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

I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 884 posts

Re: I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]

#261

Post by strken »

vasco wrote: post #181
mytailorisrich wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is the global population. Obviously, that's the metric that matters for global issues like the climate and environment. The global population is still increasing. Furthermore, as poor countries develop this is compounded by increased consumption (both resources and energy) per capita. In that respect, "richest 1% account for more emissions than poorest 66%" should be interpreted as very worrying when the po…

I never understand this argument of overpopulation. How can you be OK with reducing population but at the same time worry about global warming? To have that position you basically need to reconcile two positions that to me aren't really compatible, unless someone explains it to me. Either it's fine for Earth to not have humans and just exist peacefully with the rest of the ecosystem until another lifeform takes over.…

Your belief seems to be that the value of humanity scales relative to the number of living humans. I disagree - I don't think one billion humans would be 1/10th as valuable as ten billion humans, provided we got to one billion just by deciding to have fewer kids. Killing humans is morally wrong in everything except weird edge cases, but having two children instead of three is not killing anyone.

The bulk of what I value about the future of humanity is our continued existence and collective ability to do beautiful and impressive things together, not the individual existence of some as-yet-unborn hypothetical humans in that future. I don't think humanity's output scales linearly with population and I don't think there's much moral worth to future individuals outside their general contribution to wider human civilisation.

Re: I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]

#262

Post by matheusmoreira »

sgt101 wrote: post #133
swiftcoder wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really taboo, it's just straight-up a racist right-wing talking point. Treat it as a software optimisation problem - should you go after a large number of very minro problems, or take an axe to the single large problem that dominates your metrics? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/20/richest-...

From my observations the current rightwing meme is that women in rich countries haven't had sufficient numbers of children and measures to drive increased population should be put in place. This is congruent with removing women's bodily autonomy, banning abortion and banning or restricting birth control of all types.

> This is congruent with removing women's bodily autonomy, banning abortion and banning or restricting birth control of all types.

There is absolutely no need to do any of that. Just tax them. Tax the childless and unmarried more. Tax the married couples with children less. Make not having children a form of wealth and tax it accordingly. The results will be achieved without a single sacrifice in personal autonomy.

Re: I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]

#263

Post by flir »

_y5hn wrote: post #224
CalRobert wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but are they wrong?

They are correct: Daily Sea Surface Temperature (notice the new paradigm started in 2023 and extending into 2024): https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/ Daily Surface Air Temperature: https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/?dm_id=world Daily Sea Ice Extent (click on "Show Southern Hemisphere", also showing concerns of being low in 2023): https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/seaice/ The most shocking is the…

There's a good chance that the sudden bump in sea surface temperature is a consequence of us cleaning up marine diesel. Which is at least interesting, because it suggests we were doing geoengineering without even knowing it.

(Random thought: what's the sulphur content of automotive diesel? I know it's cleaner, but there are so many more cars than boats. Could we see another sea surface temperature bump as we phase out diesel cars?)

Re: I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]

#264

Post by jokoon »

I live in the south of france, and I really need to move to a cooler region in france. Summer are very long, nights are hot, makes it hard to sleep well.

I don't have enough money to install AC. Mobile AC is too noisy.

I have been postponing for 4 years now.

I am reading The Ministry Of The Future, it's a great book. India will be the first to suffer from this.

Re: I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]

#265

Post by danhor »

127361 wrote: post #185
haizhung wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not really taboo, it is being mentioned in, like, the comments on every 2nd post on climate change. The problem with this line of thinking (and similar ones like „what about China?“) is that it basically absolves you from any responsibility in the matter. After all, there are simply too many people on the planet, what could you possibly do about it? As other commenters pointed out - the west uses way too many re…

I'm super super low carbon footprint, personally. All ARM-based computers here, just Raspberry PIs and tablets, that can run from a portable solar panel if I want. Very few possessions too. I love coding and freedom so much more that having stuff. And even more so when doing so in the forest, amongst nature.

The carbon impact of PCs is negligible for almost all people, and possessions are only a smaller portion of emissions (with the exception of high embodied carbon things like electric cars).

Important things you can influence for a low carbon footprint are:

- How do you heat and how much? Gas heating is surprisingly bad in the US due to the high amount of methane leakage

- Do you drive a lot in a combustion car, or even worse, fly?

- What kind of food do you eat? As a rough guideline, dairy and meat is pretty bad and beef much worse. Also the stuff that has to be brought in by plane.

Living in nature often makes it harder to have a low carbon lifestyle and the things often associated with "good for nature" like reducing plastic waste and organic products are often worse carbon wise.

