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

The only thing we should be talking about is the climate crisis

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 198 posts

Re: The only thing we should be talking about is the climate crisis

#121

Post by kulikalov »

isitmadeofglass wrote: post #36
vasco wrote: post #16

> Nothing matters as much as our bone-headed, mass-suicidal march toward extreme-weather oblivion. Not COVID-19, not the invasion of Ukraine, not even “The Godfather.” Says a reporter living in Los Angeles, the 49th most expensive city in the world to live in. For a lot of people, what they need to talk about is how they're getting their next meal, how they're going to make rent, or survive a current war. Maybe go to…

What are you trying to argue? That we should not care about climate change because there are reporters who live in expensive cities? Or that no-one living in Los Angeles is allowed an opinion?

I don't think this is what he is saying. I think he is just saying that for a lot of people in the world it's hard to prioritize a potential decade(s) away crisis while dealing with life-threatening situations on daily basis.

Re: The only thing we should be talking about is the climate crisis

#122

Post by YATA1 »

beepbooptheory wrote: post #38
YATA1 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember reading something somewhere in the 1990s that the entirety of New Orleans was going to be underwater by 2020 and the only way you'd be able to visit Bourbon Street was by boat.

You might wan't to rethink your example here... You don't need a boat yet, but New Orleans has suffered incredibly in the last 20 years, both materially and spiritually, because of the hurricanes and flooding.

>You might wan't to rethink your example here...

I might not...

Katrina, Harvey, Betsy, 1915, etc. New Orleans is still there. It's not under sea like all the prophecies foretold.

Re: The only thing we should be talking about is the climate crisis

#123

Post by magpi3 »

Honest question: is there any chance that this does NOT end in an attempt at climate engineering, i.e. shooting shit into the atmosphere to cool the planet?

I just can't imagine world nations are going to accept the catastrophic consequences that are incoming. Eventually, when things look bleak enough, it will become politically viable to propose such strategies. Obviously it is not at the current moment. But a cynical part of me just feels that it is just a matter of time. And that governments know it is just a matter of time, and they are preparing for it.

Asking people to change their habits or drastically alter their economies in a short period of time is, from what I have read, just a complete non-starter. I welcome arguments explaining how I am wrong.

Re: The only thing we should be talking about is the climate crisis

#124

Post by all2 »

goodgoblin wrote: post #82

I'm sorry, but this is utterly unhinged. There is no evidence of weather patterns of any kind, much less indications that we are about to face "extreme-weather". What caused the weather which led to the dust-bowl? What caused the ice-age? The climate of the earth has changed for millions of years w/o humans, and while certainly greenhouse gases impact the current trends, they aren't cause for apocalyptic concern. I r…

The dust-bowl wasn't specifically weather, it was farming practices (and apparently a drought).

> The Dust Bowl was a period of severe dust storms that greatly damaged the ecology and agriculture of the American and Canadian prairies during the 1930s; severe drought and a failure to apply dryland farming methods to prevent the aeolian processes (wind erosion) caused the phenomenon.

from Wikipedia

Re: The only thing we should be talking about is the climate crisis

#125

Post by HWR_14 »

egberts1 wrote: post #2

Here are some of the many of Los Angeles Times’ newspaper headlines that they used to help with their circulations: 1966 - Oil gone in 10 years 1968 - Overpopulation will spread worldwide 1969 - Everyone will disappear in a Cloud of Blue Steam in 1989 1970 - World will use up its natural resources by 2000 1970 - Urban citizens will require gas mask by 1985 1970 - Nitrogen buildup will make all lands unusable 1970 - D…

So, I just choose one example (1971), because most claims about 1970's Ice Age articles are overblown. I found no LATimes articles with the title "New Ice Age coming by 2020 or 2030" There were five times that "New Ice Age" was used in print, and of those 40% seem to be referencing an upcoming artistic event's theme (Holiday on Ice).

The main article about an ice age in 1971 would have been on October 24th, 1971. The front page of the LA Times did indeed feature the words "Ice Age" on the bottom of the front page in the "articles inside" block. It did not use the words "New", "coming", "by", "2020" or "2030" in the article title.

I would ask for sources on your list.

Re: The only thing we should be talking about is the climate crisis

#126

Post by mwint »

tuatoru wrote: post #86
mrfusion wrote: post #9

I’m a full on believer. I even own an EV but I think this alarmism is just making people numb. I think there’s a whole generation out there that never read “the boy who cried wolf”.

For people on six figure salaries, owning an EV is costless virtue signalling. Do something that costs you, and you have better credibility. Here's my litmus test: commit to never flying anywhere ever again.

As one of those people, it isn't always. I'm politically opposite those typically associated with virtual signaling, and I drive an EV because it's way cheaper (total cost of ownership), more fun, and more pleasant than an ICE car.

Environmental concerns didn't factor into my choice at all - far more important to me is the thrill of silent, uninterrupted acceleration and not spending time at gas stations.

Re: The only thing we should be talking about is the climate crisis

#127

Post by cogman10 »

fullshark wrote: post #71
isitmadeofglass wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you trying to argue? That we should not care about climate change because there are reporters who live in expensive cities? Or that no-one living in Los Angeles is allowed an opinion?

Well most of the proposed solutions to climate change issues involve making the proles' standard of living worse which is never going to work. Even something as minor as increasing fuel taxes led to the yellow vest protests. How are any of these major curtailing of consumption solutions going to fly globally without leading to massive civil unrest?

The issue is there is probably no good way to address climate change without impacting standard of living.

The solution is to emit less CO2. Carbon capture/reclamation will never be enough to actually change things particularly with the current levels of emissions.

So how do we address that? Best way, IMO, is to go after the largest CO2 emitters. That's transportation, electricity, and industrial emissions (mostly concrete and steel AFAIK). Hitting any of those industries with a tax to incentivize reduction will impact standards of living. It will raise the price of goods which ultimately hit the poor and middle class.

You could also subsidize switch over, but that's ultimately a lot harder (and probably less effective) than more general carbon taxes.

And, of course, this has to be done globally, so if we really wanted this to be effective then it'd mean not just fixing your own country but also ideally subsidizing or sanctioning/embargoing bad players.

Re: The only thing we should be talking about is the climate crisis

#128

Post by user982 »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #77
user982 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That account copypastes it into climate threads: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30258365 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27447861

Is there a way to flag accounts that copypaste talking points into these kinds of topics?

Click the post's timestamp and tap "flag" and/or email concerns to hn@ycombinator.com.

Re: The only thing we should be talking about is the climate crisis

#129

Post by titzer »

titzer wrote: post #108
endisneigh wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Framing aside it’s a fact that the quality of life will be lowered for some. What you’re saying isn’t wrong, but it is what it is. This is a political issue, acting as if switching entirely to renewables will not result in some short term sacrifices is well, disingenuous.

I will still challenge these assertions. Lowering quality of life....to only a bazillion times better than a couple generations ago. When in reality the things people would be giving up are gluttonous wastes of energy like private jets and affordable vacations in the Caribbean (a new thing!).

I'll even go further to say that reducing fossil fuel usage for transportation (cars) and heating (natural gas) will improve quality of life for many. Air pollution is majorly bad for people's lungs, brains, and overall health. Not to mention the complete waste of time that rush hour represents.

Re: The only thing we should be talking about is the climate crisis

#130

Post by egberts1 »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #77
user982 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That account copypastes it into climate threads: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30258365 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27447861

Is there a way to flag accounts that copypaste talking points into these kinds of topics?

Yes. It is called a “downvote”

Meanwhile I got 27 up votes.

Pitch in, accordingly to your needs.

Post reply on HN