Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says • Hacker News Board

Re: Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says

#481

Post by SmellyGeekBoy » Tue, May 07, 2019, 10:56 AM UTC

jniedrauer wrote: post #459

uhtred wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone is pesco-vegetarian and eating a lot of dairy, especially cheese, and fish, then their environmental footprint would be way higher than someone (a vegan) who is not eating those things. The NY times article you linked shows just that.

You'll notice that I didn't say "your environmental impact will automatically be reduced to near that of a vegan diet by eating a pesco-vegetarian diet." Changing to a new category of diet does not absolve you of the need to make responsible decisions. You could technically be a very wasteful vegan and have a higher carbon footprint than an omnivore. You could also be a responsible human being and eat a conservative…

Why "change category" and constantly be chasing the next trendy label? Just eat less meat. When you do eat meat, eat higher welfare meat that's farmed locally (fewer food miles). Why do people take everything to extremes?

Re: Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says

#482

Post by SmellyGeekBoy » Tue, May 07, 2019, 10:57 AM UTC

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #386

uhtred wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it difficult? If someone is still eating eggs, dairy and fish they are not 95% of the way to being vegan. And cost? What makes you think being vegan is more expensive than eating animal products?

Getting the same amount of protein is difficult? I've never seen someone try to argue going vegan is cheaper then eating meat. Maybe cheaper than eating steaks, but chicken breast/thighs and ground beef? Eggs are also an excellent source of protein, it comes out to about a $1 for 80g of protein.

Eggs are pretty much the most cost effective source of protein in existence, hence bodybuilders have traditionally eaten large quantities of them.

Re: Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says

#483

Post by _khau » Tue, May 07, 2019, 11:02 AM UTC

DamnYuppie wrote: post #329

TheBeardKing wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It would be more accurate if you replaced "greedy capitalists" with "humanity". I have been all over the world and materialism that is so denounced as a US/capitalist vice is actually prevalent EVERYWHERE. The desire to improve ones life and acquire material is universal to all people regardless of the ruling structure of their country. It is my opinion that what we need to focus on is a reduction of consumerism that…

You're equating the human drive for a better life with capitalism. This is a common propaganda talking point that attempts to paint 'capitalism' as a natural drive rather than an ideology.

Capitalism is merely the private ownership of the means of production (i.e. farms, factories, utilities etc.) for personal profit. Capitalism is not the same as resource collection or trade. Capitalism is a specific model of how to manage those resources and trade in society.

And let's not pretend like its the garbage pickers in Bangladesh, or the subsistence farmer in Kenya, or the local shopkeeper in London that is the problem here. It's the elite class of hyper-capitalists for whom greed is a mantra.

It's these people that cut costs in favour of using plastic packaging for their mass-produced crap. People weren't clamouring at the gates of the company demanding their shitty sugar water in plastic bottles.

It's these people that have lobbied and coerced for the perverse incentives we see in capitalism today. These are the people who will never stop trying to sell you cheap shit and it is these people who will continue to buy off your representatives to ensure that the healthy ecosystem the 99% of us need to survive is theirs to rape.

Don't blame the average person. They are not even close to the main problem. The main problem throughout history has always been the same; a small cartel of obscenely wealthy individuals and families with an out-sized share of wealth and power, and the divisions they sew amongst us to entrench themselves.

Re: Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says

#484

Post by ionised » Tue, May 07, 2019, 11:09 AM UTC

matz1 wrote: post #146

uptown wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ecosystems are all interconnected. As an example, see "How Wolves Changed Rivers": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8448929 Now, imagine the impact of a million species being wiped from the earth.

There would be impact but if anything human are good with adapting and with technology. Is it impossible to image that these million species roles can be replaced with technology ?

This is the most Silicon Valley response I could have hoped for.

Re: Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says

#485

Post by Aromasin » Tue, May 07, 2019, 11:53 AM UTC

perfunctory wrote: post #446

mooseburger wrote: post #440

The U.S. and Europe can't actually do much about this though. Look at this chart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_th... If everyone in the US and Europe dropped dead, that would be about a 24% decrease in global GHG emissions. Said emissions need to be 40% to 70% lower by 2050, according to the IPCC ( https://www.climatecentral.org/news/major-greenhouse-gas-red... ). Bottom line, you're not…

> If everyone in the US and Europe dropped dead, that would be about a 24% decrease in global GHG emissions That's not quite right. A lot of that pollution by China and Other is due to exports for US and European consumption. We just outsourced our pollution. So it depends on how one does the accounting.

Same applies to our trash/garbage/rubbish. Time and time again I hear the words "but all of our stuff gets recycled - China/India/Malaysia/[insert] is the problem". Little do they realise that we ship massive amounts of it away.

Re: Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says

#486

Post by kaybe » Tue, May 07, 2019, 12:21 PM UTC

MiroF wrote: post #398

kaybe wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only real option is carbon capture. Everything else has the wonkiest side effects in the models, eg concerning atmosphere/ocean circulation, which heavily affects local and regional weather patterns, and the cooling is still not sufficient.

