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

Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 1001 posts

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#301

Post by londons_explore »

nosianu wrote: post #201
rich_sasha wrote: post #170

It’s just so hard to know what actions have what impact on CO2 production. Some are high-pain, low-gain (switching devices off instead of standby?), some are opposite (cycling instead of driving when possible etc). For that if for no other reason, I’d rather if consumer prices included an explicit CO2 tax. The here can be a rebate for poorer people, or personal allowance, whatever, but there would be a fixed yardstic…

> It’s just so hard to know what actions have what impact on CO2 production Not really. For some reason the actually quite simple problem is needlessly complicated in the discussions. Stop digging up ANY carbon from below ground where it was safely buried. Any carbon above ground is part of the cycle that includes atmospheric CO2. You need huge effort to change how much of it is in CO2 form at any time while still ha…

> Stop digging up ANY carbon from below ground where it was safely buried.

If a country does this today, they will be at a severe economic disadvantage compared to a neighbouring country which continues using coal. All their manufactured goods will end up more expensive, nobody will buy their exports, and their population and economy will suffer.

Only a few countries have done this to any extent, and they are countries who either don't have many fossil fuels, or whose main exports don't involve energy.

The only real solution is for all countries to agree to limit/stop digging up coal/oil/gas at the same time, and to apply punitive sanctions to countries who do not adhere to the agreement.

There isn't really any other way. OPEC could do it if it had a few more members. The US could do it if they were prepared to threaten sanctions or millitary force. Nobody else can really do it.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#303

Post by zer0tonin »

thendrill wrote: post #282

Can someone please explain why should a middle class, middle aged blue collar worker care about this? How does any of this make his life better or worse?

Do they like access to cheaply grown food? Enjoy a summer without a 50°C heat spike? Don't want their kids to get enrolled in a war over resources?

If they answer "yes" to any of that, they should maybe care.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#304

Post by zelphirkalt »

brobdingnagians wrote: post #229
zelphirkalt wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have children, then that is probably the most impactful. They will need/want the same living standards as other people. They get the full package of other impactful things you mention plus some more like house building. For example a young family does no longer live in the same small 2 person flat, but instead builds a house (or lets build). Especially in first world countries and developing to first world cou…

If we are going down that line of commentary-- Large families with lots of children are usually more efficient than small single or two child families, since large families tend to spend less per person and the children learn to make do and be resourceful. Resources are pooled, everything is used, hand-me-downs are used multiple times. Reducing, reusing and recycling are parts of daily life out of necessity. More act…

Good point, I guess. But what is the consequence of it? Do we allow only some families to have more children, while others are not allowed to have any, to get this effect of more efficiency of resource usage? How do we get there in a fair way?

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#305

Post by shellfishgene »

Joeri wrote: post #70
skinkestek wrote: post #31

So now we can get rid of fast fashion, mandate reusability for products, reintroduce basic woodworking, metalcrafting and sewing/repair work in school and with that get rid of a huge chunk of the needless shipping? Or are we still going to go after individuals eating traditional food while thought leaders fly across the globe in private jets (no kidding) telling us we need to change our diet? PS: I'm already a enthus…

Individual action won’t solve this problem. We need to leave the fossil fuels in the ground, which means switching energy sources, which is not something individuals have much influence on. Reducing energy use at the individual level is good, but insufficient if the energy used comes from fossil fuels. I’m not sure we need to switch lifestyles that much, but we will need to radically change energy production. There h…

> which means switching energy sources, which is not something individuals have much influence on

I'm not sure how it is in the US or around the world, but in Germany switching to 100% renewable energy for your home takes about 10 minutes online, by changing contract or company. Sure - if everyone did it there would not be enough supply, but apparently the majority does not despite being able to.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#306

Post by VoodooJuJu »

rich_sasha wrote: post #170

It’s just so hard to know what actions have what impact on CO2 production. Some are high-pain, low-gain (switching devices off instead of standby?), some are opposite (cycling instead of driving when possible etc). For that if for no other reason, I’d rather if consumer prices included an explicit CO2 tax. The here can be a rebate for poorer people, or personal allowance, whatever, but there would be a fixed yardstic…

It's not hard to know what actions impact CO2 production. Like nosianu else said, just stop taking carbon fuel out of the ground. Anything above ground is part of the carbon cycle and is fair game - manure, trees (to a point), etc.

