Live data from Hacker News

A 3°C world has no safe place

economist.com

201–210 of 291 posts

Re: A 3°C world has no safe place

#201
post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know who you're referring to as 'we' but in the US, carbon emissions have actually peaked in the early 2000s and decreased in an absolute sense since then, despite growing population and industrialization. We're currently at 1986 emission levels. US has 15% of global emissions, while China has 28% and is growing in both per person and absolute. I don't think you're wrong to be cynical about tackling this prob…

Those stats are not fair because China is the world's factory. If China decides to stop exporting manufactured products to reduce it's emissions, the US would need to manufacture itself, increasing it's emissions.

Exactly.

We have moved the problem around, but we are not actually getting around to living differently.

Re: A 3°C world has no safe place

#202
post #112
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're asking people to suffering annoyances and spend lots of money when the average income has been going down for 40 years. I'm surprised you're surprised.

Living more efficiently obviously saves money . The absurdities of what's happening is literally the Sierra Club opposing density in San Francisco. The environmentalist are literally opposing density across California . Los Angeles, to San Francisco, to Marin County, under the banner of "preservation," we're going to destroy the climate. I just, i cannot believe this is happening. They same people who would hand wash…

>They same people who would hand wash a peanut butter jar, to recycle it, are the exact same people who are literally creating suburban cities designed for burning carbon.

Scoofy, I cannot overstate how much pure, cynical joy I feel after reading your rants here. Thank you for cutting through the bullshit; you're doing God's work.

Re: A 3°C world has no safe place

#203
post #111

If you want to feel some level of empowerment around this but don't feel like you have much time or direction, I'd recommend joining the Citizen's Climate Lobby. It's quite influential in the U.S., and is gaining influence globally. I'm Canadian, and I joined a year ago. Since then I've been able to join several lobby meetings with politicians and gotten involved in many other local issues that I never would have lea…

I whole-heartedly agree.

I found out about the Citizen's Climate Lobby two weeks ago. I jumped into a few zoom calls with members of the organization and they immediately came up with various ways I could help with. For a person who has been extremely worried about climate change for years, it felt good to feel that I could do something about it and meet people sharing the same goal.

Pricing carbon in a revenu neutral way is probably the most impactful thing we can push for. There is more and more political will to implement or double down on it depending on the country. Grass-root lobbying might be the nudge those policies needs to become a reality.

Try spreading the word, educate your friends and family about it. Like many legislations, implementing it the right way will be difficult but the more people are informed about it, the more chances we have.

Re: A 3°C world has no safe place

#204
post #49

American here. I took a bunch of earth science classes in college in 1999. I realized then, I would just plan ahead and aim for an urbanist lifestyle, because our country would have to change. I focused on transit alternatives as my primary advocacy, because it was the most obvious low-hanging fruit and paired with the public health. I never imagined this would happen, but as the years went on, I grew less astonished…

We are the lifelong chain-smoker who, when diagnosed with lung cancer, chooses to keep smoking because of a misguided belief that "at least I'll die happy".

Or, they believe the point of no return has been passed, nothing to be done. I gave seen people evaluate the pain they perceive is a part of quitting exceed their perception of value.

Literally, not worth it.

Re: A 3°C world has no safe place

#205

I'm sitting in my air conditioned room, in the USA. Doing computer stuff, naturally. I look at what I can do about this. I can turn up the temp in my room, and the house. Meager difference. I can use less water - I already am, with getting showers every other day on average. I can eat less meat - which I do with purchase of the beef CSA. I'm big into the repair movement, and repair household equipment and electronics…

Like most problems in the world today, your money can do more good that your individual actions.

The Effective Altruism movement has found some charities that either have proven advocacy records or offer legitimate carbon offsets, and which have a need for more funding.

The Clean Air Task Force seems widely approved of by a variety of EA researcher organizations, with one estimating that they prevent a ton of emissions for less than a dollar.

The offset programs are probably less effective in EV, but more certain. $10 per ton, I believe? Still highly affordable.

https://www.givinggreen.earth

Re: A 3°C world has no safe place

#206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think those figures are right - 5.3T/7.5T would mean 70% of CO2 in the US is caused by coal-fired power plants. According to the EPA data for 2019 [1], power generation accounted for 25% of greenhouse gas emissions, and 62% of that was fossil fuels ("mostly coal and natural gas") - so that means fossil fuels for electricity accounted for 16% of the greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA report shows transportation…

> The EPA report shows transportation as the largest source, at 29% The reason I'm so struck by the coal-fired electricity production numbers are that this seems VASTLY easier to fix than the transportation numbers. Even if the latter would have more impact, I think we're still a long way from being able to dramatically affect that, whereas ramping up renewable electricity generation and ramping down fossil fuels see…

Yeah, add it to the long list of things we're just not doing :-( nuclear could have made a significant dent in CO2 from base load generation, but we didn't fund work into safer nuclear generation so we're stuck with fairly limited options for base load now

Re: A 3°C world has no safe place

#207

I'm sitting in my air conditioned room, in the USA. Doing computer stuff, naturally. I look at what I can do about this. I can turn up the temp in my room, and the house. Meager difference. I can use less water - I already am, with getting showers every other day on average. I can eat less meat - which I do with purchase of the beef CSA. I'm big into the repair movement, and repair household equipment and electronics…

