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

161–170 of 176 posts

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

#161

Post by card_zero »

chneu wrote: post #75
veqq wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The mentality of "it's our fault because they emit to sell to us" is bad. Who is in control of what they do?

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

#162

Post by card_zero »

defrost wrote: post #160
card_zero wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now, now, it's only half as much as the rest of the world combined, and only twice the USA and Canada together.

and only 15% of the global cumulative total to the USofA's 25% (plus/minus the usual quibble about sources and definitions). Meanwhile, the problem persists and grows.

So why are you invoking the last seven decades ("cumulative")?

Boring answer: in order to find a way to blame the US, which is the more urgent problem.

I don't think a lot of the people being vocal about climate change even care about solving it, they care about ideological enemies.

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

#164

Post by danans »

rickydroll wrote: post #148
danans wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They kinda do via net metering tariffs and curtailment. They don't own your system through net metering. If you have net metering you are using the grid as a battery, which has a cost - the infrastructure to support net metering isn't free. For a long time residential solar customers (like me) were being subsidized for the upstream load we put on the grid. > Now if one could get spot prices and sell your power then…

That's why I said kinda. Strictly speaking, you are right. They don't own your system. However, to me if somebody controls what you do with your electricity I.e export or curtailed, you don't own the the work product of your system. Virtual power plant model you've described doesn't exist here in New England. National grid has some sort of thing where you can make a grand or two a year if they can use your battery du…

> However, to me if somebody controls what you do with your electricity I.e export or curtailed, you don't own the the work product of your system.

They are controlling/charging for the use of the infrastructure. If you want to export power to, for example, the AI datacenter down the road, that power has to flow through the utility's lines, transformers, substations, etc. all of that incurs a cost to that infrastructure, including additional maintenance and faster depreciation and replacement times.

It's like the roads leading to your house - you pay for those also, via some form of tax. And if they are congested to an unsafe level, your access to them can be similarly metered or curtailed.

Also like roads, electricity distribution is a natural monopoly - you aren't going to have tons of companies stringing up independent power lines - for safety reasons at the minimum, which is why it's good if it's run by an accountable municipal agency, rather than an unaccountable for-profit corporation.

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

#165

Post by card_zero »

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…

The title has that generic alarmist flavor, but the article is rather sensible: persistent anticyclones may form every summer, such as one over Europe, leading to regular droughts and perhaps an urgent need for desalination plants. The message is to be ready to build infrastructure like that, if this seems to be happening.

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

#167

Post by Henchman21 »

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…

You can sit back and cook to death like the rest of us.

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

#168

Post by talon8635 »

dgellow wrote: post #90
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.

Population decline will not solve climate change, we already passed multiple points of no return that will result in worsening climate for the next 50-100y. And there won’t be a way to roll back those changes

The earth has been both a molten glob of lava and a frozen ball of ice. Surely you jest.

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

#169

Post by 1attice »

defrost wrote: post #141
goawaydang wrote: post #140

[flagged]

Honest Question: what bearing does that have on the words written by and opinion of: Tim Palmer, Royal Society Research Professor Emeritus at the Department of Physics, University of Oxford.

This is unintentionally hilarious, but also very recent: Economist for most of its publication history banned naming authors. You knew them only as The Economist.

Meanwhile, physicists are not known for their great views on other matters. A physicist talking about climate change is sus, no matter what their pedigree.

It's almost as if expertise is localized by domain!

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

#170

Post by talon8635 »

mangecoeur wrote: post #62
talon8635 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your both admitting you have no evidence and implying there is evidence woolly it were studied properly given your use of “interesting”

Of course, such a study could be entirely uninteresting if it turn up no effect at all

Post reply on HN