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

Judge rules in favor of Montana youths in landmark climate decision

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 173 posts

Re: Judge rules in favor of Montana youths in landmark climate decision

#151

Post by phpisthebest »

Aachen wrote: post #81
Aerroon wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, and it will come at the expense of your economy. Eg would the ranch mentioned in the article be able to survive if it had to account for this? What will people's reactions be when you double the price of their food or gasoline? I'd wager one of the reasons why America's economy does so well compared to Europe's is the much cheaper access to energy. For example, Lithuania pays twice the price for gasoline and al…

Why are you so eager to live at the cost of earth's future? Even if food prices were to double (I don't see why it would, unless you measure it only by specific high-impact products such as authentic lamb) to transition away from the destruction of the habitat we depend on (planet A), that seems like a better option than continuing on a path to reversal of what we've achieved in the last century (from 60% in extreme…

Because many of us understand human history, and understand that we humans will resolve this by technological advancement often at the time the need arises.

Using government to artificially inflate prices on what you perceive to be a problem rarely results in good outcomes for anyone and even rarer does it actually resolve the problem it was claimed to solve

More often the new regulations will be abused to profit a few, and hold back actual technological progress for decades (see Ethanol as an example)

For my entire long long long life, people have been predicting the end of the world as we know it, always 10 years off before we are all dead. having lived many decades now, hearing these 10 year predictions often, and seeing them never come well color me unamused, and unmoved by this latest call to action.

Instead i choose to believe we will over come the challenges in the future has we have the ones from the past. With technological advancement, and market economics. Not government

Re: Judge rules in favor of Montana youths in landmark climate decision

#152

Post by Aachen »

phpisthebest wrote: post #122
Aachen wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, until about 1990 the problem was virtually unknowable if you weren't a climate scientist working on cutting edge research yourself or were in the board room of the oil company that apparently had this investigated and then chose to make the most of their remaining time. I can't fault two entire generations for greenhouse gas emissions from before then, and after it became common knowledge, I can understan…

what you have personally done that was not "direct financial benefit to" yourself

That's a long list of things which I posted on this account before. Some of the things are taking the bus to work instead of a more convenient car, taking more expensive trains rather than flying, reducing meat consumption when the meat replacements, which should be much cheaper to produce, are often actually more expensive, taking part in protests, exclusively using refilled glass containers (Mehrwegglas) rather than the cheaper throwaway pudding containers which also contain tastier contents, and reducing room heating (by thermal clothing and directly heating myself with a trickle of electricity rather than heating my environment) to the point where the neighbors' heat (we're on the ground floor) is enough to stay warm most of the winter. I'm looking into financing a wind turbine, which I expect to cost a few years' salary. I could put that money to other use (including for personal luxuries) but the climate problem is getting rather time-sensitive and I want to at least be part of the solution rather than the problem, even if it's very hard to solve all my emissions at once (I live in a rented place with gas heating, for example, but as mentioned I mostly replaced that even if some heating is still needed against mould and for visitors).

Is that satisfactory for you?

Re: Judge rules in favor of Montana youths in landmark climate decision

#153

Post by Aachen »

Aerroon wrote: post #109
Aachen wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you so eager to live at the cost of earth's future? Even if food prices were to double (I don't see why it would, unless you measure it only by specific high-impact products such as authentic lamb) to transition away from the destruction of the habitat we depend on (planet A), that seems like a better option than continuing on a path to reversal of what we've achieved in the last century (from 60% in extreme…

Because I live in a country like Lithuania. I know what basic things being too expensive to afford is like. I also know that whatever Americans adopt they push it onto the rest of the world. > Change doesn't have to be scary and I only care what people do after having had a chance to learn what impact their choices have Change is scary when you're talking about increasing living costs by a large amount. Meanwhile Ame…

> I also know that whatever Americans adopt they push it onto the rest of the world.

I don't know if that's supposed to be about me, but I'm not from "murica". You and I are nearly neighbors, only separated by Poland. But I'm not proud of my country either: I vote for what I think will help us get better, but about 70% votes for a "let it burn" party

> Meanwhile Americans still don't have a substantial excise tax on gasoline to discourage its use.

