Live data from Hacker News

The world may have less time than it thinks on climate change

economist.com

41–50 of 176 posts

Re: The world may have less time than it thinks on climate change

#41
post #9

It's strange that anyone's still thinking there's "still time until we have to act". Is this really the average view out there?

In my family, about 5 out of 100 people believe climate change is even real. So ya, I think the average at this point is "I'm ambivalent, climate change may not even be real. But mostly I don't care"

Re: The world may have less time than it thinks on climate change

#42

I’m not sure: when I was in high school / university it was well understood that places like Florida would be under water and unlivable by now. Already then you could find this exact article title in a dozen publications per year, especially in academic publications. Al Gore made a third career out of it. It was alarmist and too soon then but it’s not alarmist and too soon now? Nobody upvotes an article titled “Thing…

> I’m not sure: when I was in high school / university it was well understood that places like Florida would be under water and unlivable by now.

I don't doubt that is your recollection, but nobody back then was predicting it would happen in 20 years. The time frames given were much longer. But, the vibe was definitely that we need to wake up and do something right now, because by the time climate change hits real hard it will be too late to avert the calamity.

Re: The world may have less time than it thinks on climate change

#43

I recognize this is deeply cynical and definitely doomerist. What can I as an individual actually do to stop this? Why should I even bother reading articles like this at this point? I can't do anything. I can't action it. I can collect my recycling, pop solar panels on my roof and be the most carbon footprint conscious person and it wouldn't move the needle an atom's width. Politicians don't care, and the ones that d…

As a first step, what do you want? Would you rather live your life in peace, bettering the controllable world around you? Or would you rather live your life in stress and action and possibly fixing the problem?

I chose one of those for myself and can't blame anyone for choosing differently. They're both valid.

Re: The world may have less time than it thinks on climate change

#44

I recognize this is deeply cynical and definitely doomerist. What can I as an individual actually do to stop this? Why should I even bother reading articles like this at this point? I can't do anything. I can't action it. I can collect my recycling, pop solar panels on my roof and be the most carbon footprint conscious person and it wouldn't move the needle an atom's width. Politicians don't care, and the ones that d…

> What can I as an individual actually do to stop this?

Short of becoming the Luigi of the environmental movement, there is nothing an individual can do. You have to take part in some kind of ongoing collective action. This can include joining a campaign against the oil and gas industry, going door to door for candidates who will reverse climate change, or engaging in direct action against environmentally destructive projects -- or even all three at the same time.

Trying to go it alone is pointless. At best, you'll go down a rabbit hole of becoming the most virtuous consumer alive. At worst, you'll be spend all your time mad-posting on social media.

Re: The world may have less time than it thinks on climate change

#45
post #4

Magazines like The Economist helped bring us here by describing Oil Companies still has a bright future and a great investment in the 80s and 90s. Instead if they had authored high profile articles about how fossil fuels are driving this world to disaster, maybe we would be in a better place. Doing that would have made their advertisers mad, so they kept writing about clean coal and oil for better $. It was the exact…

You should look into the economist a bit more. For one, they have no advertisers to keep happy. Edit: I stand corrected. A better way to phrase it is that their business model does not rely on advertising, and they traditionally did not run ads until recently.

Do they need advertisers for garbage like this? Just another entry in the decades-long disinformation campaign

"Who bears responsibility for reducing the carbon footprint of those products? Shell, the companies that pumped the oil, the carmakers whose engines burn the fuel, or the people who drive the vehicles? The answer is probably a combination of all of them.

To heap the blame for global warming on the oil industry alone would be to oversimplify the emissions problem. True, companies like Shell could have been more open about evidence of the risks from climate change, and they sometimes lobby against steps to reduce emissions. But everyone bears responsibility."

https://www.economist.com/business/2019/07/06/shells-boss-de...

Re: The world may have less time than it thinks on climate change

#46

I recognize this is deeply cynical and definitely doomerist. What can I as an individual actually do to stop this? Why should I even bother reading articles like this at this point? I can't do anything. I can't action it. I can collect my recycling, pop solar panels on my roof and be the most carbon footprint conscious person and it wouldn't move the needle an atom's width. Politicians don't care, and the ones that d…

Political participation -- voting, organising for the groups you support, actively engaging in meetings and public forums, building social groups of like-minded individuals. It is hugely effective. The worst doomerism is the idea that politics is ineffective. It is incredibly effective, and only the people that participate in it have any effect on it.

There are more types of politics that national and international. Local, state/provincal, city, etc. The close it is to home the more you'll see the effects, and the more power you'll have. But accepting the supine position of "well I can't do anything" only guarantees your powerlessness. Fight for the future you want! Convince 5 people that something is important, and you're already 500% up. It scales like crazy.

Re: The world may have less time than it thinks on climate change

#47

why is it that for the ozone layer we got together and undid the damage but for climate change we don't? is it too politicized, are the required changes too damaging to the economy to start agressively implementing them?

This has actually been studied. The question even has it's own wikipedia article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion_and_climate_ch...

Re: The world may have less time than it thinks on climate change

#48

As long as there is no accountability for politicians, we will always have at least as much time as the next guy plans to stay in power.

There are more types of politics that national and international. Local, state/provincal, city, etc. The close it is to home the more you'll see the effects, and the more power you'll have. And the more directly the electorate can keep people accountable. But I think it's really throwing the baby out with the bathwater to declare that accountability is impossible, therefore there is no point in enagaging.

Re: The world may have less time than it thinks on climate change

#49
post #37

I recognize this is deeply cynical and definitely doomerist. What can I as an individual actually do to stop this? Why should I even bother reading articles like this at this point? I can't do anything. I can't action it. I can collect my recycling, pop solar panels on my roof and be the most carbon footprint conscious person and it wouldn't move the needle an atom's width. Politicians don't care, and the ones that d…

Stop trying to imagine yourself as the hero saving the day all by yourself. It is a fantasy. And learn about the paradox of voting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting

You can totally be the hero and make an outsized impact on climate change.

You'll just end up in supermax for the rest of your life. Pros and cons I suppose.

Re: The world may have less time than it thinks on climate change

#50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like a carbon tax?

Yes, a carbon tax would go a long way, but I think a broader view is to look for ways to use taxes to shift externalities back onto the organizations that created the problem. For example, data centers (a popular demon). The two main externalities are water consumption and power consumption. The tariffs for providing those services to a data center should be high enough to compensate the rest of the community for the…

> I would also advocate closing the on-prem generator loophole by classifying on-prem power generation services as belonging to or leased from local utilities,

Congrats, now all power generation is owned by the power company, including your own solar, wind, and fossil fuel generation.

Post reply on HN