Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures • Hacker News Board

Re: Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures

#291

Post by nologic01 » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 9:12 AM UTC

0xDEF wrote: post #254

nologic01 wrote: post #156

The enthusiasm with geoengineering among the HN community is worrisome. Not sure which computing analogy would drive home the complete recklessness of this mentality but the Earth is not something you can reboot to the last working state once you harebrained patch implodes. It is true that we have been slowly geoengineering for ages (initially unwittingly, recently with eyes wide open) and it is also true that our mo…

How are you going to convince Asia and Africa to stop their economic growth? How are you going to convince Americans to stop driving Ford F150s? How are you going to convince Europeans to stop doing vacations that involves long-distance flights to exotic faraway countries? Geoengineering is the only solution.

An out-of-control spacecraft is hurling towards an asteroid. Engineers onboard argue the only solution is to invent a laser that will blast a tunnel through the asteroid so that the spacecraft can continue safely its out-of-control trajectory.

Its an insane strategy. Predicated, among others, on the impossibility of getting back into the control room and charting a non-collision course (which among others will ensure we can better handle any future sustainability challenges). I would challenge that assumption (but with a caveat).

The obstacles you mention are real and in a sense currently as complex to model and work through. Its the difference of socially engineering the complex system that is human society versus biophysically engineering the complex system that is the Earth's biosphere.

Social change is intrinsically easier and far more comprehensive insurance: There is a lot of precedent of purposeful social change and the enormous historical diversity of socioeconomic structures points out to very flexible systems. The obstacles you mention did not even exist a few decades ago. There is nothing deterministic about the current state of the world. Its all in our freaking brains, a lot of it just inane over-consumption because for a while the answer was... why not.

The caveat is that a minimum amount of social change needs to be truly global. This is something unprecedented. We are living through a historically unique moment where the random walk of political and socioeconomic evolution folds onto itself: its canvas is now a finite manifold. Cherished behaviors, power games etc may no longer be part of the solution space.

Remains to be seen how our complex system will adapt.

Re: Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures

#292

Post by ImHereToVote » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 9:16 AM UTC

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #262

atoav wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is very uncomplicated in fact: Most people here on HN are rationally capable of understanding the challenges humanity faces right now. What many aren't capable of is accepting the conclusion that we all have to change the way we live and quite possibly even the way we organize society in order to mitigate the irreperable problems our way of living has already caused. Deep down they might suspect this is necessary,…

Why would I accept that there's this doomsday barreling towards us at high speed, and the only way to avoid it is economic devastation and serfdom for my grandchildren? That sounds an awful lot like a long con. Most rational people have arrived at the very reasonable conclusion that the more extreme the danger is, the more justified we are in attempting cutting edge countermeasures. So when the response we get back i…

Personally I can't wait for the democracy is white supremacy memes coming at us in a couple of months/years.

Re: Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures

#293

Post by teamonkey » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 9:16 AM UTC

concordDance wrote: post #288

amrocha wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meat != nice food Cars != all weather mobility And if you really want a car get ready to pay 4x current prices because that's what they actually cost without subsidies and free externalities

While some meat eating being required for nice food is subjective, I'm struggling to see what the suggested alternative to cars for all weather personal mobility is. I want to go to visit my friend Bob who lives 10 miles away but the rain is pouring down. What do I do in a carless world? Btw: CO2 emission taxes, road taxes and congestion charges are a great idea.

The real problem is that your friend lives 10 miles away and you don’t have adequate public transportation, not that life without cars is impossible.

Re: Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures

#294

Post by lordnacho » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 9:18 AM UTC

fasterik wrote: post #279

matsemann wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially since HNers mostly are the top top top earners in the world, having unsustainable lifestyles. No one likes to accept it can't be like this forever.

This doesn't seem right. Most of the world's new carbon emissions are coming from developing countries. On the other hand, the HN crowd is much more likely to live in dense cities (which are more climate friendly), have access to public transportation, drive electric cars, and can afford to pay for carbon offsets. The only thing unsustainable about the first world lifestyle is the fact that we don't have the politica…

> Most of the world's new carbon emissions are coming from developing countries.

Isn't this because we're paying them to make stuff for us? Or is there some accounting of this where its their own consumption that causes it?

Re: Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures

#295

Post by matsemann » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 9:20 AM UTC

fasterik wrote: post #279

matsemann wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially since HNers mostly are the top top top earners in the world, having unsustainable lifestyles. No one likes to accept it can't be like this forever.

This doesn't seem right. Most of the world's new carbon emissions are coming from developing countries. On the other hand, the HN crowd is much more likely to live in dense cities (which are more climate friendly), have access to public transportation, drive electric cars, and can afford to pay for carbon offsets. The only thing unsustainable about the first world lifestyle is the fact that we don't have the politica…

Well, you're saying "new carbon emissions", of course those are coming from developing countries. It's not the same statement as I said. And of course they should be allowed to improve their quality of life.

My point is that an average HNer lives in a country where per capita co2 per person is >10x as much as the poorer countries. And since the average HNer is a well off person with a lavish lifestyle, international travels etc., it's probably closer to 100x the amount of a person in a developing country.

