Live data from Hacker News

Europe's fires are just the start

economist.com

171–180 of 366 posts

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#171

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

It's a prisoners dilemma. No country can risk de-growth or not develop because some countries either DGAF or actively want climate change to happen (Russia) and will gladly take advantage of anyone who lets their guard down.

The only way climate change stops is with a technological solution.

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#172
post #101

bah, all is not lost. Climate change will create winners and losers. Losers -- anyone on the equator or within the the tropic of cancer/capricorn. Winners -- those outside those regions or with enough $ to adapt. Give me solar geoengineering, 2x increase in R&D spending on reducing fossil fuel usage, and funding for direct carbon capture (and a financial incentive to do it). It's going to get worse before it gets bet…

I'm not sure there are all that many winners. There are those that lose big time with some places potentially becoming uninhabitable, and those that merely have to spend a fortune on new flood prevention infrastructure, deal with massive changes to how they do agriculture and forestry in a new climate, and in the future deal with streams of climate refugees from countries on the list of even bigger losers. Russia and…

Climate change will almost surely increase growing seasons and agricultural productivity in higher latitudes (for some crops). It will be extremely crop and cultivar dependent, I expect lots of R&D to go into crops that can deal with wider vairety, and generally hotter, conditions.

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4974

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But nuclear also can't deal with peaks.

Renewables and batteries are great for peaks though. And not very good for base load Nuclear is great for base load, not great for peaks Our current situation is we are building tons of renewables and storage but still burning tons of fossil fuels because they cannot replace the base load very effectively. Nuclear replaces the carbon part of the equation

"Base load" is not an actual demand that needs to be satisfied.

Providing base load is a privilege you get to enjoy if your marginal cost is lower than anyone elses (and you want/can keep running basically all of the time).

Renewables ruin former baseload providers (like nuclear plants) because those plants are basically no longer making money whenever the sun shines (so the economics for nuclear plants got much worse).

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#174
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…

Isn't it primarily arson? == Europe is currently facing a dual crisis of arson-driven wildfires and coordinated sabotage operations. In the summer of 2026, extreme heatwaves have exacerbated wildfire seasons in France, Spain, and Italy, where authorities have linked many blazes to deliberate human ignition. French Interior Minister Sébastien Lecornu reported 162 arrests for suspected arson since early July, noting th…

All human-caused fires aren't arson, most of these are usually negligence (source: worked in operations at fire service). Not discounting the risk of arson but I find it is used a lot to distract from conditions making the forests a tinder box.

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#175
post #75

"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…

>They must be regularly cleaned People keep reiterating this probably because Trump keeps reiterating but it just sounds ridiculous. How do you clean forests? The debris is part of the forest, not all areas of a forest are easily accessible or feasible to transport debis out of there. A dead tree is actually an ecosystem of fungi and insects. Cleaning it may make it more fire prone as broken sticks and leaves shield…

Yeah, it is a bit dumb to talk about "cleaning" forests. Or at least I've never heard anyone who spouted that line who I thought had any understanding of the situation. Mostly they are just salty that the forests aren't actually profitable for logging, but they can't say it like that.

Like a lot of things in the US, the resources are "there" for this stuff, because it's a lot of individual labor instead of something that can be turned into a massive payoff for a couple of "investors" there's no "market incentive" so nothing will be done.

For context, I live on 40 unimproved acres in CO, and much of my spring and late fall is spent moving downed wood and cutting down thickets of gamble oak.

That is a lot of work, and I hope (over the next decade) to eventually get it somewhat under control. The idea is to not have, for instance, a dead tree leaning up against a living tree and to try and tamp down or increase the space between the floor and the first couple of branches in the trees. I also collect up wood for heating in the winter (better to burn it to stay warm than to lt it go in an eventual wild fire.

This is a lot of strenuous work, and not just because I have some love and respect for the situation of all the individual flora and fauna that populate this chunk of land. I've know several wildland firefighters here and they are doing similar things in a hurry out in the hills with hand tools. Because you can't get large equipment around to do the work- there aren't roads in a lot of these places.

It'll all probably burn at some point, anyhow.

But I try because at least in the couple of acres where I actually live I might be able to get the underbrush cleared so a fire could be fought.

