Live data from Hacker News

Scientists caught off-guard by record temperatures linked to climate change

reuters.com

181–190 of 198 posts

Re: Scientists caught off-guard by record temperatures linked to climate change

#181
post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The beef you buy in stores is not fed leafy green vegetables or fruit.

You're absolutely right, it is fed 12,000 calories of alfalfa. Even if alfalfa were less energy intensive to grow than leafy green vegetables, it will never be 12 times less intensive. Almonds or blueberries requiring 2x more energy per calorie than alfalfa? Mabye. Never gonna be 12 times.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. I agree that meat in general, and beef in particular, is input intensive. What I'm saying is: so are fruits and leafy green vegetables.

Someone up above was saying that meat should be avoided because producing it is hard on the environment. What I'm saying is that targeting meat is targeting the wrong attribute. People should be targeting cost per calorie.

If you replace a meat-only diet with a fruit-only diet, it's more or less just as bad for the environment. Since meat and fruit cost about the same per calorie, they have about the same impact on the environment per calorie consumed, since the cost of food is a good proxy for the cost of the inputs to that food. (Yeah, I know cows emit a lot of methane; I'm aiming for a rule of thumb here.)

Re: Scientists caught off-guard by record temperatures linked to climate change

#182
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A solo ride in a car could be worse than a full plane on a cross country trip. But a train or bus is typically(there may be some edge cases) going to be much better than an airplane. Also, long distance passenger trains absolutely do not reduce freight transport. They lease the the use of the tracks which provides additional income to the freight carriers and the freight carriers have right of way at all times on the…

>Did you just randomly make this stuff up? It is completely false information. You are the one who is misinformed. Railroad operators are required to give access to Amtrak as part of a deal that allowed them to cancel long-distance passenger service. They would much rather not give access to Amtrak in the first place. Furthermore Amtrak is supposed to have priority over freight trains, however Amtrak is at the mercy…

> The Northeast corridor is completely owned by Amtrak.

To quote the Boston Globe "Under an agreement signed in 2003, Amtrak has used, maintained, and dispatched trains on the Attleboro line — the MBTA tracks between Boston and the Rhode Island line — for free."[0]

[0] https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/04/18/mbta-seek-penal...

Seriously, stop it. You are just making stuff up. Why are you doing that?

Re: Scientists caught off-guard by record temperatures linked to climate change

#183
post #40

I have no doubt that climate change is a problem. I have kids, I dont want to give them a hospital pass. I've tried to stop living such a carbon dependant lifestyle but I look outside and my efforts feel futile. How do I REALLY do something about this other than a few pretentious yet barely discomforting lifestyle changes and the odd empassioned few sentences at dinner parties? Start pushing for a carbon tax? Start a…

IMO the problem is that most sides in the discussion don't propose any viable solutions: On one side there are the climate change deniers (and the people who don't care about it). They are fine to continue business as usual. On the other side there are the people who are concerned about climate change. But instead of agreeing to effective solutions (compromises) that allow us to somewhat mitigate global warming (such…

This reminds me of the Critic's Lament:

1) Paint too bleak a picture: Most people will conclude there's nothing to be done, and take no action. 2) Paint too rosy a picture: Most people will conclude it's no big deal, and take no action.

Re: Scientists caught off-guard by record temperatures linked to climate change

#184
post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're absolutely right, it is fed 12,000 calories of alfalfa. Even if alfalfa were less energy intensive to grow than leafy green vegetables, it will never be 12 times less intensive. Almonds or blueberries requiring 2x more energy per calorie than alfalfa? Mabye. Never gonna be 12 times.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. I agree that meat in general, and beef in particular, is input intensive. What I'm saying is: so are fruits and leafy green vegetables. Someone up above was saying that meat should be avoided because producing it is hard on the environment. What I'm saying is that targeting meat is targeting the wrong attribute. People should be targeting cost per calorie. If you replace a meat-only diet…

"the cost of food is a good proxy for the cost of the inputs to that food." An "organic" apple probably has a lower energy cost than a factory farmed one even though it costs much more. It is more likely to be harvested by hand instead of by gas powered tree-shaker and net, it is more likely to be pesticide free than have a gas powered plane spray it with pesticides, etc. I don't see any evidence for "cost" and "energy required to produce" being as correlated as you claim. Also it doesn't matter because, at wholesale prices, $5 in beef is ALWAYS fewer calories than $5 in apples or carrots or lettuce or whatever plant you pick.