Either this lifestyle should only belong to us few and developing countries should remain developing. Or we need to cut back to a sustainable level everyone can share. Which is a reality people don't want to face.

> The only thing unsustainable about the first world lifestyle is the fact that we don't have the political will to invest in real solutions like nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, etc.

It's not about "political will". Would you pay more for a product if it's external effects were priced in? Probably not. Hence unsustainable. Our level of consumption is only possible because we don't pay the true price, someone else is.

Re: Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures

#296

Post by concordDance » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 9:20 AM UTC

teamonkey wrote: post #293

concordDance wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While some meat eating being required for nice food is subjective, I'm struggling to see what the suggested alternative to cars for all weather personal mobility is. I want to go to visit my friend Bob who lives 10 miles away but the rain is pouring down. What do I do in a carless world? Btw: CO2 emission taxes, road taxes and congestion charges are a great idea.

The real problem is that your friend lives 10 miles away and you don’t have adequate public transportation, not that life without cars is impossible.

Public transportation still requires you to go to the bus stop in the rain.

I'm also unsure what the proposed solution to Bob being 10 miles away is. Should I only make friends with people who work at the same place?

Re: Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures

#297

Post by realusername » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 9:20 AM UTC

Roark66 wrote: post #219

sz3 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, hopefully we have some time to practice first. Because we're the only person in the room and the patient is bleeding out.

So don't do a bloody tripple bypass with a butter knife. Just stop the bleeding. Jeez, this conversation is the best illustration of everything that's wrong with geoengineering ideas. Indeed we have practiced quite a bit. Read on the catastrophe that was geoengineering attempts resulting in what is now happening with the Sea of Azov.

> So don't do a bloody tripple bypass with a butter knife. Just stop the bleeding.

We're way past that point, the choice is quickly became to try geoengineering or die and I'm not going to take the dying option, no thanks, no matter how immoral you think the other one is.

Re: Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures

#298

Post by Loic » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 9:21 AM UTC

concordDance wrote: post #266

CalRobert wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want everyone to be able to live in a well insulated flat powered by renewable energy walking and biking distance from their daily needs, and with public transport (and rarely-needed EV share) for the rest. Combined with a low meat low dairy diet and less disposable consumer junk it seems like we could get a long ways with an arguably better quality of life. Maybe work half time too.

"Stop eating nice food" is a nonstarter, as is "give up personal all weather mobility", have these as a policy positions and we'll get 3 degrees rises as those would be a smaller quality of life decrease for the average American.

Replying here to your below comment because of the "stack" limit. You wrote "I want to go to visit my friend Bob who lives 10 miles away but the rain is pouring down." as a justification for ownership of a car.

We just went through 2 weeks of heavy rain here in Germany. I am only biking (not even an E-Bike) and what I did is just looked at the rain radar with a simple app, add a bit of buffer time, packed rain clothes in my bike bag and just go. I was only once a bit wet because I was too lazy to pull out my jacket as I came back home one evening.

You will always find a good excuse to keep the apparent comfort of a car, but once you start to really bike on a regular basis, in my case, I found the bike way nicer, you bring movement in your life. It helps my health and my mood, which is a nice side effect.

Re: Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures

#299

Post by realusername » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 9:22 AM UTC

Turskarama wrote: post #205

sz3 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no alternative. We have "aggravated the situation" (as you put it) beyond recovery. Doing nothing will now surely lead to an unacceptable outcome. We are going to have to fix it, or resign ourselves to a huge shrinking of the habitable region of the planet, with the hunger/famine/war that will accompany that. Obviously we can always make things worse. But when doing nothing is unacceptable, we have to start…

You have absolutely no idea if the "solutions" we try won't lead to even worse outcomes. Up until the point climate change is becoming an existential threat, which it isn't yet, we shouldn't go doing anything too drastic. There is plenty of evidence that we can still avert the worst of it without resorting to geoengineering.

> There is plenty of evidence that we can still avert the worst of it without resorting to geoengineering.

We already have once in a lifetime climate event every month and the carbon locked-in of the past decade still hasn't kicked-in. I'd argue the complete opposite, there's a lack of evidence of other options.

Re: Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures

#300

Post by ImHereToVote » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 9:25 AM UTC

dheera wrote: post #178

nologic01 wrote: post #156

The enthusiasm with geoengineering among the HN community is worrisome. Not sure which computing analogy would drive home the complete recklessness of this mentality but the Earth is not something you can reboot to the last working state once you harebrained patch implodes. It is true that we have been slowly geoengineering for ages (initially unwittingly, recently with eyes wide open) and it is also true that our mo…

> refrain from aggravating the situation I used to think this way, but after years of trying I don't think getting people to change their life habits is going to happen. At this point I think geoengineering is necessary . At the very, very least, carbon sequestration at scale is a fairly safe form of geoengineering if we can pull it off.

I think of it like Star Trek: Next Generation. They had this recurring character that nudged humanity into accepting their role of manipulating time-space.

The lesson being. We as humans aren't simply animals occupying a rock floating in space. Us being powerful means we have to take responsibility no matter how much it makes our internal naturalistic fallacy emotions winge.