Flooding of US Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Begun • Hacker News Board

Re: Flooding of US Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Begun

#61

Post by kaybe » Sat, Sep 17, 2016, 8:51 PM UTC

mhb wrote: post #30

This problem can't be solved. No politician who advocates the sort of changes required will be reelected. There is no way to enforce international agreements. Probably the best idea is to start thinking about risky geoengineering remediation techniques.

We are considering them. The current verdict is: Too risky, and eventually far more expensive than the path of avoidance.

In general, most methods that try to manipulate the planet's radiation budget (eg giant sunscreen in space, white paint, SO2 in the stratosphere) are either prohibitively expensive and risky or require constant upkeep, allowing a full-blown catastrophe to happen should any short- to medium-term problem occur with the upkeep. At least those could be reversed if needed though.

The methods that try to remove carbon are a safer bet, but safely storing CO2 is hard and might not be safe (volcanic lakes have killed thousands by releasing CO2), especially longterm. And storing it in different form such as coal.. well, it's kind of pointless to first burn the coal just to remake it, especially from an energy and thus financial point of view. Storing it in the ocean's biomatter is again risky as we don't have a proper picture of what might happen.

IMHO, the risky geoengineering techniques should be tried on Venus for a few millenia+, before we need them to stabilize the climate against natural variations (an ice age would majorly suck as well, probably far more that global warming. Even if the timescale is different.)

( http://www.iup.uni-heidelberg.de/institut/studium/lehre/Clim... for material on this)

Re: Flooding of US Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Begun

#62

Post by spodek » Sat, Sep 17, 2016, 9:22 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #25

spodek wrote: post #3

As I wrote in HN's dialog about a New York Magazine article on global warming https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12471815 : As usual, nothing about prevention. Global temperatures and the sea level are rising because of human behavior. If we want different results, we have to behave differently. Engineers and scientists know engineering and science but not so much leading people to change their behavior. It's easy…

I don't understand the emphasis on air travel I frequently see in these discussions. Passenger planes are much more fuel efficient per passenger-mile than single-occupancy cars. Most people drive far more miles alone each year than they travel by plane. It makes no sense to me to criticize someone for flying a couple thousand miles at ~100MPG when the average American drives 12,000 miles per year at ~25MPG. Beyond th…

Compare flying versus not flying, not to cars.

For tens to hundreds of thousands of years, humans found ways to be happy where they were. Today people fly across the country to go to a party. Or to see the Great Barrier Reef before it disappears, due to pollution.

Yet they don't know their neighbors.

My goal is to help people improve their lives living less wasteful lives, not deprive themselves. It takes changing mental models, which is a big part of what leaders do.

Re: Flooding of US Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Begun

#63

Post by mikeash » Sat, Sep 17, 2016, 9:48 PM UTC

spodek wrote: post #62

mikeash wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the emphasis on air travel I frequently see in these discussions. Passenger planes are much more fuel efficient per passenger-mile than single-occupancy cars. Most people drive far more miles alone each year than they travel by plane. It makes no sense to me to criticize someone for flying a couple thousand miles at ~100MPG when the average American drives 12,000 miles per year at ~25MPG. Beyond th…

Compare flying versus not flying, not to cars. For tens to hundreds of thousands of years, humans found ways to be happy where they were. Today people fly across the country to go to a party. Or to see the Great Barrier Reef before it disappears, due to pollution. Yet they don't know their neighbors. My goal is to help people improve their lives living less wasteful lives, not deprive themselves. It takes changing me…

For tens to hundreds of thousands of years, humans found ways to be happy without cars, electricity, or central heating too, so why does it seem like air travel is always the poster boy for "you're so hypocritical about fighting climate change" statements?

Re: Flooding of US Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Begun

#64

Post by patall » Sat, Sep 17, 2016, 10:04 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #63

spodek wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compare flying versus not flying, not to cars. For tens to hundreds of thousands of years, humans found ways to be happy where they were. Today people fly across the country to go to a party. Or to see the Great Barrier Reef before it disappears, due to pollution. Yet they don't know their neighbors. My goal is to help people improve their lives living less wasteful lives, not deprive themselves. It takes changing me…

For tens to hundreds of thousands of years, humans found ways to be happy without cars, electricity, or central heating too, so why does it seem like air travel is always the poster boy for "you're so hypocritical about fighting climate change" statements?

Because there is not much a difference in going to Australia or to the next big coast if you are staying in your hotel anyways. Many people go on vacation trips without any reason but showing off to friends how well they get around. Going without electricity or central heating on the other hand has a big impact on your every day life (and even there we are advocating it like powering off devices and light when you leave the room, cooling down the temperature at night, when you are away and also in general. It is just that for intercontinental flights there is most of the time no real reason but because you can. And thats no reason at all.

Re: Flooding of US Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Begun

#65

Post by patall » Sat, Sep 17, 2016, 10:08 PM UTC

Decade wrote: post #51

hammock wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same thing happens when people see a city bus spewing black smoke from it's exhaust pipe, without realizing that that bus is currently taking the place of 20 or more cars.

Not the bus that roars past my window at midnight every night.

That´s true. The bus at night is (or should be) there to prevent drunk drivers.

Re: Flooding of US Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Begun

#66

Post by papaf » Sat, Sep 17, 2016, 11:01 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #25

spodek wrote: post #3

As I wrote in HN's dialog about a New York Magazine article on global warming https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12471815 : As usual, nothing about prevention. Global temperatures and the sea level are rising because of human behavior. If we want different results, we have to behave differently. Engineers and scientists know engineering and science but not so much leading people to change their behavior. It's easy…

I don't understand the emphasis on air travel I frequently see in these discussions. Passenger planes are much more fuel efficient per passenger-mile than single-occupancy cars. Most people drive far more miles alone each year than they travel by plane. It makes no sense to me to criticize someone for flying a couple thousand miles at ~100MPG when the average American drives 12,000 miles per year at ~25MPG. Beyond th…

Passenger planes are much more fuel efficient per passenger-mile than single-occupancy cars.

