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

371–380 of 581 posts

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

#371

Post by jacquesm »

PradeetPatel wrote: post #246
LatteLazy wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This kind of defeatist attitude doesn't help with the situation at all. We can all do our part in reducing our daily carbon emissions, raise awareness, and educate policymakers and business stakeholders on the importance of mitigating climate change!

One man's defeatist attitude is another mans realistic attitude. Does it help? No, it doesn't. But for the defeatist and the realist alike that may no longer matter. I'm 'long' on humanity, but I'm not convinced we will be able to avert the looming (and for some already very present) issues. My feelings are in part because of how we dealt with COVID-19, if a pandemic can't get us to pull the cart together then nothing can.

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

#372

Post by titzer »

jacquesm wrote: post #346
titzer wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What part of birthing billions of children into poverty was ethical again?

That's the problem right there: by asking the question like that you are essentially saying 'children are for the wealthy'. And that's also not how it should be. This is a super hard problem to resolve in a fair way that works in an international setting because you need everybody on board otherwise it will not work. It's the tragedy of the commons endgame.

This is a problem; with the inertia the system is carrying where there are no "ethical" choices left. That's of course no excuse to pick a horribly fascist and evil one. Yet that seems to be the inference in any conversation where you point out that fact that we're basically fucked. "Oh yeah, well obviously you are a genocidal monster. That must mean we're not fucked."

Uh, no. I'm watching this garbage truck smash into the wall, same as you. We're all in the same boat.

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

#373

Post by jacquesm »

aziaziazi wrote: post #368
fastball wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are a number of problems that all interlock. Democracies with their relatively short election cycles will naturally find it hard to deal with problems that last much longer than those election cycles and that have the bulk of the problems downstream of us. Voters are motivated by their personal issues first, local issues second and global issues dead last. Countries are going to have to collaborate in a very strict manner in order to deal with global issues.

Throw all of those in a blender and it's easy to see why democracy and global problems are not going lead to an actual solution. Individuals are going to make some minor difference but not enough to offset the larger trends as long as it isn't a solid majority doing this.

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

#374

Post by jacquesm »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #370
jacquesm wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It beats -45 I guess... (that's the lowest I ever saw on my outside thermometer on St. Josephs Island).

You make a good point though: what is and what isn't habitable will change and as a result there will be substantial movement of people, displaced either by choice or by need.

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

#375

Post by diegoveralli »

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?

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

I want to say here that this comment sounds extremely alien to me, to the point that out of context I would have taken it as satirical.

I know you're serious, but there's probably a big portion of people to whom discussing the problem of walking in the rain to the bus stop sounds completely ridiculous, in any context, and as as something we must consider when talking about climate change policy, well, even more ridiculous.

I've lived in rainy places, and you just wear a raincoat, boots, maybe an umbrella (not always), and carry on.

This kind of disproportionate weight assigned to even the smallest levels of personal discomfort, when discussing these problems, is what most people are denouncing here. And this bias might be what pushes people towards techno-solutionism that doesn't have a chance of actually solving our problems in the time frame that we need.

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

#376

Post by jacquesm »

titzer wrote: post #372
jacquesm wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the problem right there: by asking the question like that you are essentially saying 'children are for the wealthy'. And that's also not how it should be. This is a super hard problem to resolve in a fair way that works in an international setting because you need everybody on board otherwise it will not work. It's the tragedy of the commons endgame.

This is a problem; with the inertia the system is carrying where there are no "ethical" choices left. That's of course no excuse to pick a horribly fascist and evil one. Yet that seems to be the inference in any conversation where you point out that fact that we're basically fucked. "Oh yeah, well obviously you are a genocidal monster. That must mean we're not fucked." Uh, no. I'm watching this garbage truck smash in…

I don't care about what people call me, I'm just pointing out there are too many of us. Historically when there were too many people we ended up with wars or famine. I don't think this time around it will be an exception to that rule, but it's the first time this is happening at this scale. In that sense all bets are off, it is also possible that given such stakes humanity can find it in itself to pull the cart as one but I'm not too hopeful about that.

We could easily be in 'adapt or die' territory somewhere in the next century.

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

#377

Post by aziaziazi »

fredrikholm wrote: post #230
Roark66 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Just stop the bleeding. Is that enough? AFAIK all paths forward to avoid the worst outcomes includes becoming net negative ASAP. That's stopping the addition of 37,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 anually. For context, a modern CCS captures some thousands of tonne, which is a comparatively tiny, tiny number. Unless magic happens in the next decade, it appears that geoengineering is something we can't avoid, sans the suffe…

> geoengineering is something we can't avoid

With all its inherent uncertainties geoengineering has many chances to make living conditions even worse.

It appears that the best think we can do is to stop doing thinks. I concede magic will be needed to make boomers accept that.

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

#378

Post by [deleted] »

titzer wrote: post #339
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…

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…

[deleted]

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

#379

Post by matthewdgreen »

adamisom wrote: post #125
junofan wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I understanding that page correctly? Sounds like 3–4 deg C of cooling for an estimated $5 bn/yr.

Yeah, if climate change really was an “emergency”, mitigation would be extremely cheap. With big side effects. Nevertheless if it really were an emergency … in real emergencies, triage happens, and downsides are taken for granted. Thankful that there’s no real emergency yet, but I suspect governments will drag their feet long enough that there will eventually be one, and then emergency relief will be deployed anyway,…

Think of climate change like a car driving off a cliff. The car is “safely” on solid ground until it isn’t. The problem is that at some point to avoid the emergency you need to hit the brakes or turn, and this particular car might not be able to turn or brake very hard without catastrophic effects on the occupants. Moving away from this metaphor, there is a possibility we cross a tipping point in the climate system (and may already have done so) that can be “reversed” through emergency geoengineering: but it’s not clear that the necessary level of intervention would be compatible with global agriculture and civilization.

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

#380

Post by notacoward »

concordDance wrote: post #285
iamflimflam1 wrote: post #197

I’ve unfortunately come to the conclusion that we are buggered. Watching politics in the U.K. and the rest of the world I’m seeing politicians realise that they can tap into the populist idea that anything green is “the elites trying to control and tax you”. All they care about us short term election prospects.

A lot of "green" policies are holier than thou people trying to impose their lifestyle preferences in ways that don't actually help. Good examples are the anti-nuclear power movement and the nonsense that is plastic "recycling".

Also "new urbanism" that's just people who want more bike(-only) paths for recreation. Yes, there is such a thing as better urban design that reduces car dependency. There are real bike commuters. I totally respect and tangibly support both, due to environmental and other concerns. But I'm not interested in hearing from people who oppose mass transit, abuse pedestrians, and regularly drive their bikes (as aggressively as they ride) to the rally point for their recreational large-group rides. That's not advocacy for anything but oneself.
Post reply on HN