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

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

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 581 posts

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

#361

Post by defrost »

dan-robertson wrote: post #358
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…

I think it’s important to have realistic ideas about how climate change might actually go. For example: - if all emissions stopped tonight, we’d still be on track for temperature rises over the next several decades - some places would get hotter, others wouldn’t. Similarly changes in rainfall would not be evenly distributed. It may be that Europe’s climate doesn’t change all that much, for example (due to changing oc…

> if all emissions stopped tonight, we’d still be on track for temperature rises over the next several decades

Good News Everybody! (hey, every little bit counts) That was the thinking in 2007.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-st...

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/16/is-it-too-late-to-prevent-cl...

     However, if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, the rise in global temperatures would begin to flatten within a few years.

    Temperatures would then plateau but remain well-elevated for many, many centuries.

    There is a time lag between what we do and when we feel it, but that lag is less than a decade.

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

#362

Post by geysersam »

fasterik wrote: post #348
geysersam wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> for them, it's not about solving problems, it's about atoning for the sins of humanity. Never encountered that. Maybe it exists but it's extremely rare and irrelevant. > putting a substantial portion of GDP into building nuclear reactors and removing carbon from the atmosphere Spending lots of money, to produce lots of energy, to solve a problem we created by using too much energy... What people don't get is that e…

>Spending lots of money, to produce lots of energy, to solve a problem we created by using too much energy... How does this argument make sense? Why is producing energy inherently bad if it doesn't put carbon into the atmosphere? >What people don't get is that environmentalists just want to solve the problem in the most cost effective way, and that is to stop destroying the environment we live in. The most realistic…

> Why is producing energy inherently bad if it doesn't put carbon into the atmosphere?

Because it costs money.

Just not polluting in the first place is cheaper.

Nuclear is probably an important part of the future energy mix but now we discussed using nuclear energy to remove carbon from the atmosphere and I believe that would be a huge waste of resources compared to just not putting the carbon in the atmosphere in the first place.

Carbon capture is a scam.

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

#363

Post by fasterik »

gjulianm wrote: post #334
fasterik wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That is why discussions around such technological silver bullets are always toxic: people want to believe. On the flip side, some people reject technological solutions on principle because for them, it's not about solving problems, it's about atoning for the sins of humanity. What does the alternative future look like where we solve the climate crisis by changing the way we live and organize society? Personally, I w…

> while putting a substantial portion of GDP into building nuclear reactors and removing carbon from the atmosphere. The first thing takes years and we still don’t have feasible technology for the second. Not to mention that we would still have a lot of emissions from transport, manufacture, and meat consumption. A technological silver bullet would be cool but the reality is that we don’t have one and there’s nothing…

The problem with the term "silver bullet" when used in these discussions is that it's used to dismiss any proposal for a technological solution. I can flip that around and say "a societal silver bullet would be cool but the reality is that we aren't going to convince people to reduce their consumption." Which I actually sort of believe. I think a technological solution has a much better chance of succeeding than a social one.

I'm not saying there's a silver bullet, I just think it's our decision as a society whether or not we invest in these technologies and do the work of developing them to the point that they actually have a chance of solving the problem. We were able to make rapid progress on nuclear in the 1940s and space flight in the 1960s. We have the resources, but it doesn't seem like we have the political will this time.

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

#364

Post by jacquesm »

fasterik wrote: post #311
matsemann wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Carbon emissions per capita is going down in developed countries. It's going up in developing countries. Your implication was that the current problem is the level of consumption in the richest countries. But in reality that only accounts for a small portion of the expected carbon emissions over the next century. We don't need to "cut back" to a sustainable level. A sustainable level is whatever amount of energy we c…

> Carbon emissions per capita is going down in developed countries. It's going up in developing countries.

But it's not going to go down far enough in developed countries and it is going up very rapidly in developing countries, the result of that is predictable, and in the meantime we are emitting a large multiple of the per-capita greenhouse gases compared to everybody else, who simply want to have theirs too.

We do need to 'cut back' to a sustainable level or we will be cut back. The amount of carbon in the atmosphere is already too high, it won't come down unless we cut back, as a species.

> If we built more nuclear, solar, and wind power, and invested more in carbon capture and storage, we could sustain a much higher level of consumption than we currently are, while emitting less carbon.