Although we at least have some tax on some of the fuels (kerosine being a notable omission), ours is also not about discouragement, as far as I know. Fuel prices are dominated by market effects, not by discouragement, and evidently the high market price is not sufficient to make the difference that would be needed.

Maybe it's similar to movie/software piracy: not a pricing problem but a service problem (as Gabe Newell said). Having realistic alternatives rather than prohibitive pricing

Re: Judge rules in favor of Montana youths in landmark climate decision

#154

Post by Aachen »

phpisthebest wrote: post #151
Aachen wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you so eager to live at the cost of earth's future? Even if food prices were to double (I don't see why it would, unless you measure it only by specific high-impact products such as authentic lamb) to transition away from the destruction of the habitat we depend on (planet A), that seems like a better option than continuing on a path to reversal of what we've achieved in the last century (from 60% in extreme…

Because many of us understand human history, and understand that we humans will resolve this by technological advancement often at the time the need arises. Using government to artificially inflate prices on what you perceive to be a problem rarely results in good outcomes for anyone and even rarer does it actually resolve the problem it was claimed to solve More often the new regulations will be abused to profit a f…

> Using government to artificially inflate prices on what you perceive to be a problem

Literally the opposite of what I said

> For my entire long long long life, people have been predicting the end of the world

I never claimed that either, but at least this time I didn't say the opposite. Some people seem to think it's an extinction threat, but personally I expect civilisation to continue, even if half of us starve and we reduce to a much smaller population while dealing with the fallout and having to rebuild. You may want to look into the consequences of global warming before judging whether it's similar to the end of the Mayan calendar or whatever end of the world events you're talking about

> what you perceive to be a problem

If you still think we aren't causing climate change, I'm not sure there's a point talking about it. Can't help people that don't do logic

Re: Judge rules in favor of Montana youths in landmark climate decision

#155

Post by Aachen »

Aerroon wrote: post #114
Aachen wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can have such laws and judgements, why couldn't other places? As more and more places outlaw bad practices, one could subsequently argue, it becomes increasingly lucrative to facilitate cheap fossil fuel usage. But look at how easy it is to do international trade with Russia before and after 2022: we can choose our partners and, while we can't force them, we can stop business from moving there, solving the pro…

> If you can have such laws and judgements, why couldn't other places? Of course you can, but the playing field isn't level to begin with. Over the past century we've seen an increasing amount of urbanization happen. This causes issues such as constantly increasing housing prices, which make it into a good investment, which leads to more increases in housing prices. If you remove the reason for businesses to be in Mo…

I don't know the specifics of US coal mine history so I can't comment on most of this, but looking at the broader, long-term picture:

> What's left behind is poverty (by US standards).

I'm afraid that climate change, at least if we would all apply US levels of action, would result in non-US levels of poverty for all but the wealthiest few. Depending also on how heavy-handed/inhumane one wants to be towards displaced immigrants from places that become mostly inhospitable or below sea level (most people worldwide live in coastal regions)

Re: Judge rules in favor of Montana youths in landmark climate decision

#156

Post by saghm »

terminous wrote: post #127
saghm wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self-evident Reminds me of another famous quote from Jefferson. I wonder if describing things as "self-evident" was a personal favorite idiom of his or if it was just a common phrase back then. It seems like a fairly common phrase to me now, but it's hard to know if that's only because Jefferson popularized it.

From Walter Isaacson’s "Benjamin Franklin: An American Life": On June 21, after he had finished a draft and incorporated some changes from Adams, Jefferson had a copy delivered to Franklin, with a cover note far more polite than editors generally receive today. "Will Doctor Franklin be so good as to peruse it," he wrote, "and suggest such alterations as his more enlarged view of the subject will dictate?" Franklin ma…

Interesting! I think nowadays, the common way I've heard the latter type of truth described is "axiomatic", but that's probably because it's one of those words that math/CS professors seem to love, and people in tech (like me) might have picked it up from them.

