Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor • Hacker News Board

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#121

Post by PhasmaFelis » Thu, Dec 20, 2018, 10:47 PM UTC

recusancy wrote: post #116

chiefalchemist wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "convince businesses that they're going to be impacted financially" Yes and no. My take is this: there's too much time and energy being put into why and who does or doesn't believe (it's human-made), and not enough focus is on "solutions" (to the higher waters). Often this distraction seems to be generated by politicians. I wish I had $10 for every time I've seen an article misuse the phrase "climate-change deniers…

> "The debate is why it's happening (human vs natural)." There is no debate. When people say "climate-change deniers" they mean "rapid anthropogenic caused climate-change deniers"

There are still people who insist that the whole thing is made up. See "40 years ago they predicted global cooling!", "It was below freezing last night, so much for global warming!", etc., etc.

They're getting rarer, though. As the evidence piles up, more and more of them are switching to "global warming is real but it's nobody's fault and there's definitely nothing we can or should do about it."

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#122

Post by lifeformed » Thu, Dec 20, 2018, 10:53 PM UTC

njarboe wrote: post #118

lifeformed wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understood why "climate skeptics" don't see past this glaringly obvious fact: almost every time there is some "rebuttal" against climate change, the source comes back to a conservative think tank or oil company. Hello??? It's so frustrating.

I never understood why "climate change" advocates don't see past this glaringly obvious fact: almost every time there is some action advocated to "stop climate change", the source comes back to some progressive group. They are always advocating some pet progressive agenda like mass transit, human population reduction, or the reduction of living standards by forcing energy use reductions. Hello??? It's so frustrating.…

> I never understood why "climate change" advocates don't see past this glaringly obvious fact: almost every time there is some action advocated to "stop climate change", the source comes back to some progressive group. They are always advocating some pet progressive agenda like mass transit, human population reduction, or the reduction of living standards by forcing energy use reductions. Hello??? It's so frustrating.

That's not quite true - there are plenty of non-partisan and even conservative groups that accept climate change. For example, the US military and the Department of Defense: not exactly a progressive think tank. Yet they accept the reality of the situation, since they are pragmatic and actually have to deal directly with the consequences. They study how climate change affects world stability and combat and are actively preparing for it. Many oil companies have finally admitted to the facts and tip toe around the issue for PR safety. Even Trump is building sea walls around his vulnerable properties while milking the political benefits from denialism.

As for your second paragraph, yes, I agree, let's focus on the implementation. There's a lot of imperfect solutions that we need to sort through. I just wish we could already all be at that stage.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#123

Post by Udik » Thu, Dec 20, 2018, 11:08 PM UTC

freehunter wrote: post #33

jonas21 wrote: post #8

> The report’s authors estimated the initial cost of protecting the study area to be $78 million, based on the premise that water levels around Wilmington would rise 2 feet by 2050. That's a drop in the bucket compared to Amtrak's $38 billion maintenance backlog or the $13 billion Hudson tunnel project. Out of all the potential effects of climate change, this seems like one of the least worrisome -- we even know how…

>this seems like one of the least worrisome -- we even know how to fix it already! The biggest struggle with climate change (in the US at least) is trying to convince businesses that they're going to be impacted financially. If anything we need more industry-specific reporting to try to show companies how ignoring climate change will impact their bottom line.

> The biggest struggle with climate change (in the US at least) is trying to convince businesses that they're going to be impacted financially.

You also need to convince them that any local mitigation action (maintenance, waters management, etc.) will impact them financially more than a global concerted effort to stop co2 emissions. Which seems a very difficult argument to make.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#124

Post by Udik » Thu, Dec 20, 2018, 11:14 PM UTC

Joeri wrote: post #83

mortivore wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it matters if you show businesses that climate will impact them financially. The people running the show may not be running it when the financial burden actually comes around. If there is no impact or very little for the person/people currently running the business, then there is no reason to make a move to prevent/mitigate the problem.

Not only that but I’m pretty sure that when the climate change bill comes due businesses will demand government help pay it, with the argument that the whole thing is the government’s fault anyway. And they’ll get what they want, because they always do.

> when the climate change bill comes due businesses will demand government help pay it

What is the difference between having the government- the totality of citizens- pay for climate change mitigation; and adopting extremely expensive global measures that will make everyone poorer for a number of decades? I'm asking seriously. It seems very similar to me: in both cases the whole collectivity will pay (which is fair, since it's the whole collectivity that is enjoying the benefits of freely polluting the environment now).

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#125

Post by Udik » Thu, Dec 20, 2018, 11:22 PM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #53

freehunter wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>this seems like one of the least worrisome -- we even know how to fix it already! The biggest struggle with climate change (in the US at least) is trying to convince businesses that they're going to be impacted financially. If anything we need more industry-specific reporting to try to show companies how ignoring climate change will impact their bottom line.

Amtrak is weirdly a company that will suffer from climate change and could actually start addressing it (they end up shipping the vast majority of coal and could at least tax the movement of that good to recoup this expense) but most companies that will be hit by the effects of climate change won't be significantly contributing to it. Industries that see ever more profit in fields with high externalities won't have d…

> most companies that will be hit by the effects of climate change won't be significantly contributing to it.

