Climate-Related Death of Coral Around World Alarms Scientists • Hacker News Board

Re: Climate-Related Death of Coral Around World Alarms Scientists

#121

Post by stcredzero » Sun, Apr 10, 2016, 5:42 PM UTC

pink_dinner wrote: post #115

appleflaxen wrote: post #3

There is a whole lot of climate change evidence coming out that is terrifying. At what point does this become so scary that something happens to increase the taxes on fossil fuels so that consumption will go down? Falling renewable prices are not enough, and use-based taxes are the single best way to let individuals make their own decisions about what/how much to use. Carbon credits are a good market-based solution t…

As long as you also increase taxes and have penalties in every country. Go to India, Hong Kong, Indonesia, China (The list could go on). The air is polluted with the stench of car exhaust pretty much every where you go. I even went to London a few months ago and got sick because of the pollution. When I would blow my nose at the end of the day, black nasty soot would be on the kleenix. The US has done a lot to help o…

Are we also going to tax electric vehicles because the batteries cause damage to the environment (and we don't have a good way to dispose of them yet)?

Do you have citations for this?

Re: Climate-Related Death of Coral Around World Alarms Scientists

#122

Post by mikeash » Sun, Apr 10, 2016, 5:45 PM UTC

guscost wrote: post #97

ocschwar wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"At least some of the activism is motivated by fear, when people notice this or that smaller problem, get very scared by warnings of much bigger problems to come, and make the not-completely-rational choice to give up freedom for the promise of safety. " And just what "freedoms" are we talking about here? Please elaborate so we can mock your argument a little more thoroughly. -----

The freedom to drill an oil well on land you own, for example. And by the way, I'm very used to "not being treated with respect" from the opposition on this topic. Usually they aren't so eager to keep mentioning it, though. What's the deal?

I see nothing wrong with drilling an oil well on your own land. Where we have a problem is when you start spreading that oil, or stuff derived from it, in my air and water. For reasons I don't understand, the "property rights and personal freedom" crowd usually (though certainly not always) thinks the freedom to pollute outweighs the freedom not to have your property polluted.

Re: Climate-Related Death of Coral Around World Alarms Scientists

#123

Post by stcredzero » Sun, Apr 10, 2016, 5:47 PM UTC

dmix wrote: post #54

fche wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cowspiracy's points on GHG emission and water consumption are simply illiterate. They don't recognize the concept of a net flow. (e.g.: carbon that comes out of a cow first went into a cow - via its food - which got apprx. all its carbon from the air)

Most of the science from Cowspiracy is still on point. A percentage was exaggerated but the main point remains persuasive: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KpmTiHjUEBU Especially as China and other countries continue eating more meat at higher and higher rates.

Given the data, the smart thing to do is to prepare for a world with that many more cows and pigs. The externality of the carbon released when forests are cut down needs to be paid for.

Re: Climate-Related Death of Coral Around World Alarms Scientists

#124

Post by cavisne » Sun, Apr 10, 2016, 5:49 PM UTC

giaour wrote: post #100

downandout wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>in a genuinely neutral sense Asking if someone supports politicians that claim to be eco-conscious while raising campaign money, who are almost universally left-leaning, is far from "neutral". There are places on the Internet to espouse political support for either side. This, however, is not one of them.

Supporting environmentally friendly legislation is orthogonal to the economic concerns that divide the left and right. It's true that environmentalists are associated with the left in the US, but that's not true everywhere in the world.

Got a good example of this? Every policy I've seen relating to reducing emissions involves higher taxes and redistribution of wealth by a bigger government.

Environmentally friendly legislation can be a bit more diverse but that doesn't really exist now, emissions is all people discuss.

Re: Climate-Related Death of Coral Around World Alarms Scientists

#125

Post by eikenberry » Sun, Apr 10, 2016, 5:50 PM UTC

czechdeveloper wrote: post #112

Taek wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we will see significant change until people are dying by the millions, in first world countries. If Japan is losing population to climate change, if the US is losing population to climate change, if the EU is losing population to climate change, THEN we will see change. Deaths in Indonesia, middle East, Africa, South + Central America won't be enough to inspire change. The people who have the power won'…

Well, then it will be way too late to do anything.

Which is a good reason why we should be spending time researching what to do when that happens instead of only on prevention. The possibility of 100% prevention is _very_ small, we will need to deal with the ramifications.

Re: Climate-Related Death of Coral Around World Alarms Scientists

#126

Post by ced » Sun, Apr 10, 2016, 5:52 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #51

dmix wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cows and other animal agriculture contributes as much or more [1], to climate change than all cars and trucks. So eating less meat is one good way. > Livestock is responsible for 65% of all human-related emissions of nitrous oxide – a greenhouse gas with 296 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide, and which stays in the atmosphere for 150 years. -“Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Option…

Nitrous oxide and Methane both break down in the atmosphere. If we where starting from zero then sure they would both have a large impact but they are both in sufficient quantities that lot's of them are breaking down making the future contribution have a negotiable net effect.

Are you saying that there is a ceiling to how much methane can be up there, and we've reached it?

Re: Climate-Related Death of Coral Around World Alarms Scientists

#127

Post by lostcolony » Sun, Apr 10, 2016, 5:59 PM UTC

downandout wrote: post #79

nothrabannosir wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see a lot of down-vote worthy responses to OP, and more downvotes. But in this case, I honestly don't see it: why is this not a fair question? I mean, in a genuinely neutral sense; isn't he right?