But the idea of setting it on fire is prepostrous- I might as well set the shack where I live on fire while i am at it.

That more or less scales up.

The process of mitigating wildire (usually done on a line near an active fire) is largely a bunch of 25 year olds with shovels and chainsaws.

I am all for that work- I'd much rather have them doing that than geraing up to go to Iran or Cuba or wherever.

But hey, the ecology of this place is fucked. My ancestors destroyed the megagfauna to prevent folks from subsisting off of the concentration camps/ reservations. The folks who are still "into" that racist, genocidal, ecocidal project aren't going to do anything to fix it; they'd rather burn their own houses down first.

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One not very well known fact is that even if we stop emissions today, the elevated CO₂ levels will remain for many centuries. They way I think/hope we can fix this is two parts: 1. The only way I think you can get rid of the excess CO₂ at scale is to permanently sequester it underground. The oil/gas industry can cheaply deposit huge amounts of gas there. The unsolved problem is extracting enough CO₂ from the atmosphe…

Only safe if we never stop doing it once we start I think? Otherwise it ends up being worse than if we had not done it in the first place

It's been reduced before through cracking down on pollution. The results are directly suspected to be responsible for an increase in warming rate, both locally and worldwide. The only way in which it would be necessary to keep releasing it, and in increasingly higher quantities, is only if no other measure or action is taken, which is obviously not the intended goal: its purpose is to make up for the damage already done that will linger for longer than anyone currently alive.

The emission reductions in our simulations correspond closely to the emissions reductions realized in East Asia over the period 2010–2023, in magnitude and geographical location. This allows us to put our results in the context of the recent uptick in the observed rate of global mean surface warming. Here, we find that emissions reductions in East Asia have contributed up to 0.05 °C/decade since 2010, explaining a large fraction of the observed increase of 0.06 °C/decade over the same period, after filtering out the effects of interannual variability. (from https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02527-3)

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#177
For those who have heard enough of "As long as we emit CO2, the climate will get worse", these rabbit holes I recently discovered : new science about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_river and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotic_pump.

You can look up : Antonio Donato Nobre, Victor Gorshkov and Anastassia Makarieva and go from there.

The science is NOT settled, and people are still learning how all this works. They may all be crooks for all i know.

But as is mentionned in another comment, "(...)stop eating meat, stop driving non-electric vehicles, stop using AC, reduce consumption (...)" won't save us if indeed the massive hits to old-growth forest doom us anyhow.

Arguing for arguing’s sake gets old fast when there is nothing left to drink.

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#179
I was expecting to learn something new from this article, instead I got a bunch of numbers and a careful number of deaths from smoke 'by the end of the century' prediction.

What end of the century ? The way things are going, these cities (in Europe) are going to be unlivable by the end of this decade. They already are. And the fires..

Numbers, percentages, increases, excess, estimated.. We've constructed this abstract parallel universe in which we comfortably live in front of the screens.. and then wonder why the world around us is burning.

Climate change.. Such a comfortable word behind which we can all hide and dispel the responsibility for a life of copious comfort and pleasure.

It's the avocado toasts, the leather jackets, the 1-click-checkouts, the weekend flight to Barcelona, the CL=F price, the bonuses, the 'natural resources' there for us to use and exploit in infinite amounts..

The whole fucking system. That's why the world is burning.

Yeah, I'm guilty of all of the above too. And I have no solution. Just blowing out the smoke from those fires.

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#180
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if we stopped emissions today, Earth will keep warming up for a couple of decades. We’re not at equilibrium temperature for the current CO2 levels.

One not very well known fact is that even if we stop emissions today, the elevated CO₂ levels will remain for many centuries. They way I think/hope we can fix this is two parts: 1. The only way I think you can get rid of the excess CO₂ at scale is to permanently sequester it underground. The oil/gas industry can cheaply deposit huge amounts of gas there. The unsolved problem is extracting enough CO₂ from the atmosphe…

Stratospheric aerosol injection hasn't been tested at any kind of scale, so we do not know whether it would be harmful (e.g. acid rain) or not. It would also be very expensive, so it's not really a practical solution at the moment. It may pan out, but stating "actually safe" is not yet known.
Post reply on HN