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

Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 279 posts

Re: Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

#191

Post by shawndrost »

epistasis wrote: post #147
alexfromapex wrote: post #9

Don't forget about the cows eating seaweed development, that will be huge for the climate too

Beef is only 3% of US emissions, meat has very little to do with the US's climate woes. The big problem is transportation. Ideally we'd have lots more muxed-use walkable neighborhoods than we have. Roughly 50% of people want to live in walkable neighborhoods, but centralized planning has virtually banned this type of low-carbon living over the past 75 years.

> Beef is only 3% of US emissions, meat has very little to do with the US's climate woes.

The second half of this sentence is incorrect. Livestock is 14.5 of global greenhouse emissions, which a) determines climate change in the US, and b) is consumed in the US, in significant part, without being accounted for under "US emissions".

Re: Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

#192

Post by bluGill »

jessaustin wrote: post #130
bluGill wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A a John Deere employee I can tell you that several very much wanted products have failed to be developed because someone put their safety black-hat on and came up with a to abuse that product the release ammonia into the air. Once an evil person figures out how to control our system it is trivial for them to figure out many terrorist attacks involving ammonia releases. Yes the world deals with ammonia all the time.…

Please be specific. Liquid anhydrous ammonia is a common fertilizer. John Deere still sells e.g. the 2430 and the 2510. How did the hypothetical "very much wanted" products differ from those applicators? Are we talking about a handheld model? (That might have been a bad idea!) One suspects the hypothetical "evil persons" whose threat delayed product development were more interested in cooking meth than in terrorist a…

None of them can be controlled from the internet.

Re: Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

#193

Post by runarberg »

rayiner wrote: post #188
baron_harkonnen wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never read any serious research that proposes what you are proposing: that climate mitigation is going to cost more than the consequences of failing to mitigate it. We're on the path to a 4C world by something like 2100. An increase by that much might possibly wipe out the species. If it fall short of that forecast the damage will be far greater. Not to mention that pandemic shares the same root cause as clima…

> We're on the path to a 4C world by something like 2100. An increase by that much might possibly wipe out the species. That is absolutely not what scientists and economists are predicting. An RCP 8.5 scenario (which is considered on the worse side of what's likely in a "do nothing" world) is expected to knock 6.7-14.3% of US GDP by 2100: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2019102... (p. 7). That wo…

> Saying that climate change will have "untold cost" is problematic because it makes you believe that mitigation strategies that will have massive costs will be justified to avoid climate change damages

I’m not aware of any existing technology capable that will mitigate the harm that the current trajectory of the climate disaster is projected to cause.

Hoping for new technology that can save us from the harm 30 year from now is naive. Thirty years ago we had quantum computers, microwaves, GMO, lithium-ion batteries, etc. VTVL rockets are a 25 year old technology already. Hoping for something that doesn’t exist already will save us is simply a disillusion.

In honesty “shutting down the economy” is still a better option then “business as usual”. Although, honestly, I thing there is a better option: Investing in green infrastructure, along with International agreements, and carbon taxes, which we could integrate into existing societal systems to at least slow down the harm until technology is available that can save us from this catastrophe.

Re: Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

#194

Post by saagarjha »

29athrowaway wrote: post #187
baron_harkonnen wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It was achieved at untold cost This is just evidence of what we already know: our current society is unsustainable. > will be paid by generations to come I think you're pretty optimistic about how the future will develop given that we have not only just demonstrated our society is unsustainable, but that we are not capable of making serious progress towards a sustainable society. Large portions of are planet are so…

In ecological terms, we are an invasive species without a predator multiplying exponentially. We either accept reality and live and adapt to the limits imposed by nature or prepare to live in permanent war for resources.

Humans tend to stop multiplying exponentially, though.

Re: Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

#195

Post by rayiner »

runarberg wrote: post #193
rayiner wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We're on the path to a 4C world by something like 2100. An increase by that much might possibly wipe out the species. That is absolutely not what scientists and economists are predicting. An RCP 8.5 scenario (which is considered on the worse side of what's likely in a "do nothing" world) is expected to knock 6.7-14.3% of US GDP by 2100: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2019102... (p. 7). That wo…

> Saying that climate change will have "untold cost" is problematic because it makes you believe that mitigation strategies that will have massive costs will be justified to avoid climate change damages I’m not aware of any existing technology capable that will mitigate the harm that the current trajectory of the climate disaster is projected to cause. Hoping for new technology that can save us from the harm 30 year…

By mitigation I don’t mean “after the fact cleanup” I mean to reduce the amount of climate change that happens. (Saying “stopping” or “averting” climate change seems wrong in this context since we’re definitely going to hit 1.5 or probably 2C).

