we reorganize the economy to stop maximizing "employment" as a fundamental goal, and we stop optimizing for total Gross Domestic Product.

That is what "dismantling capitalism" means. Maybe it's not necessary to go that far. It sure as hell would have been less likely if we'd done something about it 40 years ago. Instead, we dicked around for decades, while believing that capitalism would solve it. Capitalism mostly responded by denying that the problem existed.

The activists may not really understand what they say when they toss around the catch phrases. But I assure you that the people who coined those catch phrases do know what they mean, and you can engage with that if you don't like engaging with the rank-and-file who are rightfully enraged that nothing is being done, even if they themselves don't fully understand the magnitude or direction of what's required.

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

#167

Post by jfengel »

Etrnl_President wrote: post #88
perfunctory wrote: post #16

Too bad the author is not offering any alternative. It's not good enough to just say "stop doing X". It would be nice if it's followed by "Do Y instead". Maybe I missed it, but the only thing I found in the whole article that resembles a counterproposal is a single sentence in the end - "... policy flows from conversation and debate instead of force." So we are supposed to have more conversation and debate? Sounds li…

Conversation and debate have served us for easily 30,000 years.

During which time civilizations have risen and fallen, often because of their own short-sightedness. It hasn't wiped out the human race, but there are outcomes far short of extinction that are nonetheless best avoided because they are extremely unpleasant.

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

#168

Post by scrubs »

Why (Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”);

- because it's hype

- because it's entitlement: embellisher's don the hat of a super sophisticated tech in the middle of a maelstrom that only his 1000 yard stare can reconcile. You can't really know how tough this stuff is... and it's what make me and my job cool. I'm a warrior!

- cause it's an implicit admission one has no solutions.

- cause it's not quantified. If I wanna know if it's normal I'll talk to accountants and insurers to see trends not the cool guy.

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

#169

Post by panarchy »

dropofwill wrote: post #55
JimtheCoder wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't he say we would all be underwater by 2010 or something? I didn't see the movie...

He said sea levels could be 20 feet higher in the near future. Which could only be right if we’re talking hundreds of years…

Hundreds of years is kind of the near future with respect to the ~300,000 years we've existed (H. Sapiens, and tools) and the ~30,000 years since we started to 'civilize' (art, descriptive cave paintings) even relative to agriculture (12,000 BP)

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

#170

Post by letsawaytoday »

542354234235 wrote: post #160
letsawaytoday wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're whitewashing the past eco movements. They've been alarmist since the beginning with claims that everyone would be starving by the late 70s or that the air would be unbreathable due to smog or that the global temperature would drop drastically and on and on. It was the same alarmist bullshit that got us into this mess by advocating against nuclear power.

Warning of the problem, recognizing the problem, putting real measures in place to correct the problem is exactly what LA did to reduce smog [1]. In 1952, London had a smog event so bad that it literally killed 12,000 people [2]. That is pretty alarming, and the UK enacted clean air laws. Meanwhile, in 2013 over a third of all deaths in and around Bejing were linked to pollution (unbreathable air due to smog). Alarmi…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN