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

Global warming will exceed 1.5-degree limit, UN says

pbs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 398 posts

Re: Global warming will exceed 1.5-degree limit, UN says

#361

Post by tcfhgj »

epistasis wrote: post #356
tcfhgj wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) renewable energy is only a part of climate action, it's not sufficient - renewable energy being cheap alone doesn't help a bit if you don't keep fossil fuel in the ground 2) not technology aligned societies incentive systems, but politics which a) incentivized producing electricity by renewable methods and punishing electricity produced by fossil fuels, which again encouraged research which in return made renewabl…

Renewable energy and replacing carbon emitting industrial chemistry with carbon neutral processes are the sum entirely of climate action. There might be a tiny bit of nuclear built, but we don't have the capability to build enough to make a dent in the time scale we need to, and nuclear is far more expensive than solar plus batteries, so the profit motive means solar wind and batteries will win. The people that built…

> But it was technology action that is solving climate change.

what even is this?

> We don't need carbon taxes,

yes we need them, otherwise we will keep emitting CO2 as always

> We don't need carbon taxes, those turned out to misalign incentives in weird ways (not all industries are equally sensitive to carbon prices, so applying equal taxes is far less than economically ideal for motivationchanges).

so? the ones which are most sensitive (usually the ones with the highest footprint) will transition first, others will follow later with increasing cost of emitting co2 - not including difficulty which will rebalance the equation

> Tax credits and guaranteed small purchases turned out to be extremely effective and efficient.

what tax credits and what guaranteed small purchases? and how do they prevent greenhouse gas emissions? and why do we want them if technology already provides the incentives (your claim)?

Re: Global warming will exceed 1.5-degree limit, UN says

#362

Post by wolvoleo »

drfloyd51 wrote: post #57
Der_Einzige wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Significant amounts of the third world are already eating de-facto vegetarian or vegan diets. Many for religious reasons (i.e. in India where the vast majority of people either eat no meat or only chicken/fish), and many others for financial reasons. Strict vegan diets would objectively massively help reduce climate change.

Religious and too poor to eat meat. Not exactly selling the idea of “strict vegan diet” to a bunch of people with enough cash for meat and incisors in their jaws. You got any examples of cultures en mass with “strict vegan diets” because lentils taste delicious?

Buddhists don't eat meat for religious reasons.

And lentils do taste very good yes. In Spain they make a really nice lentil broth. Though the traditional version has meat in it, it can easily do without. It's just that in Spain meat goes into everything:)

Re: Global warming will exceed 1.5-degree limit, UN says

#363

Post by kalleboo »

internet2000 wrote: post #345
Tadpole9181 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, quick question, who does virtually all manufacturing for US and Canadian and EU citizens? And why is the rise of Chinas emissions so coincidentally timed to the fall of those countries'? I didn't go into the study, but looking at all the little text blurbs about the numbers, I don't see anything about if a US citizen purchasing a product that's made in China counts as US emission, as it obviously should.

Are we forcing China to make stuff for us?

If China suddenly stopped exporting to the US overnight, you can bet you would.

Re: Global warming will exceed 1.5-degree limit, UN says

#364

Post by somenameforme »

card_zero wrote: post #191
somenameforme wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also completely self defeating. Children tend to end up adopting the values of their parents over time. If climate people just remove themselves from the gene pool, their impact on the climate is going to be negligibly small, but there being that many fewer voices of similar values in the future, will have a much more significant impact. Imagine you're a hyper-partisan and you learn that 'the other side' is spre…

> Children tend to end up adopting the values of their parents over time No, they don't. If that was true, we'd have prehistoric values. (It would mean you could turn matters of culture into genetic arguments, which is fun, I see the temptation, but it's just not true.)

Consider evolution because it's something similar on an even more gradual scale. Species tend to be very much like the things they came from, yet we have obviously a wide array of species over time because small differences can accumulate on their own 'branch' and eventually diverge to the point of creating entirely new species. But if a species chose to just stop having children, it's not going to have anywhere near the numbers it once did, anytime soon. In extreme cases, it just goes extinct.