Re: Judge rules in favor of Montana youths in landmark climate decision

#157

Post by phpisthebest »

Aachen wrote: post #154
phpisthebest wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because many of us understand human history, and understand that we humans will resolve this by technological advancement often at the time the need arises. Using government to artificially inflate prices on what you perceive to be a problem rarely results in good outcomes for anyone and even rarer does it actually resolve the problem it was claimed to solve More often the new regulations will be abused to profit a f…

> Using government to artificially inflate prices on what you perceive to be a problem Literally the opposite of what I said > For my entire long long long life, people have been predicting the end of the world I never claimed that either, but at least this time I didn't say the opposite. Some people seem to think it's an extinction threat, but personally I expect civilisation to continue, even if half of us starve a…

>>If you still think we aren't causing climate change, I'm not sure there's a point talking about it.

literally not what I said... or even implied

>>similar to the end of the Mayan calendar or whatever end of the world events you're talking about

I am talking about world ending predictions in the realm of climate change... There have been many, and continue to be many that if we do not "act now" it will be "too late" these claims have been persistent since the 70's at least yet very few of those predictions have come true and then it is explained away with "well in the next decade we will be correct this time"... trust us we are "The Experts™©"

Climate activist are the living embodiment of the Boy who cried wolf parable

Re: Judge rules in favor of Montana youths in landmark climate decision

#158

Post by e40 »

phpisthebest wrote: post #118
e40 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Relatively speaking, the EPA has pushed (in the wrong direction) the boundaries about 1,000,000x less than corporations have. We have PFAS everywhere (a recent HN article). Look at the list of superfund sites in the US. I think the EPA does far too little to protect us from cancer causing chemicals because politicians allow them to pollute. Fracking's 500 chemicals declared a proprietary: https://www.aafp.org/about/p…

Well that is a prime example of what about ism. I think one can hold the position that the EPA has been both abusive to every day American's when the abuse their authority to prevent home owners from building on their land because there is a beetle some where in the area (yes that is hyperbolic) while at the same time playing liability shield for large corporations that are harming these same home owners. Yelling at…

I completely disagree that the EPA has been abusive. Proof??

Your comment is a prime example of cherry picking.

I gave you concrete examples (fracking), so that you said I was "yelling at the clouds" speaks to your bias.

Re: Judge rules in favor of Montana youths in landmark climate decision

#159

Post by sophacles »

ROTMetro wrote: post #85
hash872 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's a legal maneuver that will be challenged both in another legal arena and in the court of public opinion It will not be meaningfully challenged in the court of public opinion, which is completely irrelevant to judicial decisions. If it'll be challenged in an appellate court.... why not limit decisions blocking the democratically elected legislature to a full appeals court of 15 judges, as opposed to just 1? One…

Our court system is already constitutionally violatingly too slow (but we overlook it because who cares about the constitution nowadays) but yes lets change cases to have 15 judges that ought to be a workable solution. Or wait, we can have an appeals court (that normally has three judges hear an appeal) that though slow at least moves. I can't imagine if the courts were 15 times slower (because the judges were all on…

> Our court system is already constitutionally violatingly too slow

Might be caused by this type of thinking:

> I can't imagine every po-dunk jurisdiction that can barely justify 1 judge having 15.

Perhaps funding the court system to properly meet your first point would ease your concerns there?

Re: Judge rules in favor of Montana youths in landmark climate decision

#160

Post by sophacles »

hash872 wrote: post #97
ROTMetro wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that is why we have a balance. The legislature can change the law to be more explicit if they don't like the judicial interpretation. Our system ONLY works if judges have this power.

Respectfully, all 3 of these sentences are wrong. We do not have a 'balance' presently- the judiciary gets the final word in every situation. Your second sentence is inexplicable- literally no matter what laws the legislature passes, the judiciary can strike them down as 'unconstitutional'. Which is a completely vague term with no real definition. To answer your other response to me- the German judiciary works much f…

You keep saying the judciary gets the final word... but that's not right, no matter how often you repeat it. The judiciary gets the penultimate word. The constitution can be changed, there's an entire procedure for it, perhaps you should propose an amendment.
Post reply on HN