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

351–360 of 422 posts

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#351

Post by brynnbee »

Ancalagon wrote: post #262
Mordisquitos wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, we're not completely stuck. It is absolutely clear that not enough has been done to reduce our carbon emissions, and we're on a bad path on track to ~2.5°C warming in the next century. However, something has been done, and if nothing had been done we could easily be on track to >4°C global warming. That would be much worse. So, how did we achieve what little we have? Well, because many people have cared, and…

are you sure we aren't on the >4°C path? AI could very well put us back on it.

Considering that current energy usage of AI is very likely to plummet in the coming years due to efficiency gains (which we've seem massive improvements on in the last couple years) and most of these large companies building datacenters are looking for and investing in specifically clean energy sources (nuclear) I don't think AI is a meaningful contributor compared to all the other high causes of global emissions.

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#352

Post by mrguyorama »

Aeveus wrote: post #43

Miss the days where YC put emphasis on climate tech too: - https://www.ycombinator.com/blog/rfs-climatetech - http://carbon.ycombinator.com/

I miss the days when the Republican party openly asserted that Climate Change was a serious problem that we needed to do something about.

It was a short, short moment of time, but it existed.

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#353

Post by aydyn »

jacquesm wrote: post #345
aydyn wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This discussion is not solely focused on EVs.

The moment someone mentions energy density you can bet they are talking about vehicles and not about stationary stuff.

That is just retconning the discussion, please go back and check.

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#354

Post by tshaddox »

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.

Properly disposing of industrial pollutants is less convenient than dumping them into the surrounding air or the nearby river.

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#356

Post by GMoromisato »

scoofy wrote: post #331
GMoromisato wrote: post #329

This is 100% uninformed opinion (sorry, HN) but allowing climate action to become a political issue (and a losing political issue at that) was the core mistake the environmental movement made in the 90s and beyond. If we had created a broad-based constituency for climate action, say, working with industry to build nuclear power or supporting natural gas to displace coal or even funding more conservative think tanks,…

> but allowing climate action to become a political issue What the hell are you talking about? What?!? This entire issue was a solved problem with a simple carbon tax (which is a conservative leaning policy ) and then one party decided their strategy was going to be deny, then delay, then pose it as a fait accompli. I was pretty damn conservative on a lot of issues when I started college... as it became more and more…

I think what you're saying is conservatives should have support climate action (like a carbon tax).

Obviously, they did not, however. The question is what could we (people who care about climate change) have done differently to get broader political support? The problem wasn't getting liberals to support action, it was getting conservatives to support it. Therefore, we needed to do something to appeal to conservatives.

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#357

Post by fylo »

derektank wrote: post #302
_alternator_ wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So… it’s like you completely understand the issue :) And obviously, you tax the fuel at the source, right when it comes out of the ground. Higher prices get passed down, changing behavior because the products externalities are priced correctly from the start.

To be clear, the source would still be the consumer. Hydrocarbons can be used for non-CO2 emitting purposes such as chemical feedstock for pharmaceuticals, solvents, etc. We should only be levying a tax upon uses that emit CO2 into the atmosphere, i.e. burning them in your ICE vehicle. It’s not the fracking company that’s emitting the CO2 (unless they’re gas flaring or similarly emitting carbon during extraction but…

Right, because processing oil for non fuel products takes 0 energy, and produces 0 emissions, right?

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#358

Post by GMoromisato »

ikrenji wrote: post #340
GMoromisato wrote: post #329

This is 100% uninformed opinion (sorry, HN) but allowing climate action to become a political issue (and a losing political issue at that) was the core mistake the environmental movement made in the 90s and beyond. If we had created a broad-based constituency for climate action, say, working with industry to build nuclear power or supporting natural gas to displace coal or even funding more conservative think tanks,…

what labor issues and regulatory roadblocks? the man is halfway to becoming a trillionaire. if anything there wasn't enough labor legislation and more regulation to spread the wealth a bit

If you care more about preventing Elon from getting richer than getting more EV adoption, then that's exactly what I'm talking about.

If climate change is a major problem, then we should fight it, even if it means Elon gets richer. If you don't think it's a major problem, then mission accomplished.

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#359

Post by GMoromisato »

cassepipe wrote: post #333
GMoromisato wrote: post #329

This is 100% uninformed opinion (sorry, HN) but allowing climate action to become a political issue (and a losing political issue at that) was the core mistake the environmental movement made in the 90s and beyond. If we had created a broad-based constituency for climate action, say, working with industry to build nuclear power or supporting natural gas to displace coal or even funding more conservative think tanks,…

No what's crazy is that something as apolitical as "many scientists specialized in climate have come to the conclusion" was successfully turned into something political thanks to a now well proven denialist playbook. We really need to stop both-siding that kind of thing. One side just said "We should do something about it to save us all" and the other side tried to come up with anything that could make them look evil…

I think people who care about climate change should stop doing things that don't work (or even make the problem worse). Demonizing Elon, demonizing nuclear power, demonizing natural gas, forcing people to cut back, supporting de-growth: none of these things have worked to stop climate change. Maybe we should try something different.

Unless, of course, the goal isn't to solve climate change but to demonize Elon. In that case, well done!

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#360

Post by judahmeek »

brynnbee wrote: post #351
Ancalagon wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

are you sure we aren't on the >4°C path? AI could very well put us back on it.

Considering that current energy usage of AI is very likely to plummet in the coming years due to efficiency gains (which we've seem massive improvements on in the last couple years) and most of these large companies building datacenters are looking for and investing in specifically clean energy sources (nuclear) I don't think AI is a meaningful contributor compared to all the other high causes of global emissions.

Jevon's Paradox would like a word
Post reply on HN