Hmm. And how do you measure this? Yes, Company X ships the coal, but everybody uses the steel that is produced with that coal. Tax the coal, and the steel will be more expensive. Same for the cement. Or electricity. Companies that don't profit from coal transportation still enjoyed a good price for the steel and concrete of their headquarters and warehouses; for the steel structures of the bridges and the hulls of the ships that move their goods; for the machinery that produce all this stuff. The value of the salary they pay to their employees is measured in relation to what can be bought with it: make stuff more expensive, and the people will be poorer. Everybody is profiting from cheap stuff. Everybody should, and will, pay.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#126

Post by belorn » Thu, Dec 20, 2018, 11:36 PM UTC

chiefalchemist wrote: post #108

freehunter wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>this seems like one of the least worrisome -- we even know how to fix it already! The biggest struggle with climate change (in the US at least) is trying to convince businesses that they're going to be impacted financially. If anything we need more industry-specific reporting to try to show companies how ignoring climate change will impact their bottom line.

> "convince businesses that they're going to be impacted financially" Yes and no. My take is this: there's too much time and energy being put into why and who does or doesn't believe (it's human-made), and not enough focus is on "solutions" (to the higher waters). Often this distraction seems to be generated by politicians. I wish I had $10 for every time I've seen an article misuse the phrase "climate-change deniers…

Like you I see very few climate-change deniers, here or elsewhere. I see instead most disagreement and heavy discussion on what to do and what is the most efficient way to go forward. I have gotten many downvotes in the past referencing the recent study that listed "the most effective individual steps to tackle climate change", since it lists car ownership as being worse than eating meat.

I would therefore say that the debate is on what action that both individually and as a society that needs to be done. Abolishing coal mining vs replacing coal power plants with nuclear power plants, car ownership vs vegetarianism, carbon tax vs bans, and so on. We are collectively so divided that even if we all mostly agree that climate-change exists and is directly caused by us humans we can still not agree on what to do next.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#127

Post by hexane360 » Thu, Dec 20, 2018, 11:40 PM UTC

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #121

recusancy wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "The debate is why it's happening (human vs natural)." There is no debate. When people say "climate-change deniers" they mean "rapid anthropogenic caused climate-change deniers"

There are still people who insist that the whole thing is made up. See "40 years ago they predicted global cooling!", "It was below freezing last night, so much for global warming!", etc., etc. They're getting rarer, though. As the evidence piles up, more and more of them are switching to "global warming is real but it's nobody's fault and there's definitely nothing we can or should do about it."

The thing is, it's not a debate against people who are well informed and honestly think the above (or outright denial). It's against lobbyists who will say anything to prevent regulation, and the uninformed who repeat whatever they heard last from those lobbyists (or some false middle ground between science and lobbyists).

Whatever actual argument is stated (geologic, sun cycles, not happening, no big deal), the end objective is the same: we shouldn't do anything about it.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#128

Post by EPress1970 » Thu, Dec 20, 2018, 11:41 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #99

koops wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about sea level rise prediction accuracy, but temperature "hindcasts" hold up pretty well: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-m...

> I don't know about sea level rise prediction accuracy We have no way of knowing because no predictions were made for periods of time prior to now, so we have nothing to compare with the data. The dire predictions of rapid rise in the future are based on the future predictions of climate models being correct, but the models are already known to over-predict future warming. https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/27/special-…

What's noteworthy is that the IPCC forecast for sea level rise is not accepted anymore by many, for some reason. The IPCC used to be gold standard, now it's not alarmist enough. From the report:

> Subsequent to the 2013 IPCC AR5, there has been a focus on the possible worst-case scenario for global sea level rise. Estimates of the maximum possible global sea level rise by the end of the 21st century range from 1.6 to 3 meters [5-10 feet], and even higher. These extreme values of possible sea level rise are regarded as extremely unlikely or so unlikely that we cannot even assign a probability. Nevertheless, these extreme, barely possible values of sea level rise are now becoming anchored as outcomes that are driving local adaptation plans

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#129

Post by hexane360 » Thu, Dec 20, 2018, 11:44 PM UTC

Udik wrote: post #124

Joeri wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only that but I’m pretty sure that when the climate change bill comes due businesses will demand government help pay it, with the argument that the whole thing is the government’s fault anyway. And they’ll get what they want, because they always do.

> when the climate change bill comes due businesses will demand government help pay it What is the difference between having the government- the totality of citizens- pay for climate change mitigation; and adopting extremely expensive global measures that will make everyone poorer for a number of decades? I'm asking seriously. It seems very similar to me: in both cases the whole collectivity will pay (which is fair,…

One takes disproportionately from those hurting the environment, providing incentives to cease and desist destructive behavior, while the other assumes that everyone and everything hurts the climate equally.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#130

Post by reddog » Thu, Dec 20, 2018, 11:45 PM UTC

freehunter wrote: post #33

jonas21 wrote: post #8

> The report’s authors estimated the initial cost of protecting the study area to be $78 million, based on the premise that water levels around Wilmington would rise 2 feet by 2050. That's a drop in the bucket compared to Amtrak's $38 billion maintenance backlog or the $13 billion Hudson tunnel project. Out of all the potential effects of climate change, this seems like one of the least worrisome -- we even know how…

>this seems like one of the least worrisome -- we even know how to fix it already! The biggest struggle with climate change (in the US at least) is trying to convince businesses that they're going to be impacted financially. If anything we need more industry-specific reporting to try to show companies how ignoring climate change will impact their bottom line.

>If anything we need more industry-specific reporting to try to show companies how ignoring climate change will impact their bottom line.

The life span of the average business is about 10 years. The median employment tenure (years that wage and salary workers had been with their current employer) in 4.2 years. It's awefully tough to get anyone today to care about the bottom line in Q3 2068.