Xkcd: Greenhouse Effect • Hacker News Board

Re: Xkcd: Greenhouse Effect

#181

Post by walleeee » Mon, Feb 26, 2024, 2:48 PM UTC

In response to all the nuclear power discussion in this thread, see thorium molten salt. We have had the technology since Oak Ridge in the 70s. We ignored it because the existing refinement infrastructure is conveniently "dual use" for nuclear weapons.

It must be emphasized that solar panels, wind turbines and batteries are products of carbon-burning industry. They have their place but we don't have the metals to repair and replace them in the long term, and we don't yet know if a fully electric industrial society is even possible. E.g. how do you reach the necessary temps in a blast furnace without melting your heating element?

Electrifying civilization as we know it is politically palatable, but the feasibility studies are few, and those that have been done are sobering. Any analysis which ends without a serious look in the mirror is likely serving some special interest. To expect that modernity can continue in the same mold, with hydrocarbons swapped out for something else, smacks of nostalgia or naivete. Alternative energy sources are needed, absolutely; but even more important is to transform the way we relate to each other, to other life forms, to natural resources, and to this generation ship we call a planet.

Re: Xkcd: Greenhouse Effect

#182

Post by Winse » Mon, Feb 26, 2024, 2:48 PM UTC

Cheer2171 wrote: post #142

Winse wrote: post #135

As with most large scale changes...there are winners and losers. New species and extinctions. High CO2 is great for plants in my greenhouse...I suppose that's why it is called a greenhouse gas. Anyone longing for lower CO2 levels in our entire atmosphere is basically an anti-Canadian Agriculture bigot. Seriously though sometimes the cure is much worse than just handling the issues one at a time as we transition to a…

> Seriously though sometimes the cure is much worse than just handling the issues one at a time as we transition to a beautiful warm catastrophe/boon. This is a disgusting attitude. I'm sure you'll be safe in Alberta while Bangladesh drowns. Your ancestors benefitted from the industrial revolution, and now you want to reap all the benefits of climate change?

I don't live in Alberta you insensitive clod, and while I said those things somewhat tongue in cheek, you can choose to be disgusted or learn to stop worrying and love the change.

Re: Xkcd: Greenhouse Effect

#183

Post by snowpid » Mon, Feb 26, 2024, 2:49 PM UTC

dougmwne wrote: post #52

I worked in climate policy for awhile. I got out of it because I lost hope. I believe our governments have lost hope also. Covid taught us that if they inflict the necessary pain to control carbon, our governments will be consumed by populist anger. Only the Chinese system appears to have any hope of controlling people’s behavior that much without riots. And what a terrifying system! Even their control began to slip…

Can elaborate which governments do you have in mind? The EU reduced CO2 Emissions in the last years https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/d...

Re: Xkcd: Greenhouse Effect

#184

Post by Winse » Mon, Feb 26, 2024, 2:50 PM UTC

layer8 wrote: post #155

Winse wrote: post #135

As with most large scale changes...there are winners and losers. New species and extinctions. High CO2 is great for plants in my greenhouse...I suppose that's why it is called a greenhouse gas. Anyone longing for lower CO2 levels in our entire atmosphere is basically an anti-Canadian Agriculture bigot. Seriously though sometimes the cure is much worse than just handling the issues one at a time as we transition to a…

CO2 is actually not so nice for breathing, if you ever monitored a CO2 ppm meter indoors, where the air gets stuffy when too much CO2 from breathing accumulates. With the current trajectory, by the end of the century, opening the window won’t get you what we now consider fresh air anymore, the air will feel stuffy all the time. We already get less fresh air now than 50 years ago, where CO2 base levels were around 300…

I breathe fine in my greenhouse at 800–1,000 ppm all the time...so ...meh

Re: Xkcd: Greenhouse Effect

#185

Post by mlrtime » Mon, Feb 26, 2024, 2:51 PM UTC

cs702 wrote: post #128

As this brilliant cartoon points out, we've had 128 years of warnings about human-induced climate change, and over all those years, humanity did not change course. That's because warnings and exhortations rarely accomplish anything. Things tend to change only after there's no other choice, i.e., when there's a crisis . There's an insightful quote from Milton Friedman on this: "Only a crisis -- actual or perceived --…

I agree, and if you could magically go back during the industrial revolution and show everyone what would happen to the world, I doubt there would be a difference.

