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

401–410 of 422 posts

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#401

Post by GMoromisato »

ikrenji wrote: post #375
GMoromisato wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

elon could just as easily be producing EV cars as a single digit billionaire

I'm more than happy to criticize Elon, but seeing as he's only getting richer, I don't think he needs my advice.

But in this post, I'm criticizing people who demonize Tesla to stick it to Elon. That's going to hurt efforts to combat climate change. If you think billionaires getting richer is a bigger problem than climate change, I understand. But that's why global warming is getting worse--because even climate activists would rather fight different battles.

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#402

Post by abenga »

Simbio wrote: post #327
2III7 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WDYM personal decisions don't matter? Industrial and agricultural sectors, which both in sum contribute 50% of total greenhouse gas emissions, produce what is in demand from consumers. Another 15% of emissions is from personal vehicles. Changing personal habits is the only way we can ever reach some utopian climate targets. Utopian because old habits die hard.

Once again, personal decisions on the consumer side doesn't matter here. Unless all consumers cooperate to force a ban on practices that are bad for environment. However that basically means forcing specific decisions on the 1% that control laws and business.

If consumers stop buying gas guzzlers, the impact of personal transportation on the climate will reduce. Are you suggesting the 1% controls the minds of the 99% to do things that are harmful to the environment? Past some point, there is at least some level of personal responsibility?

Several car companies had plans to stop making ICE cars at some point in the near future. Everyone stopped buying their cars and they have had to backtrack (e.g. Porsche). We have all collectively decided that environmentalism is hot air (tee hee) and we'll just continue with business as usual.

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#403

Post by GMoromisato »

scoofy wrote: post #379
GMoromisato wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is anger and hatred, not logic or strategy. I don’t blame you, honestly. And there are many who feel exactly the same way. But this is why we won’t stop global warming. Because beating our enemies is more important than saving the planet.

We can be kind, and do our best, and also call a spade a spade: https://youtu.be/KtQ9nt2ZeGM?si=XwOG5FQ8qZ1AUBi5

I don't agree that EVs are worse for the environment than ICE cars. But I don't want to digress. My point isn't about a specific policy (carbon tax sounds reasonable to me, and I agree that it is/was a conservative idea).

My point is about how to accomplish the goal. If we care about climate change, how do we get political agreement? The only way is to find a deal that persuadable liberals and persuadable conservatives can agree on.

I still believe that if the West had built proportionally as many nuclear power plants as France, we would be in much better shape. But environmental activists fought them and here we are.

I think Elon going to the Trump side was another tragedy, mostly because of what it did to EV adoption, but also because it empowered the Republicans who deny climate change and reject solutions. I don't think you can claim that Elon's turn was good for liberals or for climate action.

These are two examples of climate action advocates pushing for policies that made the climate worse.

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#404

Post by GMoromisato »

cassepipe wrote: post #382
GMoromisato wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is anger and hatred, not logic or strategy. I don’t blame you, honestly. And there are many who feel exactly the same way. But this is why we won’t stop global warming. Because beating our enemies is more important than saving the planet.

I agree with you in the general but both-siding at the present time when one side is engaging in egregious behavior and lies constantly to make the other side as crazy as they are themselves sounds like an attempt at avoiding accountability. It's not the few green militant's fault if one side is denying and attacking science, the same way it's not a few crazy leftists' fault if one side is trying to undermine the rul…

I'm honestly less interested in accountability than in doing something about climate change. If I could solve global warming by giving Elon an extra trillion dollars, I would. If I could solve global warming by giving Trump 4 more unconstitutional years, I probably maybe would (but it would kill me).

My argument is simple:

1. Not enough people support climate action.

2. We've tried demonizing people who don't support climate action and that hasn't worked--it only made them support it less.

3. Therefore, try the opposite: give people an incentive for supporting climate action. That means allying with political opponents, such as Elon or supporters of natural gas, or rich corporations. The broader the base of support for climate action, the easier it is to pass climate action legislation.

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#405

Post by GMoromisato »

cassepipe wrote: post #380
GMoromisato wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

I would love to take the bait to talk about how Elon is very good at demonizing himself and does not need anyone to do it for him but I don't care that much about Elon as I care about climate change. I would like to agree with you but saying "the people who care about that issue are irrational and should be doing X instead of Y" should not be used in defense of "I will deny the issue even exists and attack anyone who…

I think your argument is that allying with people who deny climate change is not going to fix the climate.