>in a genuinely neutral sense Asking if someone supports politicians that claim to be eco-conscious while raising campaign money, who are almost universally left-leaning, is far from "neutral". There are places on the Internet to espouse political support for either side. This, however, is not one of them.

Wait wait wait.

Someone proposed the rhetorical question of "what politicians do you support" as one of the "ways you can affect climate change". The poster is not saying "You should vote (in a particular way)", nor even generalizing what positions the respective parties take, just that voting affects climate policy, which affects climate. The poster literally only said "the way you vote affects the way climate is handled", and -you- are inferring a bias, and a political motivation, and crying foul.

By that logic, we can't talk about voting being a means to -any- end. "How can we prevent the TPP" "Vote out those in favor of it" "NO NO NO, POLITICAL COMMENTARY, GTFO!"

Re: Climate-Related Death of Coral Around World Alarms Scientists

#128

Post by throwaway5752 » Sun, Apr 10, 2016, 5:59 PM UTC

xfactor973 wrote: post #32

I planted about 50 fruit trees and bushes when I moved into my new place. I also converted the electric to 100% renewable. Other than dumping my natural gas heater I'm not sure what's left that I can do to help reduce climate change.

Politics are the primary enemy of progress. Right now incentives for renewables are being cancelled at a state and national level across the US. That is unacceptable low hanging fruit. NASA, the NWS, and even the NHS (see Zika) should all be studying this actively (edit: and coordinating this research, and publishing/sharing data). Carbon taxes shouldn't just be on the table, they should be in place and should form the basis of tariffs.

This is happening right now, it's not a future thing. We're dealing with it whether we want to or not.

Sadly, your natural gas heater is currently more carbon friendly than electric heat. In an interconnected grid, what you are using is probably offset by a mix of coal and gas generation, and to get to you it's suffering transmission loss. Solar hot water is a big win, though, especially if you are electric there. Same with insulation. Eat less meat. Repair vs replace.

Good luck to all of us.

edit: full disclosure, I replied to you without reading the article. I just read it. Holy shit. I wish there was someone that could comfort me that between ocean acidification, conveyor current shutdown, Greenland/Ross shelf based melting, threats to krill lifecycle, precipitation changes, and changes in farmland suitability (among others) ... we are looking at mass human die-offs over most people heres' lifetimes. When you look at the level of interconnection across the world, specialization, fragility of our complex systems... it's hard for me to not come up with a back of envelope figure ~6 billion deaths from starvation & conflict. Based on our resource extraction rate, it could easily make this the peak of human civilization.

Re: Climate-Related Death of Coral Around World Alarms Scientists

#129

Post by aqme28 » Sun, Apr 10, 2016, 6:01 PM UTC

ccallebs wrote: post #109

aqme28 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cows produce a lot of methane, which is far worse than carbon dioxide. Additionally, something has to ship all that food to the cows.

Often in Texas, it's cheaper to ship the cows to the food than the alternative. Not trying to be pedantic, but it's an interesting factoid.

I did not know that. That is interesting!

Re: Climate-Related Death of Coral Around World Alarms Scientists

#130

Post by guscost » Sun, Apr 10, 2016, 6:10 PM UTC

cromulent wrote: post #113

guscost wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer you're leading toward is "something akin to apocalypse", and I get it, it's scary. On the other hand have you really taken enough time to consider the consequences if your faction is wrong? Have you acknowledged that there could be bad consequences in that case too? Typically I hear "we would be taking better care of the environment anyway so win-win" but nobody ever adds "by granting loads of new power to…

I wouldn't characterize the situation in either of those ways. I think we could all agree that non-renewable energy sources will run out at some point. Hence the name :). Or, to be more precise, the extraction of non-renewables will cost more than their utility. So, at some point we have to transition: first to a mix, and eventually to renewables only. I would venture that we could also agree that those who make thei…

OK, first of all I appreciate the thoughtful response.

I agree that the necessary transition from scarce hydrocarbons to something else, whenever that happens, is not likely to be totally pain-free. One of the traditional problems with markets is the turbulence that happens around these big paradigm shifts. America is in the middle of one right now as we transition to an information-based economy.

I don't agree that the existing players in the hydrocarbon market have the ability to delay the change in the way that you're implying. In other words, resource availability is not a stepwise function that can just go from "available" to "not available" overnight. Rare things gradually get more expensive, investment is gradually shifted into alternatives, and this is basically guaranteed to happen with oil as long as there is not a perfect monopoly or perfect collusion.

Also I'm skeptical that the economic policies you're suggesting won't lead to giving up freedoms. In practice freedoms do get taken away very often when institutions obtain the power to do so (e.g. the regulatory blockade on nuclear power, the ratcheting emissions rules for automobiles that will make a legal gasoline-powered car physically impossible in the near future, the outright ban on fracking in NY). I think this has a good chance of happening even if the initial plan is just to influence the market. A possible scenario: Some bad idea is encouraged for whatever reason by policy makers, and the economic policy isn't able to overcome the fact that it is a bad idea, so the decision makers cling to the sunk cost and pile on more regulations, until they start taking away freedoms.

For the record I'm not a big fan of the current agricultural policies we have in general, even though I do think imposing a tariff or offering an incentive is infinitely preferable to a ban.