Re: Scientists caught off-guard by record temperatures linked to climate change

#185
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, I can. Or perhaps not with no apples. But, I certainly use less apples... er energy... than I used to. By a lot, and I'm much happier. Warning, past this point you may think I'm a lunatic. I really am trying to see what works and what doesn't work. I've been really surprised at how much stuff I really don't want once I've gotten rid of it. I don't have a car. I hang my clothes on a line (I even went a year…

> I really am happier as a result of what I'm doing. I'm sincerely glad for you, but how much of your current happiness comes from the challenge that you posed yourself and you won? In other terms, how much effort are you putting every day in your (fully respectable) cause? > Can everybody be as happy as me with as little as me? I'm not sure. Me neither. It looks to me as you chose to be happier via ecology. Most peo…

I think the big thing that surprised me was that I put in less effort on average. The absolutely biggest thing was getting rid of the car. A car enables you to go 100 km out of your way and cram your life full of complicated stuff. I can't do that any more, so I am much more relaxed ;-)

Hanging the clothes is another interesting one. We wash the clothes every day in the morning. The washing machine uses surprisingly little energy (average load is 64 Wh according to the manual). Hanging the wash takes a couple of minutes before work. Taking them down and folding them another couple of minutes after work. If it's raining that day we dry them on a rack indoors (sometimes takes 2 days in the rainy season, but it doesn't bother me any!). This is just dramatically better than my old process of hanging around for 2 hours for my laundry to be done. Hanging the laundry keeps them from getting wrinkled. The clothes also last a lot longer. Again, I was amazed at how much better it really was. Even when I was washing clothes by hand, I could do both my wife's and my clothes in 10 minutes easily. Usually did it just before I took a shower. If something needed to soak, I soaked it while I was taking a shower. My wife didn't like it, though, because I'm not as delicate as the washing machine (i.e. it's a job that requires some skill) and since the washing machine is actually quite efficient, we scrapped that.

Again, I could go on for a long time, but you probably don't want to be bored by all the discoveries I've made over the years. Some things require learning some skills. Some things require learning some new processes. However, I have been pleasantly surprised at how little effort is required to have a dramatic improvement in life quality at the same time as reducing energy usage.

Some things are uncomfortable in my new life. Sometimes it's hot in the summer. I drink cool beer at dinner time. You have no idea how good it tastes. Sometimes it's cold in the winter. I lie in front of a sunny window like a cat in complete bliss. I eat cold noodles in the summer and hot stew in the winter. I walk for hours on end in the perfect weather of spring and fall. My life is just better. By a lot.

I don't really expect to convince you in this kind of forum and I wouldn't bother replying, but you seem to be curious even if you are understandably sceptical. It's a bit easier to convince people where I live (in Japan) that what I'm doing makes sense because most of it is already part of the traditional culture. My mother in law is in her mid 80s and has never used a heater or air conditioner in her life -- she thinks they are evil. And a lot of things would have to be done completely differently in other parts of the world. I'm from Canada and you can't do without heat when it is -30 degrees C.

I think the key thing is to just challenge the assumptions we make -- A car allows you to do more things, so it makes your life better. A heater makes you comfortable, so it makes your life happier. These things seem obvious, but at least in my experience they don't necessarily follow in practice.