I've given up hope that this will be solved. The buried lede is that, if the prophets of climate doom are correct, you need to substantially reduce your standard of living . And all those third-worlders that are trying to improve their standard of living? They need to stop doing so, yesterday, and learn to accept their impoverished standard of living. But do it cleaner! But they won't want to do that, predictably. An…

> you need to substantially reduce your standard of living

California's per capita electricity consumption has stayed flat since 1970. That's in part due to strict energy efficiency standards. By contrast, per capita electricity consumption in the rest of the country has increased 50%, and that's despite California's standards indirectly improving efficiency elsewhere.

Today per capita consumption in California is nearly half that of the rest of the country, but the standard of living (modern conveniences, etc) is hardly less than elsewhere. Note that California's temperate climate does not explain this away. Home heating is still largely fossil fuel based in most of the U.S., including in California. And most of the population growth in California since the 1970s has been in the Central Valley and Southern California, places where air conditioning is as ubiquitous as anywhere else. Shifts in industrial makeup helped some, but the same industrial sectors also became more energy efficient. In general, most of the relative improvements are a product of better energy efficiency. And that was accomplished primarily through non-politicized regulators quietly and steadily mandating marginal efficiency improvements over the decades.

See https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/ca-success-story-FS... and https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/5/31/1864690...

Suffice it to say that there's alot of pandering to the environmental lobby among Californian politicians. And lots of tension about the cost and viability of various environmental efforts. But as with politics anywhere, the importance of the objects of these fights is usually blown way out of proportion. The most consequential and productive regulations were quietly working in the background for decades, and didn't come with huge price tags.

EDIT: Apropos HN, one of the key personalities working behind the scenes to improve energy efficiency standards was physicist Arthur Rosenfeld. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_H._Rosenfeld and https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/10/the-cal.... His research work gave rise to the eponymous Rosenfeld Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenfeld_Effect) and Rosenfeld's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenfeld%27s_law). The latter states that "From 1845 to the present, the amount of energy required to produce the same amount of gross national product has steadily decreased at the rate of about 1 percent per year".

Re: A 3°C world has no safe place

#208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When is this projected to happen, realistically? 100 years from now?

Realistically? 2011. As get global instability every time food prices spike from drought and commodities price spikes. That time it kicked off the Arab spring & Syrian civil war. Look at immigration into Europe across the Med. from North Africa. Global food prices are spiking now and we're also seeing protests around the globe. The quote is "Society sits 2 meals and 24 hours from anarchy." So any place there's drough…

Huh, curious that there hasn't been nationwide Covid-economic-slowdown-related anarchies yet, or maybe I'm not paying attention? In places like India and Indonesia there's currently severe economic slowdown and not enough government intervention.

A lot of Covid skeptics call it a plandemic, i.e. manufactured crisis, I don't believe it myself, but if I were running a government I would be asking if we should have a permanent state of emergency (like in the book 1984) to prevent societal collapse...

Re: A 3°C world has no safe place

#209
post #49

American here. I took a bunch of earth science classes in college in 1999. I realized then, I would just plan ahead and aim for an urbanist lifestyle, because our country would have to change. I focused on transit alternatives as my primary advocacy, because it was the most obvious low-hanging fruit and paired with the public health. I never imagined this would happen, but as the years went on, I grew less astonished…

> We don't even have serious bicycle or transit prioritization in our major urban areas. We don't have any concern for reducing our meat consumption. We don't have any concern for alternatives to airlines. Sorry, but this stuff is a joke. Population control and non carbon based energy sources are the only things that can really make an impact.

The richest 10% of the world population is responsible for almost half of all carbon emissions. The global median age is up and expected to continue rising. The global fertility rate is dropping. Population growth is projected to flatten in the next century.

Why would we waste time on population control, much less prioritize it?

Re: A 3°C world has no safe place

#210
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Fun fact: the US military is the largest polluter in the world and has held the record for decades Source? > So take your three showers a day. Keep your car idling at stop lights. Burn your garbage. I'm not trolling. Your 'foot print' is a drop in the ocean compared to the real behemoths out there. Your footprint is a drop in the ocean because you're one of 8 billion people on earth. Just from that figure alone it's…

> if all 8 billion people follow your example that would lead to a massive increase in pollution Most people don't follow GP's example because they can't , not because "they're getting the right message". And you bet that as soon as they can, they will . Why? Because most people don't care about the "message", whatever you believe it is. The ones who actually do something about it are the ones who would regardless of…

>Going one step further, I'd say that it would be better if everyone realized that they can't do anything on their own because that might actually get people to work together,

Do people actually believe this? ie. "everyone will just buy a tesla on their own, so we don't need government intervention"?

>that's the very reason why the common message is that "everyone should do their part": because that's how you keep people from working together.

That's awfully cynical. During the pandemic there were multiple PSAs telling people to "do their part" by staying home, wearing masks, etc. Was that also some sort of conspiracy to keep people from working together?

Post reply on HN