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

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

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 176 posts

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

#61

Post by [deleted] »

throwaway27727 wrote: post #43
cautiouscat wrote: post #29

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.

[deleted]

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

#62

Post by mangecoeur »

talon8635 wrote: post #55
teachrdan wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

What did Luigi accomplish? If nothing, then why the comparison?

There’s an interesting study to be made on whether there was a reduction in insurance claim rejections in the aftermath, and what the morbidity/mortality impact was.

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

#63

Post by micromacrofoot »

We're already cooked, the Paris Agreement was aiming for avoiding 1.5°C global increase by 2030 and we're pretty much at that now. We're already seeing global weather shifts as the beginning of what appears to be rapid climate change and we're not yet at the peak of carbon output.

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

#64

Post by [deleted] »

cautiouscat wrote: post #29

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…

[deleted]

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

#65

Post by talon8635 »

HEmanZ wrote: post #39
r0ckarong wrote: post #5

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.

If you live in a western democracy your politicians are held very accountable to the opinion and will of the people who vote. They are not kings or inherited aristocracy, they do what the people want (roughly) or get voted out. The people who vote by-and-large don't believe climate change is real, don't believe it is serious, or are not willing to tolerate the level of discomfort necessary to solve the problem. At le…

Here in America we love to blame the politicians (they do indeed suck). All the while voter turnout is a complete joke. Perhaps this is actually helpful, because we are rife with various subcultures that openly celebrate ignorance, so, yeah. Blame the shitty politicians, speak not of the ignorant and unbothered masses.

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

#66

Post by ceejayoz »

unsupp0rted wrote: post #54
metabagel wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ha…

In 1992 Al Gore’s book said 60% of the population of Florida will have to relocate due to flooding. He didn’t mean in 100 years.

The actual quote is a little more circumspect than you portray it to be.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/free-expression/al-gores-long-an...

> The then-senator claimed that “according to some predictions”—no specifics were offered—“in the next few decades,” “up to 60 percent of the present population of Florida may have to be relocated.”

It's possible to be right on the substance and wrong on the timing. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Burry 's investor revolt.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/floridas-private-home-insuran...

> Active private home insurance policies in Florida declined by 78% over roughly a decade, with the state's insurer of last resort skyrocketing to 63% of the market share, as reported by PRNewswire and republished on Yahoo. That is a dramatic pullback in a state where storm risk has long shaped the housing market.

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

#67

Post by micromacrofoot »

teachrdan wrote: post #44
cautiouscat wrote: post #29

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…

Luigi accomplished nothing but folk hero status, United Healthcare premiums increased by double-digit percentages this year. Change requires a pattern not a moment.

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

#68

Post by veqq »

cautiouscat wrote: post #29

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…

There's very little to do in Europe. South Korea, Iran, Thailand, Egypt or South Africa e.g. put out significantly more CO2 than say the UK or France (which are towards the top). India and China are higher than the whole EU and are only continuing to pollute more as their standards of living improve. Essentially the only way to stop it is to keep the 3rd world impoverished (in Africa, people often argue that green energy is a Western conspiracy to keep them down). Western economies have already largely stagnated and most of Europe's pollution's fallen to lower per capita than China, let alone South Korea or Russia or... Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and such.

Pro-nuclear efforts are the best hope we have: generate enough electricity and we can scrape the atmosphere clean

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

#69

Post by tomComb »

antonvs wrote: post #20
monneyboi wrote: post #14

Every prediction we make seems to be reached sooner than expected. There is so many effects that we don't understand yet. Keeping with the "this is surprising" narrative, or like this title, implying that we have any time at all, is not helping. I would expect a less naive title from a platform like the economist.

The Economist is torn, because on the one hand they try to appear clever, but on the other hand they generally support unrestrained capitalism. It’s not possible to do both at the same time.

Clearly you don’t read the economist

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

#70

Post by coolThingsFirst »

antonvs wrote: post #38
coolThingsFirst wrote: post #19

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?

Because with the ozone layer, the causes of the problem were much more narrow, the solutions were orders of magnitude cheaper, and they affected a much smaller industry, much less dramatically. It’s not that the changes are “too damaging to the economy,” it’s that they’d need to be much more widespread. For example, everyone should have stopped driving gasoline engine cars at least by 2010, when the scientific eviden…

Yeah ditching cars is very hard in some places where public transport is not good. (US)

But I am seeing that it's not that hopeless by 2030 43% of energy would come from renewable sources like solar. Maybe there's still hope. It would be profoundly stupid if as a species we died off because we couldn't curb CO2 emissions.

Post reply on HN