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

271–279 of 279 posts

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

#271

Post by breakfastduck »

blake1 wrote: post #116
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.

I disagree with a lot of this, except the conclusion. The economy never came close to a “total shutdown.” In most places, the overwhelming majority of jobs were classified as essential—maybe 2/3rds—even while certain sectors did shut down. You can look at various stats, but a very simple one is the output gap, estimated to be 6%, which is potential GDP minus actual. This is a fair proxy for how shut down the economy…

See, I disagree.

We've shut down the most we could, essentially. Which means most things need to stay open and active.

What could we possibly do to make a bigger impact?

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

#272

Post by bluGill »

jessaustin wrote: post #251
bluGill wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of them can be controlled from the internet.

John Deere is to be commended, one supposes, for being much more concerned about blackhat terrorists than e.g. Siemens with all their internet-accessible SCADA installations, but neither ISIS nor Putin care about killing a couple of farmers in western Iowa. Thread parent was about automobiles, and while maybe professionally-operated vehicles like semi trucks or buses would be better with which to start using ammonia…

How do you know that the tank won't rupture in an accident? Such engineering is not cheap.

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

#273

Post by devdas »

ndiscussion wrote: post #112
kristopolous wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really says something. Roads have long served as our public space but we've managed to convert it into the private. I don't mean materially private, I know we're fishbowls on wheels, but culturally private, as in people often refer to it as such. It's one of the only times most people are disconnected from internet/work-tech because there is substantial risk of life and limb if they engaged (I know people have mad…

What if we didn't crowd ourselves into cesspools of humanity ie cities? I'm being a bit facetious, but ultimately, this lack of privacy is all self-inflicted.

Cities offer privacy and anonymity. Smaller towns lack both. Dense urban areas with reasonably easy access to nature on public transport are fantastic resources which are missing in car oriented suburbs.

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

#274

Post by throwaway0a5e »

devdas wrote: post #273
ndiscussion wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if we didn't crowd ourselves into cesspools of humanity ie cities? I'm being a bit facetious, but ultimately, this lack of privacy is all self-inflicted.

Cities offer privacy and anonymity. Smaller towns lack both. Dense urban areas with reasonably easy access to nature on public transport are fantastic resources which are missing in car oriented suburbs.

Cities offer you anonymity from other "nobodies".

Rural areas offer anonymity from the state.

Both are declining because the scope of government is getting bigger and their capabilities get better. In practice this means that your upstairs neighbor in a city who just doesn't like your hair (or whatever) can likely find a reason to narc on you and in the country your magic mushroom grow op that nobody local cared about will be harassed by the government who formerly didn't have the means to care about what people in the countryside violating laws without bothering people were up to.

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

#275

Post by jessaustin »

bluGill wrote: post #272
jessaustin wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

John Deere is to be commended, one supposes, for being much more concerned about blackhat terrorists than e.g. Siemens with all their internet-accessible SCADA installations, but neither ISIS nor Putin care about killing a couple of farmers in western Iowa. Thread parent was about automobiles, and while maybe professionally-operated vehicles like semi trucks or buses would be better with which to start using ammonia…

How do you know that the tank won't rupture in an accident? Such engineering is not cheap.

Ammonia is less flammable and explosive than gasoline, which is commonly found in currently-engineered and currently-existing fuel tanks. They are both much less flammable and explosive than hydrogen, which is the other fuel under discussion in this thread. Ammonia tanks would be pressurized, which is different than gasoline, but lots of tanks are pressurized.

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

#276

Post by jessaustin »

imtringued wrote: post #173
jessaustin wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Albedo modification is the obvious response to the situation. Of course testing should start small, but the idea that 2 kg of material in one location could lead to a runaway deep-freeze earth situation is not plausible. Those global warming enthusiasts who oppose this research seem more interested in political implications than in actually reducing warming.

There are simple ways to avoid resorting to desperate measures like these. Just do them and stop worrying about extreme situations.

If you can (non-violently) convince everyone on earth to suffer massive setbacks in health and material comforts, then by all means go ahead. In the meantime, something that has a chance of actually happening should be pursued, even if it isn't "simple" by some arbitrary measure.

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

#277

Post by WhompingWindows »

epistasis wrote: post #175
WhompingWindows wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First off, it's probably higher than 3%, I found estimates of 4% in an ARS study. Also, if beef is a full 1/3 of our agricultural emissions (9-10% overall), then that's a massive amount so a few people can have their cherished foods, at everyone else's expense (tragedy of the commons here). Second, beef is proportionally MUCH worse than all other foods: we can't afford to leave a full 1/25th of our emissions on the t…

Even if all US emissions from beef stopped tomorrow, it would have far less effect than the US's drop in 2020. And the drop that we saw last year is similar to what we need to continue with each year this decade. Sure, beef emissions must be dealt with, but it's a fraction of a year's decreases, it's not "huge". When it comes to climate (the topic here), banning beef is being used by climate inactivists as a cultural…

I agree that the extreme views about banning beef are counter-productive. We saw the craziness that right-wing outlets propagated with a mere DRAFT version of the Green New Deal on AOC's website...this is just an HTML document uploaded by a staffer...that led to months of mis-characterization and damage to the perception of the left's views of climate.

I still think beef is a wasteful, unethical luxury, and every bite of beef comes via great cost to the millions of species going extinct and the future devastation of coastal and island peoples.

In my view, we need to place taxes on behaviors that are bad for society. Barring that impossibility, we need to develop meat alternatives, change hearts and diets, and also reform the beef industry towards sustainability. I think ideally, we'd always have cows, but in far, far lesser numbers.

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

#278

Post by gwern »

Retric wrote: post #213
saagarjha wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans tend to stop multiplying exponentially, though.

So do rats with abundant food in an enclosed environment, it doesn’t end well. https://www.gwern.net/docs/sociology/1962-calhoun.pdf Which isn’t to say the same rules apply to humans, but it’s also critical to get this right.

> So do rats with abundant food in an enclosed environment, it doesn’t end well

I have a lot of questions about whether that's true of even rats: https://www.gwern.net/Questions#mouse-utopia

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

#279

Post by devdas »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #274
devdas wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cities offer privacy and anonymity. Smaller towns lack both. Dense urban areas with reasonably easy access to nature on public transport are fantastic resources which are missing in car oriented suburbs.

Cities offer you anonymity from other "nobodies". Rural areas offer anonymity from the state. Both are declining because the scope of government is getting bigger and their capabilities get better. In practice this means that your upstairs neighbor in a city who just doesn't like your hair (or whatever) can likely find a reason to narc on you and in the country your magic mushroom grow op that nobody local cared abou…

Rural areas don't offer you anonymity from the state either.

If your neighbours don't like you, they are likely to bring the state in. To be able to be that anonymous, you would need to be a few days commuting away from all individuals and offgrid.

In cities, the neighbour might not like you, but they don't have the time or energy to care about it. You need a reasonably big and dense city for this though.

Post reply on HN