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

231–240 of 366 posts

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#231

Post by pstuart »

We collectively deserve this. The warnings came, but it was framed as "future generations will face these problems", and we collectively kicked the can down the road.

I say "collectively" because many of us don't deserve this and have wanted desperately to address it head on to try and mitigate the damage. But the scope of this problem makes individual contributions effectively meaningless.

It's not clear how bad it has to get before meaningful action takes place. But it will undoubtedly be too little, too late.

I think part of the path to try and address this is to have stories that paint a clear and simple picture of what that would look like and how it would be done. Even then, the issue has been heavily politicized to make it an us versus them problem rather than an "all of us" problem.

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#232

Post by lofaszvanitt »

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…

I think most of the fires are in manmade forests, where puffer space is nonexistent.

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#233

Post by throw-the-towel »

palata wrote: post #218
BurningFrog wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we figured out how to store chopped down trees somewhere where the wood doesn't break down, that would be a really effective way to get CO2 out of the air! Easier said than done, of course. Sinking millions of trees to the bottom of the ocean might be the most practical way.

Those space datacenters that SpaceX is building, can't they make them out of wood?

Will they weigh the same as a duck?

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU)

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#234

Post by belorn »

throw0101d wrote: post #87
OKRainbowKid wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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? Recent report on restarting German nuclear: > The easiest group of reactors to restart could produce electricity at an average of €37 per megawatt-hour before the end of 2031.The most difficult restarts could produce electricity at roughly €58 p…

That seems very cheap if it means you don't need to build new transmission. The average cost in south of Sweden is much higher than that, which in euro would be around €100 per megawatt-hour.

Prices are also expected to further increase as EU has issued regulations that customers should subsidize regions of poor transmission, in order to enable construction of more wind and solar farms where no such transmission exist.

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#235

Post by Henchman21 »

patapong wrote: post #221
palata wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only way I think you can get rid of the excess CO₂ at scale [...] The unsolved problem is extracting You answered it yourself: it's not possible to get rid of the excess CO2. Think about conservation of energy: we extracted energy by burning stuff and producing CO2. We cannot revert that with less energy than we extracted from doing it in the first place. > It sounds scary, but is actually safe Famous last word…

I agree that it's not easy, but we could in theory use solar energy, which is abundant and cheap. I.e. We can use different energy than the one we got out of the fossil fuels we burned.

What are we going to replace concrete with?

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#236

Post by cindyllm »

toasty228 wrote: post #220
sajithdilshan wrote: post #66

People are truly having a climate change discussion fatigue. They hear all the time from politicians, celebrities, influencers, etc. that they should stop eating meat, should not drive non-electric vehicles, should not use AC, reduce consumption, and all other bullshit while the people preaching those have started wars that emit billions of tons of carbon, travel on their private planes to climate change summits, tak…

People on this forum are not living paycheck to paycheck yet you can see them cope like everyone else, we're truly fucked

[dead]

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#237

Post by signatoremo »

toasty228 wrote: post #57
alephnerd wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The effects of climate change aren't felt on a per capita basis. Edit: can't reply > they don't pollute because they're Chinese, they pollute because they're your factory If that was the case, then global CO2 emissions would have been stagnant for 30 years, not rising.

Sure, but don't blame China when 90% of the shit you buy is made there, they don't pollute because they're Chinese, they pollute because they're your factory

You know why China became the manufacturing center of the world? Because it was lowest cost, with little regulation and lenient policies including environmental ones. Red carpet, special economic zones. Nobody forced them to.

They have to bear responsibility, and to be fair to them, they have taken steps to address that.

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#238

Post by 0x_rs »

toasty228 wrote: post #223
0x_rs wrote: post #117

Europe (and the world at large, really) can either wait for its demise, through increasingly oppressive climate hostile to human occupation and de-industrialization while the rest of the world continues on the current trajectory, or start getting its shit together and immediately commence climate engineering on a continental scale. Start with stratospheric aerosol injection, and mandate it not unlike "sustainable" av…

We can't trust them for asbestos and leaded gas but we'll trust them with "stratospheric aerosol injection"... God know what unknown complex system will fuck up and end up making things 10x worse. We'll do literally everything besides consuming and producing less

Neither of those two have anything to do with the suggested technique(s). Humans are already engaging in climate engineering through existing at any meaningful rhythm necessary to sustain 8 billion people on the planet, it's merely by side-effect, aimless, and lacking any coordination and agency. You are not getting billions of people to "consume" and "produce" less. What you're engaging in right now is no different from what oil companies did decades ago in a coordinated effort, shifting blame onto the consumers, and ultimately the swindling of the century when it comes to environmentalism, see [0] for a quick example. You're free to succumb through inaction, the rest of us would rather not, and never depend on failing, moving emission targets dependent on the whims of politicians and the masses electing them, proven to be incapable of entertaining any abstract long-term planning, let alone sticking to it. It's unfathomable some would prefer entertaining the idea of humanity fundamentally altering its nature rather than actively making up for the effects they are influencing while addressing them, through technology available today, but you must've already given up to believe this is "the new normal" like you said.

0. https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-...

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#239

Post by bigstrat2003 »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #184
sajithdilshan wrote: post #66

People are truly having a climate change discussion fatigue. They hear all the time from politicians, celebrities, influencers, etc. that they should stop eating meat, should not drive non-electric vehicles, should not use AC, reduce consumption, and all other bullshit while the people preaching those have started wars that emit billions of tons of carbon, travel on their private planes to climate change summits, tak…

The propaganda has done it's job here, because your base assumption is that dealing with climate change is a cost. But all the research suggests dealing with climate change is the cheaper option. There's complexities there but you're effectively saying that you're too poor to pay off a credit card. Okay, but your only going to get poorer by not engaging with reality.

> The propaganda has done it's job here, because your base assumption is that dealing with climate change is a cost.

Yes, that is a reasonable base assumption. When in doubt, it's a reasonably safe bet that people have chosen the cheapest and most effective path to something. It isn't always true, but it's true more often than not.

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#240

Post by cucumber3732842 »

zeristor wrote: post #201
adrianN wrote: 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.

I wonder what would happen if there was one of those large volcanic eruptions. There’s been a few over the last few hundred years. If there’s dust and haze it might be a respite, apart from famines due to poor harvests. I guess we’ll find out should it happen. We’re in a more precarious state, and these random natural events could be very tricky.

>. If there’s dust and haze it might be a respite, apart from famines due to poor harvests.

When the Canada haze hit here the temp dropped from "forecasted 90s" to "pleasant 70s" and not only were the temps lower but there was no direct sun beating down. Me and the boys were expecting some outdoor work we had planned to suck and take a long time. We ran through it in no time flat.

Post reply on HN