Live data from Hacker News

Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

thewalrus.ca

51–60 of 179 posts

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#51
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would "convincing people to take the bus instead of a car" require coordinated action? Just stop letting them buy gas. (Where by "them" I mean individual passenger-vehicle drivers. Continue to allow commercial vehicles to buy gas, but require that they show their commercial-vehicle license at the register.) A country could do it; or it could be done city by city with municipal bylaws to act only upon the worst po…

Just stop letting them buy gas? That would take either: - That companies (plural) stop selling gas. That's coordinated action, because you need all the oil companies (or all the gas stations) to agree. - That the government decides it. But in a democracy, that takes coordinated action too. The president does not have the constitutional authority to decree "no more sales of gasoline for passenger vehicles".

On the top level: OPEC (a coalition of mostly totalitarian states) can decide to restrict sale of petroleum to only be purchased by states, not private companies. Where that decision could be forced by just a few other states, at gunpoint.

Let me put it this way: why do you think there isn't an OPEC-like private marketplace for uranium? Because states don't want there to be such a thing. States make themselves an oligopsony for the purchase of uranium, and then regulate its distribution to only parties they want to have it. And people generally like it that way.

(Also, the president of the United States is a bad example of what a country's executive's powers generally are, because federalism. Most other heads of states can just make a decree like that.)

But state action is a less-likely scenario, and also not the one I was really imagining. The more likely scenario is local action — i.e. a mayor enacting a bylaw for their municipality such that gas stations that don't regulate sale of gasoline would be blocked from operating within city limits. (And sure, you could drive outside the city limits to get gas... but presuming the metropolitan area is large enough, you might burn the whole tank just getting back home after doing that.)

A mayor does have that power. They need no referendum, no legislature, to pass such a bylaw. They merely need the people to be okay-enough with the action to not impeach them in response. (In fact, technically, you don't even need the bylaw. Businesses only operate on physical commercially-zoned properties in cities at the city's sufferance; a city government is free to revoke a given business's ability to operate on such property at any time, for no reason. A city can un-make the zone a business is operating under, and replace it with a new zone that has different rules, that then exclude that business. This happens all the time!)

From there, it spreads not by coordinated action, but just by other city governments seeing the idea and copying it.

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#52
post #3

I think all the alarmist language is doing a massive disservice to environmental concerns for the reason the author is portraying but also a much different reason where a lot of people tend to greet hysterics with absolute doubt and discern. When environmentalists decided instead of having a real public conversation and resorting to what a lot of people perceive as the people screaming on the corner about the end tim…

I agree. But we really should be eating less red meat.

I agree. But we should limit crop yields by restricting human manufacture of ammonia and return to 1890 levels of population.

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#53
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's solarpunk, at least. Also, I think there's optimism in people talking about how living a happier, more social life can also be one that happens to be lower in carbon intensity. I currently live in a very car-dependent detached house on an island (so reliant on planes to go anywhere) and am viewing flats now in a place where I can live car-free and go places via train. And on top of all that, every time I have…

There’s stuff people can do. Eat less/no meat. Buy an EV. Etc. But then commentators will refute that with all sorts of stuff “one person can’t make any sizable impact,” “EVs are powered from the grid which isn’t carbon neutral”, “EV tires spread particulate emissions.” Etc. Thing is, denialism and stopping progress makes people looking for solutions also more extreme. So who knows. Maybe part of the answer is partia…

I don’t think that people shouldn’t make individual decisions, but I think their individual decisions should be made in much broader contexts that individual lifestyle adjustments have limited impact. (Eg. Any veganism on one persons part would be wiped away by a non-necessary plane ride.)

It is important to also make broader policy changes, like regulating wasteful plastic packaging in the pipeline (not just at the retail, but storing manufacturing/processing materials).

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#54
post #3

I think all the alarmist language is doing a massive disservice to environmental concerns for the reason the author is portraying but also a much different reason where a lot of people tend to greet hysterics with absolute doubt and discern. When environmentalists decided instead of having a real public conversation and resorting to what a lot of people perceive as the people screaming on the corner about the end tim…

I agree with this. I don't believe that guys like e.g. Just Stop Oil in the UK are genuine people. There might be some who got taken in by the movement and have good intentions, but the actual antics that go on just turn off literally everyone I know, to the extent that the entire environmental movement is now seen in a bad light.

> I don't believe that guys like e.g. Just Stop Oil in the UK are genuine people.

The people on the ground are genuine alright. But genuinely useful idiots for the likes of Dale Vince.

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what sense?

Didn't he say we would all be underwater by 2010 or something? I didn't see the movie...

He said sea levels could be 20 feet higher in the near future. Which could only be right if we’re talking hundreds of years…

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Communicating the impending doom of man-made climate change had been done in all possible shapes and forms since the 1970s. The approach does not matter, because the truth is too uncomfortable no matter how it's worded. If non-alarmist language is used, then nobody cares. If alarmist langauage is used, people like you compare scientists to flat earthers. Don't criticise the messengers if you don't like the message.

If you use alarmist language you can rile up and entice a lot of agreeable people but rarely effective people.

So are we going to ignore the exx-lephant in the room?

This isn't just a debate between normal people and 'eco-fanatics' or whatever you want to call them. On the other side you have multi-billion dollar industries that want to maintain status quo until the rivers are on fire and have learned from the tobacco industry on how to spend millions in 'doubt-seeding' to keep making billions in profits.

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. But we really should be eating less red meat.

I agree. But we should limit crop yields by restricting human manufacture of ammonia and return to 1890 levels of population.

I think the problem comes to 'return to. Your method sounds rather violent.

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#59
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you use alarmist language you can rile up and entice a lot of agreeable people but rarely effective people.

So are we going to ignore the exx-lephant in the room? This isn't just a debate between normal people and 'eco-fanatics' or whatever you want to call them. On the other side you have multi-billion dollar industries that want to maintain status quo until the rivers are on fire and have learned from the tobacco industry on how to spend millions in 'doubt-seeding' to keep making billions in profits.

I literally alluded to the fact that I could see alarmists being funded by people with interests of seeding doubts. As long as we're ignoring, there is a trillion dollar "green" industry that has just as much skin in the game mining cobalt and lithium as energy companies that pump oil or lfg. This isn't a debate between the "good guys" vs "bad guys", it's trillion of dollars being fought over to dictate how you get your energy.

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except it never leveled off. It's been rising at the same rate for several thousand years.

Source? Evidence? When someone says "X", and provides a source for their position, saying "no, Y" with no source, evidence, or even argument is rightly viewed as a very weak reply. Saying "no, Y, according to source Z" is a bit better, but it still leaves you with dueling sources and no reason why the reader should believe your source. A really strong reply is "no, Y, see source Z to explain what's wrong with the sou…

1-3mm a year is totally fine. Triple it even, it's not going to wipe out humanity or be the root cause of anything really bad. If it really gets warm, you'll see a lot more snow deposited in the higher latitudes, less rise. Obama's, Clinton's, Al Gore all have fabulous ocean front mansions.

Here's some sauces: https://www.clo.nl/en/indicators/en022909-sea-level-dutch-co...

https://research.csiro.au/slrwavescoast/sea-level/sea-level-...

https://www.stats.govt.nz/indicators/coastal-sea-level-rise/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level

Post reply on HN