Live data from Hacker News

Charts show how little progress has been made in limiting greenhouse emissions

nature.com

121–130 of 147 posts

Re: Charts show how little progress has been made in limiting greenhouse emissions

#121
post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it is. And I can continue that all day long. When you are standing on the rails with a high-speed train rushing towards you and your buddy next to you is yelling "LET'S GET OF THE RAILS OR WE'RE GOING TO DIE!", that's not alarmist. But you try to make it look like that. Seriously. Looking at your history of comments, climate change denials seems to be one of your things, so trying to reach you is probably a lost…

That's a pretty pessimistic view, with no basis in reality. Fact is, the world has more people than ever, yet is richer than ever, there's less poverty and hunger than ever, the world is more peaceful than ever, and there's certainly no signs of collapse and certainly not in 1 decade smh... If you truly believe that we're a decade away from collapse, why aren't you stockpiling food and weapons in a bunker? Because th…

I don't know where you got the 10 years from.

Yes, we've got more people than ever. There is less poverty and hunger than ever. The world is more peaceful than ever. That's because we've been on a glut of predatory ecosystem exploitation for the last 150 years.

The signs that we are running headlong into a global ecosystem collapse are everywhere. So my view is pretty much based in reality, so here are my facts.

If you care to check them.

We've wiped out 60% percents of mammals, birds, fish and reptiles since the 1970 (https://s3.amazonaws.com/wwfassets/downloads/lpr2018_summary...).

We've killed about 30% of the insect population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_in_insect_populations

Phytoplankton has been reduced by 50% since the 1950s https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09268 . You know, that's the stuff that produces our oxygen (https://earthsky.org/earth/how-much-do-oceans-add-to-worlds-...). An increase in temperature of about 5°C and more will probably kill off most phytoplankton.

These are just some documented and recorded facts. Now we get to the fun part, where we think about their impact.

Let's take for a given that the antrophogenic climate change won't stop at the blue-sky +2°C that everyone is hoping so hard for (hoping, not acting). According to IPCC 2018, we're CURRENTLY between +0.75 and +1.25°C, with the very real possibility of reaching +2°C by the 2040.

We thought that we had about 30 years to mitigate some of the worst damage. But now - holy shit! - the arctic permafrost is melting, about 70 years earlier than expected. And it's starting to release methane, a way more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Sure, it rapidly decays in the atmosphere, but not before kicking us to about +4°C. This is the temperature range where some Scientists fear that frozen methane from the ocean floor will start to be released.

(Do you remember that at about +5°Celsius the phytoplankton will start dying off? )

So, we have a massive temperature increase at an unprecedented speed that makes huge areas of earths most populous regions inhospitable or even inhabitable. Do you think the Syrian refugee crisis was bad? Think about ~1 BILLION PEOPLE on the search for greener (literally) pastures. Do you think they will be welcome with open arms? Yeah, you bet..

Agriculture will be severely impacted. Not only by the heat, but also by the massive die-off that ensues. Most of the animals on earth have a lifecycle that's very closely tuned to the hum of the seasons. At +4°C you can kiss all that goodbye. The only things that will survive are generalist species that have a lifecycle not tied to the seasons. (Cockroaches maybe. Certainly not butterflies. Enjoy them while they last!)

There will also be terrible conflicts and wars about the most precious resource of them all. No, not oil. We'll have oil in barrels, nobody will be lacking oil (at least at first). No, I mean water. We'll have water wars.

This will also be the time that the global economy will start to collapse. War is good for only one business, and that's weapons. Everything else will suffer. Don't expect any deliveries from your Chinese online shop of choice. Consumer markets will crash, everything will come to a standstill.

No, I don't stockpile. Because this is going to happen over the course the next 30 years and I'll be long dead when the really bad shit is starting to happen. I've trained my kids to be able to work with wood and scrap metals to improvise all kinds of tools and machines. All of them are also receiving training as horticulturalists, for what's that worth.

That's the least I can do for them.

Re: Charts show how little progress has been made in limiting greenhouse emissions

#122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Food is an economic data point, frequently a commodity. I know people want to think of as something more special or somehow different, but it isn't. When cheap industrial food goes away the population suffers and the remainder of people who shake out figure it out from other available options. I observed this in Afghanistan.

Just so I can reverse your convenient sterilization of terms, On a global scale you are talking about millions of people starving to death.

What do the numbers say? Crying about it won't prevent starvation or any other sort of resource depletion.

Re: Charts show how little progress has been made in limiting greenhouse emissions

#123
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the Earth doesn't care about is the arbitrary lines in the sand we declare to be this nation or that.

What Earth does care about, is when you decide that's a good idea to have on average more than 4 children per couple over the last 2 generations in India [1] instead of only 2 or even less children per couple like in USA or the EU [2]. [1] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/IND/india/fertility-ra... [2] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/fert... Every country has a set of natural resources at…

You're making my point. The US went through the same process, with the same birth rate interrupted only by the great depression until two generations ago.

There aren't countries, there are humans responding to the same conditions similarly. Economic development will slow their reproductive rate, like clockwork.

If you point to a family in the 60s in the US and a family in India today and find only one of them irresponsible, your thinking is flawed.