But this reminds me of the Israeli leader who was asked, "How can you sign a treaty with [the PLO, I think], they are your enemy!" And he replied, "You don't sign treaties with friends. You only need them with enemies."

If the political constituency for climate action were large enough, then we would have done something already. So we have to start pulling other people into the coalition.

People who oppose climate action are on a continuum. Some are climate change deniers and cannot be persuaded. But many would absolutely support climate action if the costs to them were low enough. Many more would stop opposing climate action if they got something that they wanted in exchange.

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#406

Post by fc417fc802 »

tastyfreeze wrote: post #395
fc417fc802 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of the loops are open in the sense that it's all within the earth system as a whole. The issue is extracting carbon from geological deposits. Stuff about farming and methane is temporary and short term. I don't mean to suggest we shouldn't compost or recycle things. Just that such measures are only indirectly related to carbon emissions. We either stop extracting hydrocarbons from deep within the crust or else t…

In that sense even hydrocarbons are closed loop. Earth made the oil deposits so we aren't adding anything that wasn't already here. The carbon we pump into the atmosphere will eventually become oil again.

My point is that the timescale of a given loop is what matters. Specifically, extraction of geological deposits has a timescale (and thus an equilibrium) that is highly undesirable for us.

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#407

Post by CobrastanJorji »

mmooss wrote: post #362
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That puts recycling on the "I'm helping to spread awareness by temporarily adding a note to my Twitter bio" tier of action. It's better than nothing, but it's only a little better.

It's a lot better; it's actually doing work: Things are accomplished by people acting together. The social aspect is the mechanism of how we do it. You can see how every step of the way, people try to tell everyone to quit. The fossil fuel industry couldn't design a better plan.

I don't agree. Doing something that's makes very little difference makes you feel better, like you've solved the problem, and soothes the urgent need to actually fix the problem. The city gives out recycling cans, and the populace feels confident that the city is doing something, but that takes pressure off of things the city could do that would actually help but are unpalatable, like shutting down the chemical plant pouring stuff into the river, or banning cruise ships.

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#408

Post by ikrenji »

GMoromisato wrote: post #401
ikrenji wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

elon could just as easily be producing EV cars as a single digit billionaire

I'm more than happy to criticize Elon, but seeing as he's only getting richer, I don't think he needs my advice. But in this post, I'm criticizing people who demonize Tesla to stick it to Elon. That's going to hurt efforts to combat climate change. If you think billionaires getting richer is a bigger problem than climate change, I understand. But that's why global warming is getting worse--because even climate activi…

elon/tesla is not the only EV manufacturer, so idk why you are insisting on framing elon/tesla as some kind of climate messiah... in fact elon helped elect the most climate change denialist president in recent history so one might argue elon is actively hurting the global warming fight...

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#409

Post by wilgertvelinga »

iinnPP wrote: post #111
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…

Don't forget buying mountains worth of crap that gets used for a month or less and trashed.

Spot on! It's probably the stuff you buy that has the biggest impact on the planet.

Fill in this test to find out for yourself: https://myhiddenimpact.com/en/

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#410

Post by scoofy »

GMoromisato wrote: post #403
scoofy wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can be kind, and do our best, and also call a spade a spade: https://youtu.be/KtQ9nt2ZeGM?si=XwOG5FQ8qZ1AUBi5

I don't agree that EVs are worse for the environment than ICE cars. But I don't want to digress. My point isn't about a specific policy (carbon tax sounds reasonable to me, and I agree that it is/was a conservative idea). My point is about how to accomplish the goal. If we care about climate change, how do we get political agreement? The only way is to find a deal that persuadable liberals and persuadable conservativ…

>My point is about how to accomplish the goal. If we care about climate change, how do we get political agreement? The only way is to find a deal that persuadable liberals and persuadable conservatives can agree on.

You can't. Liberals aren't going to kowtow to the American right (I don't even want to use small "c" conservative here because fighting climate change is a conservative position). At every point along the way it's made sense -- long term -- to fight climate change, and at every point the right has veto power

Look, I've always defended Elon Musk, even after he aligned himself with the hard right. By making EV's "acceptable" to the right, he changed the political alignment on the carbon issue, and he deserves credit there.

Even in blue states, with people assert that they are concerned about climate change we have much of the left states doubling down on sprawl as housing policy. We have people doing everything they can to signal that they care about climate, without being willing to give up their gas stove when given subsidies.

We're not even winning the argument very well with our allies. Politics is hard, even when people are open to being reasonable.

Post reply on HN