We are ‘greening’ ourselves to extinction • Hacker News Board

Re: We are ‘greening’ ourselves to extinction

#161

Post by Swenrekcah » Wed, Feb 01, 2023, 9:04 PM UTC

collyw wrote: post #146

Swenrekcah wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exxon mobile scientists predicted all this in the 1970s with pretty good accuracy: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-64241994

The climate has always changed. Predicting the climate getting warmer when coming out of a mini ice age is hardly ground breaking. We were promised Manhattan would be underwater by now, that glaciers would be gone. https://nypost.com/2020/01/10/the-telling-tale-of-glacier-na...

This is cherrypicking. Sure, predictions vary and some turn out to be too pessimistic, others too optimistic.

The general trend is clear however and has been for decades.

Re: We are ‘greening’ ourselves to extinction

#162

Post by distances » Wed, Feb 01, 2023, 9:17 PM UTC

sacrosancty wrote: post #77

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When I looked at the offset market in the past, I realized that it was one of the few markets where both the buyer and seller are perfectly happy with fraud. > I can't think of many other markets where this dynamic exists. Recycling market is the same - UK government pays you to recycle plastic, £60 per tonne. You find someone in a 3rd world country that will take it off your hands for £30 per tonne, and pocket the…

They must be recycling enough of it to recover their £30. They may dump the unrecyclable parts into the ocean, but nobody doubts there are unrecyclable things mixed in with it. It can't be 100% recycled.

In this scenario they don't pay for the plastic. They receive £30 and a tonne of plastic.

Re: We are ‘greening’ ourselves to extinction

#163

Post by dr_dshiv » Wed, Feb 01, 2023, 9:22 PM UTC

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #138

dr_dshiv wrote: post #55

The article accuses greentech and carbon-credits of genocide: "While guaranteeing high returns, this deception is tantamount to the genocide of the hundreds of millions of people who will perish from the effects of climate change within the next century because things are that bad." That's pretty harsh. But, if you think "things are that bad," let's also consider the moral culpability of people trying to stop the sci…

Reduce their GHG emissions, not their "lifestyle". It's getting very boring listening to people confuse the two of those things. Electric cars and heating are better. Electricity from renewables is better. Even if you totally ignore the GHG angle. Once you add that it's a no regret, no brainer decision, not a sacrifice.

Right! And those things will happen naturally, because it is in people’s best interest. Cars are about 1/5 of US emissions. Switching to electric will reduce that by 1/3.

http://https//www.transportenvironment.org/discover/how-clea...

Re: We are ‘greening’ ourselves to extinction

#164

Post by theragra » Wed, Feb 01, 2023, 9:26 PM UTC

version_five wrote: post #25

spchampion2 wrote: post #7

> But this fallacy has been repeatedly exposed. For one, the organisations that are supposed to certify that indeed enough tree-planting has taken place do not have the tools to verify that the declared emissions will definitely be absorbed. Another problem is that many offsetting activities do not actually offset anything. > A recent investigation into the world’s largest carbon standard found that 94 percent of its…

This is true for a lot of corporate training as well, in particular for compliance stuff. It's all bullshit to check a box. Whoever's paying for it wants to spend as little as possible, nobody cares what the content is or whether its actually learned, it's just about transferring liability. It's these silly regulatory constructs that are too detached from reality (like offsets) that give rise to this brand of bullshi…

Indeed. I found i can pass 99% of these trainings without reading any materials beforehand. I just check reasonably sounding boxes. That's it. I failed such training only one time among hundreds!

My colleagues pass these in foreign languages for the lulz

Re: We are ‘greening’ ourselves to extinction

#165

Post by mr90210 » Wed, Feb 01, 2023, 9:27 PM UTC

InitialLastName wrote: post #18

It's worth keeping in mind that Al Jazeera (as the state-funded news outlet of an extremely wealthy state that is built entirely and existentially on the sales of oil) may not be unbiased on this particular analysis.

Your first take is a straight ad hominem instead of going counter-arguing then content itself.

Yes they might be state-funded, but are they claiming accurately?

Re: We are ‘greening’ ourselves to extinction

#166

Post by theragra » Wed, Feb 01, 2023, 9:38 PM UTC

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #88

The dude has a great point about the need to verify carbon offsets. Where he loses me is this whole idea of 'reparative justice'. That will never happen. We can't even get everyone to agree to meet targets that will keep the world at 1.5c. The idea that we'll get powerful countries and corporations to fork over trillions to right past wrongs is laughable. It's a bad faith poison pill. If I didn't know any better, I'd…

I agree. Maybe it can happen to some extent, but sounds kind of dangerous way to follow. Same as with a law applied to previous crimes. If companies should pay for what was lawful at the time, how you can be sure something you are doing now won't be declared evil? Meat production, outsourcing to cheaper countries, not sharing natural resource profits on large scale with citizens, like in Norway?

Hundreds of things that are looking sus now. CEO pay, among others. But who would make large effective enteprises in such climate? I don't like large corps, but ive lived in socialism, and it is way worse.

Re: We are ‘greening’ ourselves to extinction

#167

Post by theragra » Wed, Feb 01, 2023, 9:39 PM UTC

quantified wrote: post #155

ravenstine wrote: post #46

The very premise of modern environmentalism necessitates human extinction by logical extension. You can't act or believe as if humans can or should have no impact on the environment without entertaining humanity's gradual demise as part of the process of "saving the earth" when all other known options are exhausted.

A return to the technical limitations and lifestyles of somewhere between 3000 BCE and 1400 CE would do. Maybe live like the Amish do. Fewer people would be supported, true, but we'd still dominate all other lifeforms.

IT would be hard to convince people to stop procreating en masse

Re: We are ‘greening’ ourselves to extinction

#168

Post by tmtvl » Wed, Feb 01, 2023, 9:43 PM UTC

distances wrote: post #162

sacrosancty wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They must be recycling enough of it to recover their £30. They may dump the unrecyclable parts into the ocean, but nobody doubts there are unrecyclable things mixed in with it. It can't be 100% recycled.

In this scenario they don't pay for the plastic. They receive £30 and a tonne of plastic.

To expand on this for anyone who doesn't quite follow, the government pays citizens £60 for recycling, which requires a certificate of proof, a citizen can give their plastic and £30 to a company for a certificate, but the company doesn't actually do the recycling.

Re: We are ‘greening’ ourselves to extinction

#169

Post by imtringued » Wed, Feb 01, 2023, 9:57 PM UTC

thinking4real wrote: post #147

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where I live the great majority of electricity generation is renewable. Switching from internal combustion to EV is absolutely a net positive.

And where you live is no doubt a minority use case for the global situation. Right?

Almost nobody generates electricity from oil in significant quantities.

Re: We are ‘greening’ ourselves to extinction

#170

Post by jotato » Wed, Feb 01, 2023, 9:58 PM UTC

lumb63 wrote: post #67

Some of what the author says is accurate. Carbon offset credits are bunk. Industrial agriculture is harmful. There are environmental issues to a lot of the “greening” practices. There are issues around how equitably the climate change revolution is going to impact different demographics. Some of what the author says is false. Consumer choices do make a difference. I work in climate tech and the product my company pro…

> I work in climate tech and the product my company produces monitors electricity usage in the home. The average user reduces their home electricity usage by 7% in the first month, solely due to becoming aware of what they are using.

What product is that? I'd like to learn more