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

151–160 of 198 posts

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

#151

Post by all2 »

dorchadas wrote: post #97
roenxi wrote: post #4

There is currently some chance - possibly single digit percentages - that the northern hemisphere will dissolve in a nuclear fireball and the rest of us will freeze in a long sub-zero nuclear winter. The sort of people who suggest we should only talk about the climate are dangerously foolish. Priority 1 is peace, priority 2 is prosperity (which helps keep the peace). Those two issues take priority over the climate, w…

If you don't fix the climate issues, neither of those priorities will be met.

I propose there is no dichotomy between addressing the immediate needs of a nation or people and the far-reaching needs of the environment and climate. Both can be addressed at the same time.

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

#152

Post by samuel »

endisneigh wrote: post #25

Is there any solution that doesn’t either involve developed countries lowering their quality of life or preventing developing nations from cheaply industrializing?

Yes, making developing nations richer faster so they reach developed countries birth rates sooner.

Educating girls and empowering them on those countries also will make birth rates to decline faster.

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

#153

Post by School-Cotton »

egberts1 wrote: post #130
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why are you conveniently ignoring everyone asking you for sources?

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

#154

Post by api »

plaguepilled wrote: post #139
api wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire framing of the climate issue as "poor and middle class people need to use less energy, says a bunch of comparatively rich people living in high cost of living first world cities" guarantees political failure. The only way we will get real traction against this problem is if we stop framing it around shame and austerity and instead frame it as a problem solvable via technological innovation that also frees…

With full respect intended, I have to disagree. We already have several options available to massively curtail our emissions (solar, wind, hydro, geothermal). While yes new technology would make this transition even faster, a major, MAJOR roadblock is lobbying by fossil fuel industries and related corporate interests. In terms of the technological discussion though, I am excited by the recent work done in molten salt…

I don't think we disagree at all.

What I'm saying is that the shame-and-austerity framing plays right into the hands of fossil fuel industry propaganda.

One of the most insidious bits of fossil fuel propaganda I've seen recently is this whole "moral case for fossil fuels" schtick. They're pointing out that fossil fuels have lifted billions out of poverty, which is technically true, and then using that combined with the "moral panic" framing of the green movement to argue that greens want to push those billions back into poverty.

Personally I think we have historically framed environmental issues as moral because we (meaning the USA) are a culture with puritan roots and the whole protestant moral panic framing is baked into our cultural DNA. It's how we often approach problems, especially collective or tragedy of the commons problems. We approach them by deploying shame to try to change behavior. It very often backfires like it is here, or like it does when we try to shame teenagers out of having sex.

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

#155

Post by egberts1 »

dpedu wrote: post #41
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…

Hmm. While I agree with the premise here I decided to track down some of these articles by putting some of them into a search engine. I found a subset of this list here, with links to sources. But most of the sources aren't LA Times: https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/50-years-of-failed-doomsday-e... But others, I couldn't find at all: - 4G cell tower causes cancers. I'm not sure what to think about this list. I would be…

I did say “some” but LA Times too did chime in with The Guardians (UK).

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-cellphone-5g-health-2...

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

#156

Post by photochemsyn »

> "Doomsday being the moment when the ability to lower the atmospheric temperature has slipped from our control. The moment when we puny humans are finally and irrevocably at the mercy of hurricanes, fires, tornadoes, drought, food shortages, rising sea levels and all the socio-political carnage that will accompany same."

We're already there, current CO2 is 420 ppm and steadily rising. Climate is on an irrevocable trajectory towards a much warmer norm, similar to conditions ~3-5 million years ago during the Pliocene era, before the onset of the ice-age cycle of the Pliestocene. Those who deny this at this point are simply ignorant of the facts.

> "It is sometimes imagined that slow processes such as climate changes pose small risks, on the basis of the assumption that a choice can always be made to quickly reduce emissions and thereby reverse any harm within a few years or decades. We have shown that this assumption is incorrect for carbon dioxide emissions, because of the longevity of the atmospheric CO4 perturbation and ocean warming."

Source: Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions, PNAS (2009) (sci-hub_se)

CO2 was 320 ppm in 1960; we're not going back there, it's 420 ppm now, with a current growth rate of 10 ppm / decade. Stabilizing at ~440 ppm might be possible (neglecting slow but steady permafrost outgassing) if the world commits to a 3% reduction in fossil fuel use per year over the next 30 years, about the fastest change I imagine to be feasibly possible. This means zero fossil fuel use globally in 30 years, and of course current oil/gas corporation projections are to maintain current output for the next 30 years. Non oil-gas producers like Germany and China are the ones shifting the fastest to renewables; the likes of the USA, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela etc. are bent on continuing to produce and export.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...

Practically this means human civilization is going to have to spend as much effort on adapting to this new climate reality as on replacing fossil fuel infrastructure with renewable energy sources. Water supply infrastructure will be a major issue, food production will be a major issue, sea level rise will be a major issue, population migration and extreme weather damages will be major issues.

The point has been tipped, the pooch has been screwed, and now we all have to deal with the aftermath.

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

#157

Post by phkahler »

ShamelessC wrote: post #90
phkahler wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> We are nowhere near exaggerating it. If you want to talk about the "climate crisis", I'm going to keep pointing to the lack of good modeling in regard to water vapor and air travel (which has a specific phase relationship with sunshine that must be taken into account). I'll also try to dig up that graph correlating the rise in air travel with temperatures. I'll insist that even if I accept human cause of these cha…

In general, when you think you have evidence supporting your case it's a good idea to go ahead and just use it rather than talking about how you plan to use it.

It comes across as less adversarial this way.

Here's a fluff piece: https://globalnews.ca/news/2934513/empty-skies-after-911-set...

Something better, but need to follow references: https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2010/0201...

The jury is still out on this and it seems to have a large effect and can do so in a very short time (on the order of days).

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

#158

Post by fullshark »

mapster wrote: post #80
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…

This is a bad faith argument

It's a simple refuting of the column's thesis/headline.

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

#159

Post by YATA1 »

beepbooptheory wrote: post #142
YATA1 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I guess the human toll of all those things aren't really all that meaningful when it is not visually apparent to an outside observer. Which does make this a good example of what is going in general, you are right!

>I guess the human toll of all those things aren't really all that meaningful

Hilarious emotional appeal strawman. You can't even stay on topic after being proven wrong. Remember, New Orleans isn't underwater and it's past 2020.

>when it is not visually apparent to an outside observer.

I'm old enough to remember seeing all the pictures and videos of the aforementioned hurricanes. Don't project your ignorance on everyone else.

> Which does make this a good example

Yes, a good example of New Orleans still being there, all the highways are still there, the sports arenas are still there, there are over a million people that live there, etc.

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

#160

Post by gr8tnwz »

egberts1 wrote: post #104
gr8tnwz wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

News organizations designing headlines for attention does not undermine the data driven truth; resource consumption is real. Sorry the modeling techniques haven’t been as perfect as you’d prefer. Your inability to be swayed by Anglo-gibberish is formidable but you’re a non-entity to me and I don’t have to optimize for your preferences. Sit back down in your bubble and accept on a rock of 7 billion+ you are just one.…

(yawn). It’s a pet project of mine and a fun one at that (of many hobbies).

Yes, I did have a big old yawn at your list.

Thanks for confirming you understood the sentiment.

Post reply on HN