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

71–80 of 176 posts

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

#71

Post by michaelt »

stouset wrote: post #18
ceejayoz wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The top of economist.com has a 250px high `adComponent_adcontainer__eooQr` div. My Pihole blocks its content, but I have a guess as to what it is. They seem to think they have advertisers. https://myaccount.economist.com/s/article/How-do-I-advertise...

The ads they accept are basically just classifieds for high-level positions in NGOs. I turned off anblocking and see zero ads on the site.

I have their print magazine right here.

Inside of the cover (page 2), ad saying portugal is the smart choice for data centres and ai computing. Page 11, two NGO job ads and an ad for timeshare holiday homes. Page 75, ad for Economist Education Online Courses. Page 75 (back cover) ad for a cruise.

Last week's edition: Rolex, page 2. Page 11, executive recruitment network ad, NGO job ad, teaching job ad. Page 11-12, ad for timeshares. Page 15, barclays bank account ad. Page 20: Ad saying amazon employees' working conditions are good. Page 25: Ad for 'securing identity for the ai enterprise'. Page 32, ad for european cybersecurity investments, page 84 (back page) ad for Oracle.

So there are some ads - not many, but some.

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

#72

Post by Marsymars »

unsupp0rted wrote: post #31

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.

This doesn't seem plausible - the worst-case predictions for sea level rise by the end of the century are around 2m.

That would certainly be bad for Florida, but like 80% of the population lives higher than 2m above sea level, so it certainly wouldn't be unliveable.

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

#73

Post by talon8635 »

Birth rates are in decline. The global population is estimated to peak in the 2080s. I suspect that could be later than reality as the endless doom (like this article) inspires more and more people to not have kids. Then as the population declines precipitously, nature takes back over and begins resolving the problem itself.

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

#74

Post by T-A »

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?

Saving the ozone layer required changing practices in a relatively small part of the economy (refrigeration, mostly). In 1994, the total cost of the transition in the US was estimated to less than $100 billion [1], about 1.3% of GDP ($7.3 trillion [2]).

Reducing global carbon emissions to reach net zero by 2050 has been estimated to cost $9.2 trillion per year [3]. World GDP is currently $126 trillion [4]. That means 7.3% of current world GDP per year, or 1.8x of it over a quarter century.

[1] https://cei.org/studies/the-high-cost-of-cool-the-economic-i...

[2] https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/uni...

[3] https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-ins...

[4] https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPD@WEO/OEMDC/ADVE...

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

#75

Post by chneu »

veqq wrote: post #68
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 en…

Their emissions are generally higher because they produce the goods other nations buy.

This entire mentality of "but them" is bad.

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

#76

Post by unrented7977 »

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?

[flagged]

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

#77

Post by tayo42 »

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…

People got together and got us all to stop smoking cigarettes against the same kind of opposition. Probably individuals can get together, help educate others which will eventually drive changes through voting or force businesses to change

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

#78

Post by sobkas »

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…

So you can prepare for what is to come.

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

#79

Post by ballsac »

talon8635 wrote: post #73

Birth rates are in decline. The global population is estimated to peak in the 2080s. I suspect that could be later than reality as the endless doom (like this article) inspires more and more people to not have kids. Then as the population declines precipitously, nature takes back over and begins resolving the problem itself.

Hilariously naive take. Typical HN.

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

#80

Post by sparkie »

HEmanZ wrote: post #41
sho_hn wrote: 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"

The poorest in society are the lowest CO2 emitters - they don't fly often, many don't own a car and use public transport - they can't afford meat in every meal - can't afford air con in summer or heating in winter.

Conversely, the wealthiest are frequent flyers, are chauffeured about in SUVs and rarely walk. They have everything they'll ever need and don't concern themselves about running the AC or heating.

They're preaching to the poor guy about what he needs to do to stop climate change.

Even if the poor guy wanted to care, he can't do much, but the people who claim to care could do a lot more, if they really did care.

The media circus tries to put the blame on the poor, while ignoring the emissions of the celebrities and treating them as royalty. Is it any wonder most people simply don't care?

If the media cared, they would be making villains of the celebrities and idols of the poor.

Post reply on HN