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

Europe's fires are just the start

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 365 posts

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#41

Post by jl6 »

palata wrote: post #4

There is no "new normal", we are in a slope. As long as we emit CO2, the climate will get worse. Year after year. With effects like fires accelerating it, or the loss of the Amazon (it's pretty much lost already, isn't it?) that will just result in more CO2 being released. We don't have to adapt to the situation as it is now , because it is pretty much the best scenario. We have to adapt to the fact that it will get…

> the loss of the Amazon (it's pretty much lost already, isn't it?)

No, it’s not lost already. We should attempt to preserve what remains, not assume failure is inevitable.

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#42

Post by toasty228 »

alephnerd wrote: post #27
cbmuser wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as major countries like Germany are keeping their ban on nuclear power, climate change cannot be that urgent.

> As long as major countries like Germany are keeping their ban on nuclear power Frankly, it doesn't matter what Germany or other European nations do - their carbon footprint has dramatically decreased. The issue is everyone else [0]. China (12 GT), the US (5 GT), and India (3 GT) alone represent over half of all global carbon emissions. The EU and UK's combined carbon emissions are half of Asia (excluding China and…

It should be illegal in 2026 to have such a naive view.

co2 per country or capita doesn't mean shit when the world uses China as a factory:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-embedded-in-...

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#43

Post by ch4s3 »

OKRainbowKid wrote: post #19
cbmuser wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as major countries like Germany are keeping their ban on nuclear power, climate change cannot be that urgent.

This gets repeated again and again, but wouldn't the money required to build/maintain nuclear plants be much better invested in building out renewables and battery storage? They already produce power much cheaper, and cost efficiency keeps increasing. Meanwhile power from nuclear plants are very expensive, comparatively. So why should we invest in nuclear energy? I have the impression a lot of the debate about nuclea…

It depends on how much you value land use and care about the knock on effects of the associated mining. I’d rather figure out how to build out nuclear cheaply like South Korea and China and use more land for wild space. The per hectare land use of nuclear is minuscule.

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#44

Post by modo_mario »

palata wrote: post #4

There is no "new normal", we are in a slope. As long as we emit CO2, the climate will get worse. Year after year. With effects like fires accelerating it, or the loss of the Amazon (it's pretty much lost already, isn't it?) that will just result in more CO2 being released. We don't have to adapt to the situation as it is now , because it is pretty much the best scenario. We have to adapt to the fact that it will get…

The fires don't accelerate it much. That wood and shrub would either burn or rot down the line and release methane and co2 anyway. Forests don't sequester much at all despite what people seem to believe.

Consequentially running a fireplace is a lot more climate neutral than driving a car, taking a flight, utilising the myriads of high carbon footprint goods or having a gas heater or so.

On the other hand the bogs that we're losing (and kelp forests) are a lot better at sequestring co2 but they're small. Permafrost will also actually accelerate stuff since....well it __was__ permanently forsty.

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#45

Post by cbg0 »

nancyminusone wrote: post #13
toasty228 wrote: post #2

As Macron said in 2023: "Who could have predicted the climate crisis?" The people in charge a either clinically retarded or willingly ignoring the problem, either way we're fucked, the point of no return is behind us now, this is the new normal, and it'll only get worse

In some ways I wonder if these timescales are "beyond comprehension" for most people. You can tell people the temperature will go up in 20 years, but you can't make them feel what it will be like. In the same way you can tell a 10 year old what it's like to be age 35 but they don't get it, and I've heard what it's like to be age 80 but I don't really know and won't for some time.

I think we've gotten to the point where the question can be asked looking back, not forward: think back to your childhood and how much things have changed since then? If you've lived long enough you can notice these things.

I used to have snow for weeks each winter in my city and now if I get 2-3 days of snow a year it's unusual. Extreme weather events where it rains in one day as much as in one month have become a recurring event to the point we're re-planning sewage systems around these things.

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#46

Post by throw-the-towel »

alephnerd wrote: post #27
cbmuser wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as major countries like Germany are keeping their ban on nuclear power, climate change cannot be that urgent.

> As long as major countries like Germany are keeping their ban on nuclear power Frankly, it doesn't matter what Germany or other European nations do - their carbon footprint has dramatically decreased. The issue is everyone else [0]. China (12 GT), the US (5 GT), and India (3 GT) alone represent over half of all global carbon emissions. The EU and UK's combined carbon emissions are half of Asia (excluding China and…

Your link shows the US also decreased their carbon footprint, and a big part of the rest of the world stays kinda stable.

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#47

Post by toasty228 »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #38
alephnerd wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As long as major countries like Germany are keeping their ban on nuclear power Frankly, it doesn't matter what Germany or other European nations do - their carbon footprint has dramatically decreased. The issue is everyone else [0]. China (12 GT), the US (5 GT), and India (3 GT) alone represent over half of all global carbon emissions. The EU and UK's combined carbon emissions are half of Asia (excluding China and…

Lets just name names. China. India.

And every country which moved their factories there

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#48

Post by Carrok »

world2vec wrote: post #40

"Being better at fighting fires, though, is not enough." Yeah, it's nowhere near enough. We need to seriously revamp how we manage forests. They must be regularly cleaned, huge fire breaks between fenced areas and roads must be created and maintained. Prescribed burns on a regular schedule. Houses cannot be too close to the trees, no matter how pretty it looks. A huge clean radius must be maintained between houses an…

> All this work must be done in the winter and everything must be prepared for the summer. Every year. Everywhere.

Good luck doing any work in the winter in places like, oh say, the Rocky Mountains.

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#49

Post by jrflo »

OKRainbowKid wrote: post #19
cbmuser wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as major countries like Germany are keeping their ban on nuclear power, climate change cannot be that urgent.

This gets repeated again and again, but wouldn't the money required to build/maintain nuclear plants be much better invested in building out renewables and battery storage? They already produce power much cheaper, and cost efficiency keeps increasing. Meanwhile power from nuclear plants are very expensive, comparatively. So why should we invest in nuclear energy? I have the impression a lot of the debate about nuclea…

There will always be a need for on-demand power. Renewables are great, but cannot deal with peaks as easily and capacity is dependent on weather.

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#50

Post by adrianN »

andsoitis wrote: post #14
palata wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed that the people in charge do nothing and don't understand the problem. However, the people in charge (e.g. in France) are elected by the people, and therefore represent it. Do you think that the far-right will care more about the climate crisis? The French people is likely to elect them next year. It's too easy to vote for people who don't give a shit about the climate crisis, and then blame them. > either way…

> We need to act now. What does this look like, precisely, in practice?

The people here maintain a list of things: https://drawdown.org/explorer

Chiefly we need to replace fossil fuels with electricity from carbon free sources and electrify transportation, heating, and industry.

Post reply on HN