The increase in the then-current living conditions increased so much that not doing it wouldn't make sense to them.

Same as if our future selves came from 128 years from the future and told us to all stop doing something, it would be near impossible.

Re: Xkcd: Greenhouse Effect

#186

Post by wakawaka28 » Mon, Feb 26, 2024, 2:51 PM UTC

questinthrow wrote: post #180

In my opinion the only solution is a drastic drop in number of human beings. Thankfully we wont have to do much since nature will do it for us when the droughts begin and the crops start failing. Its fun to think of how we will science ourselves out of this as we go over 8 billion people who all desire an ever increasing standard of living. However the only science we will science ourselves with are going to be fully…

The elites are hard at work trying to find ways to kill us off and stop us from reproducing.

Re: Xkcd: Greenhouse Effect

#187

Post by landgenoot » Mon, Feb 26, 2024, 2:51 PM UTC

lm28469 wrote: post #91

hef19898 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do and they are? As far as electricity is concerned, that is.

I think you underestimate how widespread petroleum derivates are outside of energy. Construction materials, roads, tires, plastics, cosmetics, cleaning products, paints, inks, dyes, adhesives, sealants, lubricants, clothes, waterproof fabrics, batteries, fertilisers, medicine, tooth paste, shampoos, &c. It's _the_ building block of modern life, unless you're in nature you can bet everything you lay your eyes on is at…

I think you overestimate it.

where do global greenhouse gas emissions come from?

- Energy (electricity, heat and transport): 73.2%

- Chemicals & petrochemicals: 2.2%

https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector

Re: Xkcd: Greenhouse Effect

#188

Post by silverquiet » Mon, Feb 26, 2024, 2:52 PM UTC

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #136

Shacklz wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “Populist anger” might be justified if people have a hard time paying their bills. If the costs of current living standard wasn't externalized to future generations (to the detriment of the environment), they couldn't afford those bills to begin with. Unfortunately, it's very hard to reduce people's living standards once they got used to it. So yes, the end result is what you're saying - however, I think it's a ver…

"externalized to future generations" Exactly. Too few people understand economics, that current costs are being brought down by offsetting future costs. The same with any pollution in any industry. If the industry is allowed to follow bad practices, and cause pollution but not deal with it, then they are not bearing the brunt of the full costs of generating that pollution. Someone has to clean it all up eventually, t…

I guess the great thing about putting the problems off into the future is that I/we'll be dead by then (though I suppose it depends on how fast moving the whole thing is). What confuses me about that whole thing is that most people seem to want to have children and want a better future for them.

Re: Xkcd: Greenhouse Effect

#189

Post by questinthrow » Mon, Feb 26, 2024, 2:53 PM UTC

wakawaka28 wrote: post #186

questinthrow wrote: post #180

In my opinion the only solution is a drastic drop in number of human beings. Thankfully we wont have to do much since nature will do it for us when the droughts begin and the crops start failing. Its fun to think of how we will science ourselves out of this as we go over 8 billion people who all desire an ever increasing standard of living. However the only science we will science ourselves with are going to be fully…

The elites are hard at work trying to find ways to kill us off and stop us from reproducing.

Its not even about the elites, its about human nature and incentives. And nobody is going to take my hamburger out of my hand just because some people in a third world country are starting to suffer from climate change. This mindset is genetically encoded

Re: Xkcd: Greenhouse Effect

#190

Post by aequitas » Mon, Feb 26, 2024, 2:53 PM UTC

weberer wrote: post #66

1975: The first cancellation of a planned nuclear power plant occurred in Wyhl, Germany due to protests from "environmentalists".

In 1991 Germany closed a finished but not operational power plant in Kalkar[0]. Nowadays it's a theme park built by Dutch entrepreneur Hennie van der Most, who is famous for these kinds of projects. I've visited the plant as a kid with my dad and uncles when it was open for public but barely any work had been done on the demolition or transforming into a theme park. For me it was the most awesome theme park I ever visited. You could go into the control room and press all the (buttons), look inside the reactor, see all the technology that went inside this plant, peruse the entire complex and visit almost every building as almost nothing was off limits except for what was used by the park staff for office/storage. I still regret not having a camera at that time to capture everything I saw. Nowadays it's 'just' a theme park with an all-in formula.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNR-300