Live data from Hacker News

What climate activists won't tell you about protecting the planet

zionlights.substack.com

1–10 of 22 posts

Re: What climate activists won't tell you about protecting the planet

#6
She's confusingly positive about the future for someone that doesn't believe in renewables.

In another post she scolds the press for not celebrating an IEA document that says we could still meet 1.5C climate goals. Then she says the 90% of electricity it projects renewables generating in 2050 is a "fantasy".

Re: What climate activists won't tell you about protecting the planet

#7

> The Horse Association of America calculated that 54 million acres of US farmland was spared by the automobile If only there was some kind of extra large horse more than one person could ride around town

The article is full of these false dichotomies, and relies on the bias of its audience to replace reason with hope. Most of its assumptions would be reasonable to make if we had the carbon dioxide levels of the 1980s, but that's four decades ago. The hope for technological progress without sacrifice is understandable, but wishful thinking nonetheless.

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Re: What climate activists won't tell you about protecting the planet

#8
TLDR: Technology will magically solve all of our problems.

It also oddly mixes social justice and enviromentalism?

Also: take the example of the Ozone layer that the author mentions. It did not magically repair itself, but because the global nations got its stuff together and actually did something about it. Imagine HCFCs would have been handled like we handle CO2 today: not with legislation banning it with a definitive end date, but by putting some kind of low tax on it that might rise in the future, but maybe not.

I don't know, I understand the point that the autor tries to make, but it all feels not thought through to the end.

Re: What climate activists won't tell you about protecting the planet

#9
I think there are some points of substance here, and agree that it's very important to continue breaking the link between economic growth and resource consumption. For better or worse, caring about the environment is a luxury good, and we want people to be able to afford it.

However, some of this also strikes me as wildly uncharitable. For example: "For too long we have been sold the myth that we should be concerned about so-called ‘overpopulation’, but this has been proven to be nonsensical fearmongering."

It is for the moment not our biggest concern, but it absolutely wasn't a myth or nonsensical fearmongering. The overpopulation-and-crash cycle happens for a lot of species. This only changed for humans very recently, with the invention of birth control and women getting enough power to use it. That's not universal and is under political threat right now, and even if we keep it, resource usage is still proportional to the number of people. A population crash would be a bad thing, but absent radical technological changes, "protecting the planet" will require at least keeping the population stable, and a couple of centuries of very modest population decline would help.

Post reply on HN