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

Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 210 posts

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#201

Post by pier25 »

gepi79 wrote: post #80
pier25 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly I agree. Climate change is one of the reasons we're not having kids. In part because they would have had a very bad life, but also because it's the best for the planet. Reducing consumption of resources is not working, so we should start thinking about controlling population growth.

If you want kids then have kids. Individual actions do not matter globally. We are far away from global overpopulation. Unless people insist on fossil fuel, waste of resources and animal products as food. More people are needed for more work for a better world. Have a good life because it is important for work for improvement. Improvement means better technology. I know about the dangerous situation but I am still op…

> Individual actions do not matter globally.

The forest is still composed by trees.

> We are far away from global overpopulation. Unless people insist on fossil fuel, waste of resources and animal products as food.

You are technically right, of course, but if humans were rational creatures we would have acted on climate change when the evidence was presented to the world.

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#202

Post by pier25 »

toasterlovin wrote: post #123
ForHackernews wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're still pretending like your kids or those other peoples' kids might get together and fix climate change. I'm saying it's too late for that. Having kids is just condemning them to live in a world ravaged by famine, war and drought. Maybe you're fine with that because you believe on some philosophical level that any life is preferable to never having lived at all, but that's not self-evident.

Black Americans are living proof that a lot of people thought a life of slavery was worth living, despite it's utter terribleness. I think it’s a good bet that living in a world with global warming is better than slavery.

> I think it’s a good bet that living in a world with global warming is better than slavery.

Depends on the level of warming.

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#203

Post by pier25 »

catawbasam wrote: post #104
pier25 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, we are too late. Emissions affect the climate decades later, some 40 years later. So we're now only seeing the consequences of the emissions from the 70s-80s. We've emitted more CO2 since the 80s to today, than the previous 150 years.

Too late for what? Yes, there are going to be more impacts. No, it won't mean the extinction of humanity or life on Earth. There still better or worse. Choose better.

I doubt it will mean the extinction of humanity, but unless a couple of miracles happen it will mean the end of our current industrial civilization.

If we had started working on this 40 years ago reaching zero emissions would be a realistic goal today, but even that is not enough now. Not only we need to reach zero emissions ASAP, but we also need strong negative emissions. And after that we need to figure out how to slow down the feedbacks (Arctic ice melting, methane, etc).

Maybe if ALL humanity was working towards those goals we would have a chance, but it's not even a priority for the vast majority of humans.

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#204

Post by jorisw »

arglinugs wrote: post #133
jorisw wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's faulty about his science?

There is no proof humans are causing doomsday levels of climate change through CO2 emissions (literal plant fertilizer, the shit I brew and inject into my fish tank to grow plants). What is demonstrable in a lab is going to be much harder to prove for a whole planet. People should not just accept what these people say as gospel, we have had 30-40 years of doomsday warnings from these people and nothing, absolutely no…

Something tells me you haven't read the article, much less anything else on the subject.

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#205

Post by taejo »

mc32 wrote: post #39
yesyesno wrote: post #33

Ouch. I read this and I am completely confused about what to do with the rest of the time I have left. Should I even bother with my current career in tech, or would it be better to quit it and do something that could have even a slight impact now? These articles are great, but preaching to the choir. What should any of us do? I'm seriously and sincerely asking. Are there any suggestions, from a personal stand point i…

evangelize in high birthrate countries things like contraception and encourage education especially of women. The fewer people destroying virgin forests and becoming western style consumers the lesser the better for environmental health. An earth of 7.5 billion is more sustainable than an earth of 10 billion. 7.5 will live better lives than a world of 10, given sociopolitical realities.

Your comment mentions its own fatal flaw: "becoming western style consumers". From what we've seen in the last hundred years, that's strongly positively correlated with (and probably causes) decreasing birthrates. The only other broadly successful way to decrease birthrates was to make it the law, and the one country that did that has abandoned it because of the negative economic effects of too-low birthrates.

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#206

Post by elbasti »

EamonnMR wrote: post #143
Comevius wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a physicist, but isn't the second law of thermodynamics puts a limit on what we can do with the excess energy, most of which are being absorbed by the oceans. Besides most of the damage is already done. EPA: It’s as if you’re sitting in your car, in your garage, with the engine running and the door closed, and you’ve slipped into unconsciousness. And that’s it. McAvoy: What if someone comes and opens the door…

It's not really a thermodynamics problem. We're not trying to get rid of excess energy in a system, we're trying to get rid of carbon. We need to do something roughly equivalent to growing massive tropical rainforests and burying them over and over again.