Nobody will change what they are doing now unless it is part of their culture. The culture will not change unless people see other people enjoying something new. If you want to change the culture, change what you are doing now, find a way to enjoy it, show other people. It doesn't happen over night, but it can happen more quickly than you might imagine. Just look at pedestrian city centres in Europe (would anyone agree to let cars drive on the high streets of England any more? I seriously doubt it). Look at people carrying cloth bags to grocery stores. In some places people would rather walk into a store without their pants than without their own bag. Neither of these things were remotely true when I was a child. Things change in surprising ways.

Re: Scientists caught off-guard by record temperatures linked to climate change

#186
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, I can. Or perhaps not with no apples. But, I certainly use less apples... er energy... than I used to. By a lot, and I'm much happier. Warning, past this point you may think I'm a lunatic. I really am trying to see what works and what doesn't work. I've been really surprised at how much stuff I really don't want once I've gotten rid of it. I don't have a car. I hang my clothes on a line (I even went a year…

I really appreciate what you are doing. Did you have to coax your wife along this path, or was she already of a similar mind?

From my perspective, my wife has even crazier ideas than I do :-). Not to be dismissive of anyone's beliefs, but she is quite religious and I am rather opposed to religion on principle. She introduced me to many wonderful people from her church and I really enjoy their company. I will never be religious myself, though.

In the same way, she thinks I am a complete crazy person with this stuff. She doesn't agree with all of my ideas, but she enjoys the ones that work out. She supports me in trying to find the ones that work, just as I support her in being involved in her church activities.

She's Japanese and I'm Canadian and when we met neither of us spoke their other's language particularly well. It's always been a relationship where we need to work hard to understand each other and where we are surprised by the other's view point once we finally understand it. It's part of the charm ;-)

Re: Scientists caught off-guard by record temperatures linked to climate change

#187
post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Did you just randomly make this stuff up? It is completely false information. You are the one who is misinformed. Railroad operators are required to give access to Amtrak as part of a deal that allowed them to cancel long-distance passenger service. They would much rather not give access to Amtrak in the first place. Furthermore Amtrak is supposed to have priority over freight trains, however Amtrak is at the mercy…

> The Northeast corridor is completely owned by Amtrak. To quote the Boston Globe "Under an agreement signed in 2003, Amtrak has used, maintained, and dispatched trains on the Attleboro line — the MBTA tracks between Boston and the Rhode Island line — for free."[0] [0] https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/04/18/mbta-seek-penal... Seriously, stop it. You are just making stuff up. Why are you doing that?

Whether the Northeast corridor is entirely or primarily owned by Amtrak is inconsequential.

The MBTA is a transit line. It's also in the Northeast Corridor, which, as I've already established, is quite different than the majority of the country. I assume you are from the northeast, so I understand your confusion regarding the status of Amtrak in the rest of the nation. In the majority of the country, Amtrak travels on rails owned by the railroads, and the railroads are very much not fond of passenger rail. They are forced to provide access to Amtrak as part of the agreement that allowed them to discontinue revenue passenger service. The railroads were obligated to provide revenue passenger service as part of a bail out in teh early 20th century.

I read your link and it literally has no bearing on anything I just said, because of the aforementioned fact that it is in the Northeast Corridor. Furthermore the agreement was signed in 2003, which has nothing to do with anything I am talking about. Third, the Northeast sucks for rail freight because the loading gauge is so small compared to the rest of the country, and population density is higher, so passenger rail is comparatively better there than elsewhere.

