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

Tough truths about climate

gatesnotes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 131 posts

Re: Tough truths about climate

#121

Post by getnormality »

OtherShrezzing wrote: post #42

I’m not sure this article is especially helpful. It’s addressed to the attendees of COP, but the attendees of COP already believe (almost unanimously) that adaptation has equal importance to mitigation. And it’s one of the only forums where poorer & disaffected nations are given a real opportunity. I’m also not sure that anyone anywhere earnestly believes that climate change is an extinction level event that’ll rende…

If everyone already agrees with it, why would it be viewed as combative and contrarian?

Re: Tough truths about climate

#122

Post by Retric »

jshen wrote: post #120
Retric wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CO2 levels tell you nothing about future progress, the legacy of soon to be removed infrastructure built 40+ years ago still impacts it. Meanwhile the vast majority of power brought online in the last decade is ultra low carbon. We know how that story plays out. AI powered by renewables has ~zero impact on the climate.

I hope you're right, but I'm not optimistic. The demands for power by AI is immediate and extremely large. We can't bring nuclear online fast enough so it will likely keep co2 output high. Assuming you are right, when would you expect the rate of atmospheric co2 increases to start to decline?

I expect the global peak annual CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry to occur sometime in the next 5 years largely dependent on economic activity. I’d give it something like 90% odds.

CO2 from land use (deforestation etc) has already dropped by half since the 1960’s, but I know less about that so I’m unsure of the details. That said it’s well under 10% of total emissions so probably not a major factor for now. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-land-use?mapSelect=~C...

Re: Tough truths about climate

#123

Post by [deleted] »

cameldrv wrote: post #102

Everyone who cares about climate change needs to stop talking about it in C to an American audience. 2 degrees sounds small, but 3.6 degrees F is significant. 3 degrees still sounds reasonably small, but 5.6 degrees F is getting to be a lot. Generally speaking Americans have no idea how much a 2 or 3 degree C difference is in F and so they just hear 2 or 3 degrees F.

[deleted]

Re: Tough truths about climate

#124

Post by benrutter »

jader201 wrote: post #2

> Although climate change will have serious consequences—particularly for people in the poorest countries—it will not lead to humanity’s demise. People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future. Interesting and different perspective vs. what many others often say (but that’s one of the points he’s making). I feel a lot of climate articles — and the comments attached to their H…

Climate change is so confusing to message about in this sense, because the future is not decided.

We're on track to warm the planet far past the point that of sustaining something you and I would recognise as human society. That said, we're also changing course which has the opportunity to mitigate things.

The meta part is, if everyone thinks we'll change course, that affects whether we do. There's no straight prediction that can be made.

Re: Tough truths about climate

#125

Post by benrutter »

simpaticoder wrote: post #40

Gates is making a speculative case that climate change can be (should be) fought with the needs of the global poor at top-of-mind. He acknowledges the apparent zero-sum nature of it: impoverished people face much greater and more immediate threats than climate change, and fossil fuel tech (for example) really does address those urgent threats effectively. He solves this conundrum by speculating that we can have our c…

> That said, I have grave concerns that Gates is simply wrong, that we cannot invent our way out of both climate change and the suffering of the global poor.

I feel positive around whether or not we can- renewable and battery technology in incredible at the moment and we could shift quickly to a much less devastating track if the political will was there.

That said, without the political story, technology itself can't change things. We've seen this by the fact thay renewable technology advances have also come alongside technology advances in the fossil fuel industry, like fracking.

Around a 1/3 of CO2 emision is down to agriculture, which is mostly meat (and of that mostly beef). There's no tech fix required here, since humans can survive easily without beef, but something would need to change economically or otherwise so that the CO2 impact of food factors into our collective diets.

Re: Tough truths about climate

#126

Post by polotics »

energy123 wrote: post #22
Animats wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on where you are in the world. For the developed world, climate change will be annoying but not serious. The US may have to give up on Miami and New Orleans, and build seawalls for New York. Some crops may have to be grown further north. Some irrigation systems will need upgrades. More power will be needed for air conditioning. Those will not seriously damage a society. After all, right now the biggest proble…

> For the developed world, climate change will be annoying but not serious. Spillover of problems like mass migration away from the equator and increase in conflicts.

As long as you classify as annoyances the overheat deaths of many poorer and/or frailer (and a few wealthy-but-unlucky) members of your developed world, then indeed you can call this annoying. Also you can drop the "will be" and start using "is".

Re: Tough truths about climate

#127

Post by ACCount37 »

mariusor wrote: post #69
ACCount37 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The obvious counterpoint to any "hordes of climate refugees will destroy the first world countries" is that borders exist, and machine guns were invented over a century ago. The reality of modern warfare doesn't favor large forces, poorly organized and underequipped, that are attacking reasonably well prepared defense positions. Now, is there a will to use all the tools of modern warfare against climate refugees? Cur…

Well, I wasn't try to imply that the refugees would win, and yes, that's entirely the point because the scenario qualifies as a breakdown of human civilization that Gates doesn't acknowledge. Even if some people will still be able to have their Sunday brunch while their country's borders are bathed in refugee blood.

Even WW2 wasn't a "breakdown of human civilization".

Re: Tough truths about climate

#128

Post by belter »

jader201 wrote: post #2

> Although climate change will have serious consequences—particularly for people in the poorest countries—it will not lead to humanity’s demise. People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future. Interesting and different perspective vs. what many others often say (but that’s one of the points he’s making). I feel a lot of climate articles — and the comments attached to their H…

Bill Gates opinion has the same value, as a random HN commenter...or less ...due to his bias.

Re: Tough truths about climate

#130

Post by mariusor »

ACCount37 wrote: post #127
mariusor wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I wasn't try to imply that the refugees would win, and yes, that's entirely the point because the scenario qualifies as a breakdown of human civilization that Gates doesn't acknowledge. Even if some people will still be able to have their Sunday brunch while their country's borders are bathed in refugee blood.

Even WW2 wasn't a "breakdown of human civilization".

I think that for most of Europe the 1939-1944 period was mostly living in the dark ages, but yes, you could still get tickets for the Rockettes at the Radio City if you were a middle class New Yorker.
Post reply on HN