That can not be stated with such a degree of confidence, and smacks a bit of people saying that driving electric cars is good for the environment. It isn't, it's just slightly better than driving an ICE.

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

#365

Post by jacquesm »

detourdog wrote: post #337
benhurmarcel wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CO2 emissions per capita (tons/person/year): Canada 18.72 United States 15.32 China 7.44 Brazil 2.24 Indonesia 2.02 India 1.89

I’m sure Canada is driven by heating load.

What drives it doesn't matter. Some areas may simply not be habitable sustainably.

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

#366

Post by jacquesm »

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.

> 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?

- you wait until it stops raining

- you bring an umbrella

- you bring a change of clothing

- you bike or walk

- you ask Bob to meet you halfway

Kids here in NL do this every day, sometimes across even longer distances (when they're high school age and live in rural parts of the country).

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

#367

Post by jacquesm »

concordDance wrote: post #296
teamonkey wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If rain were a major impediment to functioning Ireland and NL should be abandoned. But it isn't. Rain is a minor nuisance. As for your friendships: in the past people would usually be good friends with people living close to them because they lacked transport. I have friends all over the world on account of the internet and I'm well aware that going to visit them is in many cases out of the question. That's much easier to decide when they are 100's (or even 1000's) of km away but the principle remains.

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

#368

Post by aziaziazi »

fastball wrote: post #307
aziaziazi wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why being an absolutist? We don’t need to convince every country. Just the top ones that drive the most consumption/pollution.

Because the top ones won't be convinced if you don't convince the others. Tragedy of the commons and all that.

In that vision we never can’t do anything because leaders needs to be leaded by others.

People do change their habits, donate, volunteer, make concessions and work hard for the good of society in its whole.

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

#369

Post by titzer »

fasterik wrote: post #343
titzer wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about religion, but about empathy and justice. Some people actually think that other forms of life on this planet have a right to exist, and there's no question at all that human life has been catastrophically bad for virtually every other form of life on this Earth. You can't just apply an energy patch and presto-reverso the carbon content in the atmosphere; we've managed to seriously disrupt global ecosyst…

I'm not saying it's a magic fix, I'm saying it's a really hard problem that we can solve if we put the resources and brain power into it. But some people apparently think that even trying to solve the problem is pointless. Needless to say, I disagree. >Incredibly tone deaf, frankly, when most past humans had none of those things and yet dealt with it, living actual full lives. We've basically forgotten what we are, w…

> We came from a history of mostly starving, struggling for survival, dying of infections, dying during childbirth, being illiterate, and having little shelter or comfort. I think this nostalgia for the past is a golden age fallacy that needs to die. Technology has vastly improved human life and taking it away is essentially a call for reducing the standard of living for everybody.

The past wasn't sunbeams and frolicking in meadows, but your take on it is totally off base. The fact is that in every period of (Western) history, the wealthy have always lived incredibly comfortable and enjoyable lives. Modern technology isn't the determinant variable. They did it by harnessing their respective civilizations--it was absolutely not equitable. They rested atop a pyramid of other people. And so do you and I! We do not live in equitable times globally. To the extent that we've made any strides morally, it's only that we've substituted technology and industrialization for slavery and oppression. But under no configuration is modern life sustainable for 8 billion people, energy, living space, and raw materials wise, so this situation is going to keep drawing down the reservoir until there is a brutal correction.

I also think your characterization of all of history being "mostly starving, struggling for survival, dying of infections, dying during childbirth, being illiterate, and having little shelter or comfort" is frankly tripe. As if native peoples lives (over hundreds of thousands of years, indeed) are such utter trash that they need to be rescued from it by technology. "Oh, the poor brown people living such primitive lives, how sad. Let's do a mission to convert them to consumerism and fill their lives with junk, get them some jobs and atomize their tribes." I invite you to visit basically any place on Earth that is not Europe or North America. It's frankly a white/western superiority complex and technology is just a fig leaf over it, a fundamental belief that today's way of life is the only one worth living and is so obviously superior that it cannot be questioned. I mean, those stupid native Americans and their huts. Good thing we fixed that, right?

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

#370

Post by pclmulqdq »

jacquesm wrote: post #365
detourdog wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sure Canada is driven by heating load.

What drives it doesn't matter. Some areas may simply not be habitable sustainably.

We do seem to be working hard on making sure Canada is nice and temperate, though.
Post reply on HN