Your superior knowledge on the subject is merely illusory. I suggest you do some research into the history of passenger rail in the United States. I'm sure you are intelligent, but your attitude sucks. Here's some stuff to get you going:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_railroads_eligible_to_...

http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-hiltonamtrack... (warning, pdf)

Railroads took Amtrak to court over passenger rail scheduling (this article also gives a bit of a rundown of the conflict):

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060008220

Re: Scientists caught off-guard by record temperatures linked to climate change

#188
post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To my mind, if you are concerned about your impact on the environment, what kind of food you eat is not nearly as important as how much money you spend. It's a coarse grained rule of thumb, but money basically represents a share of the world's abundance. When you spend money, you are claiming a part of that abundance for yourself. And the more you spend, the larger share you are claiming. So if you eat a vegetarian m…

"fruit and most leafy-green vegetables have a similar cost per calorie to meat. Thus, I would argue that they have about the same environmental impact as meat." Unfortunately, this is provably false. For beef, you need to grow 12,000 calories of plants to produce (i.e. feed) 1,000 calories of beef. About 8 to 1 for pork, 6 to 1 for turkey, and 5 to 1 for chicken.

In many places (such as Wales and Iceland) sheep are allowed to roam grassy, mountainous wilderness that is otherwise not arable land; surely such meat actually has less impact than, say, fields of corn?

Re: Scientists caught off-guard by record temperatures linked to climate change

#189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Cost in terms of lifestyle" compared to what? there're studies (e.g. this report from citybank[0]) that shows that inaction is actually more expensive, taking into account the cost of the climate change disasters... Seems to me that people believe that doing nothing we will keep living in the same way. Sorry to have to wake you up. Doing nothing will screw up the planet and your (and mine) "lifestyle". The article r…

> "Cost in terms of lifestyle" compared to what? > I have kids and this is not the future I want for them. Why did you choose to have kids? Was not having kids an acceptable lifestyle cost for you in order to save the planet ?

Unfortunately unless everyone stops having kids it is not going to help. I would argue that what the world needs is more thoughtful people and that thoughtful people should be having more children.

Re: Scientists caught off-guard by record temperatures linked to climate change

#190
post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. I agree that meat in general, and beef in particular, is input intensive. What I'm saying is: so are fruits and leafy green vegetables. Someone up above was saying that meat should be avoided because producing it is hard on the environment. What I'm saying is that targeting meat is targeting the wrong attribute. People should be targeting cost per calorie. If you replace a meat-only diet…

"the cost of food is a good proxy for the cost of the inputs to that food." An "organic" apple probably has a lower energy cost than a factory farmed one even though it costs much more. It is more likely to be harvested by hand instead of by gas powered tree-shaker and net, it is more likely to be pesticide free than have a gas powered plane spray it with pesticides, etc. I don't see any evidence for "cost" and "ener…

Here are some calories/dollar calculations (and you can verify them using the links below):

1. Ground Beef

- $3.725 per lb (in June 2016, according to the BLS[1])

- 971 calories per lb [2]

- 260 calories per dollar

2. Lettuce

- $2.029 per lb (also from the BLS, same link as above)

- 77 calories per lb [3]

- 38 calories per dollar

3. Apples

- $1.444 per lb (also from the BLS, same link as above)

- 235 calories per lb [4]

- 162 calories per dollar

The math doesn't lie. Lettuce is almost an order of magnitude more expensive per calorie than ground beef. And you can go look up other fruits or leafy green vegetables (I used two of the examples you provided), they basically all fall in this range. Some meats (mostly seafood) are more expensive per calorie than beef, some are less expensive (mostly poultry and pork).

What it all boils down to, though, is that if you want to feed more people with the same amount of land/energy/whatever, you need to be looking at dairy (500-800 calories/$), oils (1200-2000 calories/$), and especially grains (> 2000 calories/$).

There's a reason why the dawn of civilization coincided with agriculture and domestication of grains: grains are an incredibly cheap source of calories.

Also, FYI, in the U.S. at least, organic food is not usually pesticide free. It just means that only "natural" pesticides are used. And harvesting things by hand is terrible for the environment. Humans are incredibly expensive and use tons of resources. After all, human generally want things like cars, climate controlled dwellings, and latest gizmos and gadgets, whereas a tractor could care less about these things :P.

[1]: http://www.bls.gov/regions/mid-atlantic/data/averageretailfo... [2]: http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/6197/2 [3]: http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable... [4]: http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices/...

Post reply on HN