I assume you're following through with your convictions and will remain child free?

Re: Charts show how little progress has been made in limiting greenhouse emissions

#124
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What Earth does care about, is when you decide that's a good idea to have on average more than 4 children per couple over the last 2 generations in India [1] instead of only 2 or even less children per couple like in USA or the EU [2]. [1] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/IND/india/fertility-ra... [2] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/fert... Every country has a set of natural resources at…

You're making my point. The US went through the same process, with the same birth rate interrupted only by the great depression until two generations ago. There aren't countries, there are humans responding to the same conditions similarly. Economic development will slow their reproductive rate, like clockwork. If you point to a family in the 60s in the US and a family in India today and find only one of them irrespo…

> I assume you're following through with your convictions and will remain child free?

No, I will remain with my child at replacement rate (a little below actually), like my parents and my grandparents did (and all parents and grandparents on average here), and I expect them to be entitled to a lot more resources than someone who lives in a country where (on average) their parents, grandparents and themselves didn't follow the same principle.

As a fact, India's CO2 emissions per unit area are almost the same as EU. We are using the same share of ecological resources (assuming roughly they are equivalent on average per area), so there is nothing to give or to take from both sides.

P.S.: A family in USA in the 60's, 1st: didn't had any idea that there was such thing as a catastrophic global warming incoming, 2nd: had a 4x smaller population density than India has today. But sure, go ahead and keep pretending that Earth's resources magically increase anytime someone decides to have a new child, so that you can tell yourself we are all entitles to the same amount of resources, no matter the size of our immediate family.

Re: Charts show how little progress has been made in limiting greenhouse emissions

#125
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making my point. The US went through the same process, with the same birth rate interrupted only by the great depression until two generations ago. There aren't countries, there are humans responding to the same conditions similarly. Economic development will slow their reproductive rate, like clockwork. If you point to a family in the 60s in the US and a family in India today and find only one of them irrespo…

> I assume you're following through with your convictions and will remain child free? No, I will remain with my child at replacement rate (a little below actually), like my parents and my grandparents did (and all parents and grandparents on average here), and I expect them to be entitled to a lot more resources than someone who lives in a country where (on average) their parents, grandparents and themselves didn't f…

I had a hunch.

Re: Charts show how little progress has been made in limiting greenhouse emissions

#126
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I assume you're following through with your convictions and will remain child free? No, I will remain with my child at replacement rate (a little below actually), like my parents and my grandparents did (and all parents and grandparents on average here), and I expect them to be entitled to a lot more resources than someone who lives in a country where (on average) their parents, grandparents and themselves didn't f…

I had a hunch.

[deleted]

Re: Charts show how little progress has been made in limiting greenhouse emissions

#127
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I assume you're following through with your convictions and will remain child free? No, I will remain with my child at replacement rate (a little below actually), like my parents and my grandparents did (and all parents and grandparents on average here), and I expect them to be entitled to a lot more resources than someone who lives in a country where (on average) their parents, grandparents and themselves didn't f…

I had a hunch.

I also had a hunch that you interest isn't really about saving the planet but in supporting the implementation of your ideological agenda.

Re: Charts show how little progress has been made in limiting greenhouse emissions

#128
post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a hunch.

I also had a hunch that you interest isn't really about saving the planet but in supporting the implementation of your ideological agenda.

I have no ideological agenda other than not engaging in casual racism to construct a boogeyman to point at to absolve myself of the substantial impact I've made to the climate.

Re: Charts show how little progress has been made in limiting greenhouse emissions

#129
post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also had a hunch that you interest isn't really about saving the planet but in supporting the implementation of your ideological agenda.

I have no ideological agenda other than not engaging in casual racism to construct a boogeyman to point at to absolve myself of the substantial impact I've made to the climate.

What do you mean?

It's not your racism that has you stating that someone in a country with a very good track record when it comes to CO2 emissions (and a number of other environmental aspects) should stop having children, so that someone in a overly populated country, with an appalling record when it comes to all kinds of pollution can have even more children?

If it's not racism from your part that makes you ask for that, than you should clarify what it is. But one thing is for certain, it's not environmentalism for sure.

Re: Charts show how little progress has been made in limiting greenhouse emissions

#130
post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no ideological agenda other than not engaging in casual racism to construct a boogeyman to point at to absolve myself of the substantial impact I've made to the climate.

What do you mean? It's not your racism that has you stating that someone in a country with a very good track record when it comes to CO2 emissions (and a number of other environmental aspects) should stop having children, so that someone in a overly populated country, with an appalling record when it comes to all kinds of pollution can have even more children? If it's not racism from your part that makes you ask for…

I'm not telling you not to have children, but it does make you a hypocrite.

I'm accusing you of casual racism for drawing a false distinction around the behavior of Indians. They are doing what everyone else has done in the same circumstance. Just because we have gotten our growth spurt and dirty economic development out the way doesn't entitle us to waggle our finger at those that took longer.

It's on the first world to fix things first. The wealthiest should have the lowest per capita emissions, not the highest. Shouting at the third world for their high population count isn't environmentalism, it won't work, and it doesn't give you the moral high ground.

Post reply on HN