Carbon capture is not remotely feasible given the cost/intrinsic limitations in how to get the carbon out of the air. Sulfur dioxide has been shown to work in real life experiments (read: volcanic eruptions) and while t has some side effects, it’s a known quantity and the benefits generally outweigh the costs.

Yes, it works, but there is a limit for how much warming it can migitate (if you make the particles larger/more they will just coagulate and precipitate faster), and the limit seems to be ~ -2 W/m^2. (It is important to not only consider the short-wave reflective cooling of the aerosol but also the long-wave heating it creates. More sulphur will just coagulate faster. Changing atmospheric circulation patterns mean the aerosol is not distributed equally and can grow and precipiate faster.) (Currently we're already at an estimated +0.6 W/m^2.)

Additionally, the atmospheric circulation is disturbed [0]. Interaction with the ozone layer might also be highly problematic.

So this is not a solution, only a last-ditch effort if we need to buy some time. With everything else being constant, the injection needs to be repeated for basically forever, a problem for all solar radiation management techniques.

Carbon capture on the other hand allows us to stop at some point, it removes the problem instead of only treating the symptoms. There are ideas for enhanced weathering, or storing organic matter (eg as biochar), which are feasible from an energic perspective but still expensive.

Whatever we do, it needs to be done on a huge scale, like a massive war effort, with everyone involved and helping, and it will be more expensive than not emitting the carbon in the first place. Also, one method alone will not cut it, and there will be side effects, which are hopefully less severe than the alternative.

Don't rely on technology to fix the problem after the fact, push for change now.

[0] https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/18/2769/2018/acp-18-2769-201...

Re: Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says

#487

Post by uxcolumbo » Tue, May 07, 2019, 12:46 PM UTC

Balgair wrote: post #336

kilroy123 wrote: post #120

I have a theory, and I have no evidence to back this theory up. The increases in anxiety in the general public over the last decade or so is in large part to people knowing we're on an unsustainable path. We're all collectively marching towards the edge of the cliff to jump off together. More people than ever have anxiety because we subconsciously (or consciously) know this. We're unsustainable with how we pollute an…

Read the late Dr. Hans Rosling's Factfullness . By many measures, the world is getting much much better. Try testing yourself to see what you know, are you smarter than a chimp?: http://forms.gapminder.org/s3/test-2018

"World" - does this include measurements for the natural world as well (which our world is built on top)?

Or just things that have improved human life without looking at the environmental destruction that occurred over the past few decades.

Re: Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says

#488

Post by ramblerman » Tue, May 07, 2019, 1:39 PM UTC

kilroy123 wrote: post #120

I have a theory, and I have no evidence to back this theory up. The increases in anxiety in the general public over the last decade or so is in large part to people knowing we're on an unsustainable path. We're all collectively marching towards the edge of the cliff to jump off together. More people than ever have anxiety because we subconsciously (or consciously) know this. We're unsustainable with how we pollute an…

I think you have reversed the cause and effect. People before us lived far closer to the brink of destruction, and endured actual hardships, which I think made them less anxious.

Our current anxious, no-risk state makes us much more prone to fatalism, and nihilism, making the environment the perfect end of days thing to feed that anxiety.

Re: Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says

#489

Post by ramblerman » Tue, May 07, 2019, 1:44 PM UTC

holoduke wrote: post #324

Unpopular to say, but people as a group will not change. it won't just happen. We will destroy part of earth and as a consequence we will engineer a fix for it. It is maybe an unfortunate thing. But that's how we people work. We mess up first and clean after. It's quite unrealistic to expect the world to look the same in 100 years from now. We will slowly take control over every single square feet on this planet. Tha…

> Unpopular to say, but people as a group will not change

I hope it's not unpopular here. I absolutely agree with you, human nature will not change.

We win through sufficient technological advancement, or a drastic reduction in the population. I see no other paths forward myself.

Reducing your carbon footprint, while the world population continues to grow, is noble, but utterly futile.

Re: Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says

#490

Post by uhtred » Tue, May 07, 2019, 1:47 PM UTC

SmellyGeekBoy wrote: post #481

jniedrauer wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll notice that I didn't say "your environmental impact will automatically be reduced to near that of a vegan diet by eating a pesco-vegetarian diet." Changing to a new category of diet does not absolve you of the need to make responsible decisions. You could technically be a very wasteful vegan and have a higher carbon footprint than an omnivore. You could also be a responsible human being and eat a conservative…

Why "change category" and constantly be chasing the next trendy label? Just eat less meat. When you do eat meat, eat higher welfare meat that's farmed locally (fewer food miles). Why do people take everything to extremes?

Because most people are vegan for animals not for environment or health, so it's not that they are taking things to extremes, but rather that being responsible for only the occasional death or abuse of another animal isn't an option.