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

The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

cell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 422 posts

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#241

Post by pants2 »

throw310822 wrote: post #229
CGMthrowaway wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where does the chain end? I burn diesel in my tractor to harvest corn. Should the feedlot that buys my corn pay for the tractor’s emissions? Should the slaughterhouse that processes the cattle pay? Should the supermarket that stocks the beef pay? Should the family who grills the steak on Sunday pay? Or just the one who eats the largest portion?

You either tax the fuel and pass the cost down to the consumers, or decide as a society to share the cost of the externalities and use general taxation for that.

Here, in the first scenario it directly punishes consumers for consuming more. In the second, it punishes everyone equally on everyone's consumption, which is unlikely to lead to behavior change. So yes, we should tax fossil fuels much more.

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#242

Post by throw310822 »

timschmidt wrote: post #221
throw310822 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't you pay for a more expensive bag and bring it to the store?

Why do you assume I don't? Opinionated defaults matter, as that's what most users will end up using.

Would you be ok if stores offered the option between a cheap plastic bag and a more expensive non-plastic one? (All the stores here already do it, btw).

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#243

Post by dylan604 »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #232
mullingitover wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> each and every one of us contributes to its intensification or mitigation through our decisions. I have to disagree here. This idea of a consumer-level personal responsibility for the fossil energy industry's externalized costs is a lot like the plastic producers shifting blame for waste by saying that it's the consumers' fault for not recycling. It's transparent blame-shifting. The fossil energy industry pulls the…

Problem is that we if we all stand in a circle and point fingers at the next guy who is to blame, that doesn't really move us toward any sort of solutions. In fact the reason it's so easy to find others to blame is that the responsibility is a shared one. Holding consumers responsible doesn't absolve producers, or governments for their participation. All have to be held responsible for their actions. That's the only…

> Problem is that we if we all stand in a circle and point fingers at the next guy who is to blame, that doesn't really move us toward any sort of solutions.

Because of the power of lobbyists and their war chests full of cash, even if we made that circle surrounding our congress critter so everyone was pointing at them, we'd still have no effect. Our shame circle would only be uncomfortable for a short time which would quickly be assuaged by the soothing feeling of another large donation from a lobbyist.

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#244

Post by logicprog »

j0ba wrote: post #52

If only there was a clean, nearly limitless source of energy, where the waste for hundreds of years of energy could be stored in less than a square kilometer. If such a thing existed, we could be sure that environmentalists and leftists would have openly embraced it, rather than nip it at the bud 50 years ago. Because they are Good People™. And we should definitely listen to them now because they Follow The Science™.

But that source of power is a high-modernist invention that is unnatural and especially dangerous because of a few high-profile accidents. We have to shut it all down!

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#245

Post by Ygg2 »

throw310822 wrote: post #185
mullingitover wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> each and every one of us contributes to its intensification or mitigation through our decisions. I have to disagree here. This idea of a consumer-level personal responsibility for the fossil energy industry's externalized costs is a lot like the plastic producers shifting blame for waste by saying that it's the consumers' fault for not recycling. It's transparent blame-shifting. The fossil energy industry pulls the…

I never understood this. The companies sold you fossil fuel, you burnt it and got benefits out of it: transportation, energy, heating, constructions, fertilizers and food, etc. You want them to pay for the negative consequences of your fossil fuel consumption while you keep all the generated benefits?

Pretty sure those poor multi billion companies also got huge subsidies.

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#246

Post by Animats »

The CO2 graph over decades is painfully clear.[1] From 321ppm in 1970 to 428ppm in mid-2005, measured in Hawaii atop Mauna Loa, far from any major CO2 sources. Everything else is noisy and statistical, but the CO2 measurement increases very steadily.

[1] https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#247

Post by dylan604 »

rapnie wrote: post #115
mullingitover wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> each and every one of us contributes to its intensification or mitigation through our decisions. I have to disagree here. This idea of a consumer-level personal responsibility for the fossil energy industry's externalized costs is a lot like the plastic producers shifting blame for waste by saying that it's the consumers' fault for not recycling. It's transparent blame-shifting. The fossil energy industry pulls the…

It is still everyone's responsibility, just not to equal extent. That petrolstate also rose to power through democratic elections.

Mainly because petrolstate's money was considered free speech and allowed to speak louder than citizens when it comes to influencing representatives.

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#248

Post by jandrewrogers »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #134
jandrewrogers wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's that some of them are allergic to true things that they find inconvenient, and have made false premises a pillar of their platform. Sure, if by "some" you mean "virtually all".

Nope, attempted bothsidesing rejected. By "some" I mean "some". Not everyone in politics treats truth as optional. Those who don't should be lauded.

Thinking this is "bothsidesing" is you contributing to the problem. The Democrats and Republicans have both abandoned scientific rigor on this topic. When either talks about it, it is almost purely an excuse to smuggle in unrelated policy objectives.

A group of politicians can have strong disagreements where none has a grasp on reality. That is where we are with climate change. It is one of the reasons I stopped working on it at a policy level.

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#249

Post by jounker »

quantified wrote: post #139
Mordisquitos wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you that consumer-level personal responsibility is absolutely not the way to go. To a certain extent I try to non-dogmatically "do the right thing", but I know it's simply a cute hobby. The only solution is systemic. The incentives need to be in order for businesses and consumers to do the right thing not because it is the right thing, but because it's cheaper or more convenient. That can only be impleme…

Moving from fossil is less convenient, not more. So, we're stuck.

Really? Wind and solar are cheaper. Electric cars and motorcycles are more fun to drive.

Fossil fuels are profitable for a small group of powerful people, and they spend vast amounts of money to spread falsehoods.

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#250

Post by jounker »

bwestergard wrote: post #202
SJC_Hacker wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its a case of prisoner's dilemma. Individuals making the proposed lifestyle changes in order to make a genuine dent in AGW amount to jumping on the tracks in order to stop a freight train. This is the one issue where I feel some sympathy with the right. I hate "Virtue signaling" about as much as they do. I'm sorry, but if you are going to snap at people over eating beef, while you fly/drive all over the country/world…

I am not a vegan. My social world in D.C./NYC has many secular, left-wing, vegans. Many of them are friends or loved ones. They demonstrably speak their mind in front of me on countless issues on which we disagree. I have dined with them countless times at restaurants where they order vegan and I don't. I have never once been "snapped at" about my dietary decisions. Some of these people have dedicated years of their…

Thank you for articulating this so succinctly.
Post reply on HN