But I think what's hard about this is not understanding what causes CO2 production, but understanding what it means to stop burning buried carbon fuel. It means no more computer, cel phone, cars, no flying, no 2-day shipping for [ANY PRODUCT!], no container ships and planes shipping food and products all over the world. It might mean abandoning air-conditioning and having to hand-wash your clothes. It means abandoning modern comforts (not necessities). It means abandoning a hyper-consoomer lifestyle and becoming more localist, which most of us simply cannot fathom doing.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#307

Post by dade_ »

542458 wrote: post #290
kebman wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The emphasis many countries take is to focus on car owners and drivers by taxing private commuters to death, with dubious environmental gains outside of increasing state income. Meanwhile one cargo ship or cruise liner arguably pollutes way more than millions(!) of cars. I'm not sure that's a great route to take politically, no pun intended. They seem to go for the lowest hanging cash grab before going after those wh…

Is that true? I’m seeing that cruise ships emit a lot of particulates (namely sulphur dioxide), but the actual co2-equivalent numbers I’m seeing are 0.8t/passenger for cruise ships - which is bad, but not quite as bad as described in your post. https://www.tourismdashboard.org/explore-the-data/cruise-shi...

It's the cargo ships. They usually use dirty fuel and there are so many of them. Cruise ships are a problem, but there aren't nearly as many.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#308

Post by whimsicalism »

zthrowaway wrote: post #269
oliwarner wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we all have a fairly good idea of some things that would help, it's the scale we struggle to comprehend. But even if you could find out the magic threshold for what it would take , if there's anything that lockdown and covid restrictions in the UK have taught me in the past 18 months, it's that we all need to follow the rules or it's pointless. It's so disheartening to see others not pay these taxes, to not r…

The attempt to force people into limiting their lives for CO2 concerns falls into environmental authoritarianism. That’s why. Lots of people see it that way and when you mix hyperbolic environmentalist doomsday predictions that never actually happen people stop taking this seriously. Additionally, the US is built on the foundation of personal freedom and autonomy. We would be the last country where people would willi…

The impacts will be extreme, and it is not alarmism to say so.

The issue is that the impacts (lots of death) will be for generations down the line and will not really affect us today at all.

Personal choice effectively means screwing the future generations, because most people don't actually care about them. But those future generations are never given any choice at all.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#309

Post by zelphirkalt »

virgilp wrote: post #226
zelphirkalt wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have children, then that is probably the most impactful. They will need/want the same living standards as other people. They get the full package of other impactful things you mention plus some more like house building. For example a young family does no longer live in the same small 2 person flat, but instead builds a house (or lets build). Especially in first world countries and developing to first world cou…

> one needs to continue to pay, while the children live? Can you kill them if you no longer afford the tax? (any answer to this question should suggest how ridiculous a tax like this would be)

If you want to go to jail for many years and screw up your life significantly, possibly never be happy again, perhaps.

Is this supposed to be any kind of counter argument? "Parents could simply kill their children."? Seriously?

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#310

Post by lukastr0 »

shadowfaxRodeo wrote: post #188
rich_sasha wrote: post #170

It’s just so hard to know what actions have what impact on CO2 production. Some are high-pain, low-gain (switching devices off instead of standby?), some are opposite (cycling instead of driving when possible etc). For that if for no other reason, I’d rather if consumer prices included an explicit CO2 tax. The here can be a rebate for poorer people, or personal allowance, whatever, but there would be a fixed yardstic…

Even if every person on the planet did what you reasonably expect of yourself, we would still not even be close to reducing CO2 production. By all means do those things. But if you want to make a real difference you need to look beyond your own activities. Change your community, your company, your industry. What can you do that changes the defaults for everyone else? Try and find low-hanging fruit. Join your local cl…

Small changes to personal consumption are not the best way to contribute to fighting climate change. A significantly more effective actionstep would be to donate a small portion of your income to highly effective climate charities [1].

I'm not against changing personal consumption - for example, I went vegan. But this is not where the majority of my impact on the world lies, as even a small donation vastly outweighs the effect that my veganism has.

[1] https://founderspledge.com/stories/climate-and-lifestyle-rep...

Post reply on HN