It's similar with most views and values. Your children will mostly share all of them with you once they reach a certain age. It's something I can even feel happening with my own parents as I age, rather to my distaste. hahah. Anyhow, yeah - there's about a zillion studies on this topic and you can find that parents values are most predictive of those of their children.

And of course with values and other characteristics, even if parental views/values are highly predictive, there's going to be some variance. But you still end up with the fact that if a bunch of people remove themselves from the gene pool, any definingly common characteristics of those individuals are also going to be disproportionately removed from society as well.

Re: Global warming will exceed 1.5-degree limit, UN says

#365

Post by tstrimple »

adrianN wrote: post #299
exe34 wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless they can't, then they get very angry: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Di55DEnNkUs It's tied to their identity for a lot of people. The same kinds that will drive a huge SUV to compensate for the hole in their lives where meaning and connection is supposed to be.

I don’t think that is a majority behavior. Few people consume to own the libs. At least far fewer people than those who just like meat more than they care about their marginal contributions to climate change.

Given who the president of the United States is. They are at least a plurality.

Re: Global warming will exceed 1.5-degree limit, UN says

#367

Post by epistasis »

breezybottom wrote: post #307
epistasis wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Paris Accords are the exact opposite of the 2020s movements I criticize, Sunrise and XR.

Another sweeping claim that doesn't actually say anything. How is it the "exact opposite"?

I was very specific in the failings of Sunrise and XR and they contrast greatly with efforts like energy star or the Paris accords, and their members would say they same thing in that they tried something very different.

My comments have been very specific, but you can't manage more than a sentence. Further, you have not even engaged with a single one of my words or statements.

Re: Global warming will exceed 1.5-degree limit, UN says

#368

Post by mancerayder »

ThrowawayIP wrote: post #16
multiplegeorges wrote: post #2

Not much of a surprise. Government action has been anemic at best. Industry action (overall) has been net negative. The only hope now is exponential growth of (solar and wind)+batteries making other sources uneconomic. This seems to be slowly happening, so I hope we hit the exponential curve soon and we're there quicker than we expect. This only stops it. Then, to fix it, we'll need a massive Direct Air Capture indus…

The technology-will-save-us mentality is part of the reason we are here. We live in a society that doesn't do anything unless it makes money for some set of decrepit old men. We had the means to avoid this (strict vegan diets, ground based mass transit, dense development & re-wilding, energy transition) but people made money doing the opposite. And more people made money sabotaging solar+battery pricing in the US. So…

>We had the means to avoid this (strict vegan diets, ground based mass transit, dense development

In other words, live a privileged person's life in an expensive city, risk malnutrition with a complicated diet, and don't ever leave the country (on a plane).

As if the sources of climate change are you and me, and not industry in any way. It feels more like a way to say, live like me or almost literally burn in Hell.

Re: Global warming will exceed 1.5-degree limit, UN says

#369

Post by adrianN »

tstrimple wrote: post #365
adrianN wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think that is a majority behavior. Few people consume to own the libs. At least far fewer people than those who just like meat more than they care about their marginal contributions to climate change.

Given who the president of the United States is. They are at least a plurality.

I think that’sa harmful oversimplification. You should avoid arguing against a boogeyman version of your political opponents. People vote for crazy candidates for a multitude of reasons. Most people have fairly average opinions on the majority of topics but can only vote for candidates that partially represent their preferences. I for example have fairly radical preferences when it comes to environmental policy but agree more with conservative opinions on other topics. There are no parties in my country that promise to make me completely happy.

The broken US voting system amplifies the effect.

Re: Global warming will exceed 1.5-degree limit, UN says

#370

Post by card_zero »

somenameforme wrote: post #364
card_zero wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Children tend to end up adopting the values of their parents over time No, they don't. If that was true, we'd have prehistoric values. (It would mean you could turn matters of culture into genetic arguments, which is fun, I see the temptation, but it's just not true.)

Consider evolution because it's something similar on an even more gradual scale. Species tend to be very much like the things they came from, yet we have obviously a wide array of species over time because small differences can accumulate on their own 'branch' and eventually diverge to the point of creating entirely new species. But if a species chose to just stop having children, it's not going to have anywhere near…

You're saying it again! It's still not true. People think about the values that they're handed.
Post reply on HN