Shutting down the economy is not better than business as usual. Business as usual is worse than cost-effective mitigations. Scientists estimate those could cost up to $1 trillion per year, worldwide, by 2030. That’s under 2% of GDP. Damage from climate change in an RCP 8.5 scenario will be many times that, 7-15% in the US by 2100. But it still won’t be nearly as bad as the COVID shutdowns, which wacked 30% off GDP while they were in effect.

Re: Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

#196

Post by runarberg »

rayiner wrote: post #195
runarberg wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Saying that climate change will have "untold cost" is problematic because it makes you believe that mitigation strategies that will have massive costs will be justified to avoid climate change damages I’m not aware of any existing technology capable that will mitigate the harm that the current trajectory of the climate disaster is projected to cause. Hoping for new technology that can save us from the harm 30 year…

By mitigation I don’t mean “after the fact cleanup” I mean to reduce the amount of climate change that happens. (Saying “stopping” or “averting” climate change seems wrong in this context since we’re definitely going to hit 1.5 or probably 2C). Shutting down the economy is not better than business as usual. Business as usual is worse than cost-effective mitigations. Scientists estimate those could cost up to $1 trill…

So by “cost effective mitigation” I presume you mean something akin to: Investing in green infrastructure, international agreements, and carbon tax, right?

Re: Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

#197

Post by rayiner »

runarberg wrote: post #196
rayiner wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By mitigation I don’t mean “after the fact cleanup” I mean to reduce the amount of climate change that happens. (Saying “stopping” or “averting” climate change seems wrong in this context since we’re definitely going to hit 1.5 or probably 2C). Shutting down the economy is not better than business as usual. Business as usual is worse than cost-effective mitigations. Scientists estimate those could cost up to $1 trill…

So by “cost effective mitigation” I presume you mean something akin to: Investing in green infrastructure, international agreements, and carbon tax, right?

Yes, that’s what I meant to refer to in my post above:

> It's worth the U.S. spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year on climate-change mitigation. The EU is planning on spending 260 billion euro annually by 2030. That's roughly the scale of Biden's plan.

I’m not arguing against those investments. My point is that saying climate change will have “untold cost” suggests that massive economic shutdowns or “war time mobilization of the economy” will be worth it to avoid climate change. They won’t be. In particular, anything that jeopardizes economic growth through Green New Deal-style government takeover of vast sectors of the economy will cause more harm than it averts.

More information here: https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/how-much-will-the-green-ne...

Re: Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

#198

Post by sterlind »

joseph_grobbles wrote: post #99
breakfastduck wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All it does it prove how fruitless the prevention of climate change is. A total shutdown of the entire world economy on an unprecedented scale still doesn't track enough to prevent climate change. If that isn't a clear indicator of how severe the situation is then I don't know what else is.

"A total shutdown of the entire world economy" GDP has barely taken a hit the world over. Trade is virtually unchanged. Hell, some indicators went positive though the pandemic. I don't really think there was a "shutdown". Passenger car miles might have gone down, but I suspect deliveries and cargo went way up.

Redistribution. I try to support local stores, and yet I've had to use Amazon much more now. The pandemic has centralized the economy and harmed small businesses - tons of restaurants shutting down here, hair stylists out of work, etc.

Re: Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

#199

Post by rayiner »

runarberg wrote: post #189
rayiner wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, climate change has costs that we can estimate and base our decisions on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impacts_of_climate_ch... The foregone economic activity in just one year of lockdowns in the US is a significant fraction of cumulative worldwide damages anticipated from climate change through 2050.

So loosing a large part of Bangladesh to the sea by 2050 and then loosing more to the sea by 2051, and even more by 2052, etc. with no hope of recovering... displacing therein tens to hundreds of millions of people that will need new homes, and new infrastructure that is requiring housing, feeding and transporting those people is going to cost less then then a year and a half of pandemic? I would love to see your cal…

See: https://phys.org/news/2019-11-climate-impacts-world-trillion...

Re: Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

#200

Post by marcosdumay »

rmk wrote: post #157
huragok wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trillions used for the GND is debt but trillions sunk into tax cuts for the top 1% is just good economics.

Incurring debt != Foregoing revenue via income tax

Huh? Obviously they are different things, one is consequence of the other.
Post reply on HN