Re: I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]

#266

Post by flir »

allium wrote: post #253
oezi wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, because it isn't so expensive to turn things around. An estimated 100-200% in global GDP is needed to reach carbon net zero by 2050. Annually we need to spend 2-6% of GDP to solve this.

We’re screwed then. The 99% can’t afford to go one to two years without an income, and the 1% simply never will because they don’t give a shit about anyone but themselves.

It's not about going without that GDP, it's about redirecting it.

Simplified example: pay 6% of the population to plant trees.

> and the 1% simply never will because they don’t give a shit about anyone but themselves.

That's a lot closer to why we won't do it. Because as a species we can't act for the long term.

Re: I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]

#267

Post by ChatGTP »

Synaesthesia wrote: post #131
127361 wrote: post #45

It's taboo to say this, but people worldwide have had far too many children, and I believe that overpopulation is the root of the sustainability crisis, including climate change and pollution. And that taboo is probably rooted in evolutionary psychology, people have a genetically driven tendency to criticize those who advocate having less children? So could there be an instinctual drive behind it? https://www.flashpa…

The big problem is the way that people want US-style lifestyles with big houses and cars. This consumes way more energy than European or Asian style living in apartments with public transport. Overpopulation will solve itself as countries develop. We’ve seen that over and over.

Th USA and other industrialised countries operated with huge emissions because oil and gas were cheap and because no one factored in the externalities. Which includes energy security.

Now that we are seeing a reversal to the status quo, you see the move to more efficient systems moving into full swing. The uptake of renewables is exponential now.

I just renovated and fully insulated my house with cellulose fiber that was actually really cheap, double glazed inner windows and installed floor heating with a hydraulic heat pump. My energy bill is almost nothing of what it used to be and I’ve not installed my solar yet, but I’ll be starting in March.

I did this because the price of gas, kerosene (water boiler) and oil have increased dramatically and the technology to do so exists and is cheap enough to make this investment a no brainer from an economic standpoint. It’s hard to imagine how cheap solar panels are now.

I’m not the only person doing this.

The USA and all other developing countries will adopt all these efficient gains at the same rate. No one is going to pay more for less.

Re: I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]

#268

Post by jongjong »

cies wrote: post #251

I used to worry about climate (80s), now I dont (20s). Why? 1. Too many lies. In the 80s the water level was rising, but it didn't. Then acid rains would kill all, but did not. Then ... 2. I cannot change it. Using fossils (or other tech with big "environmental" impact) is a great way to scale business. The "economy God" is to important to actually go an fix the problem. That why we see no real solutions being implem…

[flagged]

Re: I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]

#269

Post by whoknowsidont »

Version467 wrote: post #152

There’s a new book from Hannah Ritchie called „Not the end of the world“, that argues for optimism, without denying the reality of the situation. It’s a fantastic book and I highly recommend it.

The whole premise of the book is a multi-layered hail mary, or a hail mary that continually plays out like a jackpot based on vibes and misconstruing the forces that are causing climate change.

Not sure why you'd call this "fantastic" other than it's a feel-good book without any evidence to support it.

>Carbon emissions per capita are actually down [1]

It takes maybe 2 minutes, maybe upwards of 10, to realize why this is completely silly. I would expect most highschoolers in stats to rip this apart. Does anyone need to devote time to debunk this? Why? You can ask ChatGPT.

>Average figures can mask significant inequalities within countries. In many countries, a small percentage of the population may be responsible for a large portion of emissions, while the majority have very low carbon footprints.

If you don't understand why this negates your comment out right should I start quoting 2Pac?

Re: I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]

#270

Post by PeterisP »

oezi wrote: post #247
PeterisP wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not going to be sufficient to prevent climate change (well, nothing we'll realistically do now will be sufficient to do that - it's too late, just as scientists were warning us decades ago), so probably the question is less about reducing climate change but rather how to mitigate the consequences of climate change to you personally and your community - "avoid waterfront property" is one step there, but probabl…

Why are you saying this. We just need to get to netzero. This is going to cost some money but it won't break the bank. Estimates go up to 2x global GDP.

If we magically went netzero tomorrow, the greenhouse effect from the already accumulated emissions would still cause a significant climate change in the upcoming decades.

And, of course, we won't go netzero tomorrow, there's no "just" in it due to the time and effort it would take to scale up the solutions even if the money was there, but of course the money isn't there; while technically the world could afford it if it wanted, there are absolutely no indications that those who can afford it would be willing to do fund the bill, quite the opposite.

Post reply on HN