Of course it's a thermodynamics problem. It takes less energy to split a hydrocarbon chain into CO2 + Water than it does to capture the CO2 out of the air and turn it back into solid carbon.

In essence, what we have to do is "all the energy output since the industrial revolution--do it again (plus then some), except this time instead of building civilization, capture co2 out of the air. And you must get all that energy from clean sources."

"Growing massive tropical rainforests" just means "inefficiently use solar energy (via photosynthesis) to bind carbon out of the air". We could do the same with solar panels and a carbon-binding chemical process.

But the issue is, again, the sheer magnitude of the problem.

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#207

Post by cmurf »

Six weeks after Hansen’s testimony, Exxon’s manager of science and strategy development, Duane LeVine, prepared an internal strategy paper urging the company to “emphasize the uncertainty in scientific conclusions.” This shortly became the default position of the entire sector. LeVine, it so happened, served as chairman of the global petroleum industry’s Working Group on Global Climate Change, created the same year, which adopted Exxon’s position as its own.

This is lying, spreading lies, with malicious intent. There was no scientific uncertainty.

A proper public policy would be to wipe out the Exxon, and all petrol companies, shareholders. Claw back all profits from all shareholders proportionally going back 40 years, all profits on those profits, and unwind the companies over the next 20 years strictly to public benefit. And if that is still not enough to pay for fixing what has been damaged, the corporate veil should be pierced and make every shareholder of these companies personally liable. And I'm one of those shareholders - I've owned BP directly and indirectly through funds.

And it is also quite damning for an unlimited 1st amendment concept that proposes telling lies is a right. Unlimited opinions however unpopular should be protected, but spreading proven falsehoods should not be protected. It should be used as evidence the speaker is culpable, in part, of the ensuing damage. Criminal? Perhaps. Civil? Absolutely.

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#208

Post by ianai »

rwallace wrote: post #199
ianai wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think nothing will be politically viable until people, and large amounts of them, are hurt by encroaching waters or inhospitable land.

Maybe. But hundreds of millions of people have already been hurt by disappearing jobs and falling real wages. To say nothing about that is to let the narrative of sacrifice stand. I think it would be worth focusing on the potential to create jobs.

It’s absolutely worth it. I just can’t imagine anything quieting the deniers down other than something very clear and undeniable.

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#209

Post by gepi79 »

pier25 wrote: post #201
gepi79 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want kids then have kids. Individual actions do not matter globally. We are far away from global overpopulation. Unless people insist on fossil fuel, waste of resources and animal products as food. More people are needed for more work for a better world. Have a good life because it is important for work for improvement. Improvement means better technology. I know about the dangerous situation but I am still op…

> Individual actions do not matter globally. The forest is still composed by trees. > We are far away from global overpopulation. Unless people insist on fossil fuel, waste of resources and animal products as food. You are technically right, of course, but if humans were rational creatures we would have acted on climate change when the evidence was presented to the world.

> The forest is still composed by trees.

Yes, but most people do not improve their behavior until nature or some culture or some law enforces the change.

The efforts of many are wasted by the ignorance or carelessness or selfishness or insanity or lack of choice of many others.

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#210

Post by godelski »

growlist wrote: post #23
StavrosK wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any sources on that? "Falling much faster" by itself doesn't say much when EU might already be emitting ten times less than the US, for all I know.

Can't vouch for the comparison you are questioning, but did find this: 'Germany emitted more greenhouse gasses in 2016 than in the previous year, but is still seen as a positive model for the rest of the world.' https://euobserver.com/environment/137298 Best thing we could have to reduce co2 would be a massive global recession I'd say, unless that is things got so bad that we had to revert to cutting down trees to su…

When Germany decided to cut their nuclear they picked up more coal and natural gas. They have put in a lot more other clean energy options, but since batteries and smart grids aren't good enough yet this causes a pickup. It'll be fixed later (unfortunately time is of the essence), but at least for now turning off nuclear wasn't a green move (like they say it is). Consider France and Sweden, who are also the top performers.
Post reply on HN