Where did you get this idea from? Flying being more efficient than rolling doesn't fit with what little physics I know.

Do you have a better source than:

http://adl.stanford.edu/aa260/Lecture_Notes_files/transport_...

I would be genuinely interested if you have other references to transport fuel efficiency.

Re: Flooding of US Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Begun

#67

Post by mikeash » Sun, Sep 18, 2016, 12:37 AM UTC

papaf wrote: post #66

mikeash wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the emphasis on air travel I frequently see in these discussions. Passenger planes are much more fuel efficient per passenger-mile than single-occupancy cars. Most people drive far more miles alone each year than they travel by plane. It makes no sense to me to criticize someone for flying a couple thousand miles at ~100MPG when the average American drives 12,000 miles per year at ~25MPG. Beyond th…

Passenger planes are much more fuel efficient per passenger-mile than single-occupancy cars. Where did you get this idea from? Flying being more efficient than rolling doesn't fit with what little physics I know. Do you have a better source than: http://adl.stanford.edu/aa260/Lecture_Notes_files/transport_... I would be genuinely interested if you have other references to transport fuel efficiency.

Just from general knowledge. You can verify it by googling "$AIRLINERMODEL passenger miles per gallon" for various aircraft types. Or Wikipedia has a good roundup:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft

Typical values are 70+ PMPG, and 100+ isn't uncommon. (I just made up the PMPG acronym, so don't go trying to search with it.) The most efficient gasoline car you can buy today will do about 56MPG.

Flying isn't more efficient than rolling, but big is more efficient than small, and high is more efficient than low. Cars and airliners are massively different in ways beyond just rolling versus flying. Note that small aircraft definitely do not have this efficiency advantage. A 737 gets to carry 180 or so people at a time and travel at 35,000 feet, and that's a big win over a car carrying one person near sea level. Busses and trains win big over airliners, because they get the same scaling advantages without the disadvantage of having to use aerodynamic lift.

Re: Flooding of US Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Begun

#68

Post by mikeash » Sun, Sep 18, 2016, 12:43 AM UTC

patall wrote: post #64

mikeash wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For tens to hundreds of thousands of years, humans found ways to be happy without cars, electricity, or central heating too, so why does it seem like air travel is always the poster boy for "you're so hypocritical about fighting climate change" statements?

Because there is not much a difference in going to Australia or to the next big coast if you are staying in your hotel anyways. Many people go on vacation trips without any reason but showing off to friends how well they get around. Going without electricity or central heating on the other hand has a big impact on your every day life (and even there we are advocating it like powering off devices and light when you le…

Seems like there must be a difference, because people pay substantial premiums for it. Air travel isn't cheap, and the cost correlates fairly well with the CO2 emissions produced, so if people are going to Australia instead of the next big coast they must think it's worth a decent amount.

Maybe it's not worth enough considering the damage done to the climate, but the only way to get people in general to care is to bake that cost into the price they pay. Telling them that going to Delaware is as good as going to Australia will just make them think you're a nut.

Going without electricity and central heating would be huge, but reducing your electricity consumption and turning your thermostat down a couple of degrees is a pretty small sacrifice, and can easily save more CO2 than a typical person's airline travel.

And yes, there are plenty of people advocating for conservation in every imaginable area. But it seems like air travel is the first and often only target for complaints of hypocrisy. I haven't seen anyone say, "How many people advocating for action on climate change eat beef, or had fruit from another continent for breakfast?"

Re: Flooding of US Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Begun

#69

Post by Decade » Sun, Sep 18, 2016, 12:52 AM UTC

Mendenhall wrote: post #38

legutierr wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't know politics, then maybe you should learn, because the solution you are looking for is entirely political. That is to say, the solution is the creation of economic incentives that can only be structured and imposed through government power. Yes, people need to believe that the effects of climate change will affect their lives. Laws do follow social change, in that laws that go against entrenched special…

I agree with much of what you say. I do notice how your solution squarely targets corporations. I think that gives everyone a passive excuse and shifts blame. I say target the individuals with the laws and make them feel it and take ownership. You drive,you get taxed per mile. You dont seperate your garbage you get fined. You fly you get taxed. You buy plastic you get taxed...etc. That way everyone doing those things…

That has huge issues with equity.

Especially a transportation-based tax. Right now, the major US cities are having an affordability crisis. Bad decisions have led to a housing shortage, and many residents (NIMBY, really) are convinced that these are correct decisions, that people who can’t afford it should just move out. So, we have people living in Stockton who commute to San Francisco for work, because they can’t afford to live in San Francisco.

A tax per mile is a regressive tax on the poor people who don’t live in walking distance of their workplace.

Re: Flooding of US Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Begun

#70

Post by abysmallyideal » Sun, Sep 18, 2016, 5:24 AM UTC

Gravityloss wrote: post #40

abysmallyideal wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's already some evidence of friction between military and the (in)corporate Congress. Military folks are made up of people who live in and grew up in economically difficult situations, and as the US civilian gov and their intelligence orgs continue their strengthening of alignment with corporate interests (profit above all else) the friction is going to build like the rising waters. Edit: cliche, but history has…

How about this theory: The military is not democratic in its internal organization, so the lower ranks don't have much say. And the "revolving door" phenomenon with defense industry will make sure the top brass can be influenced. It resembles more a corrupt banana state than a hope for equality...

Yea, the US' military is run by the same clique of people. McArthur, is one such example who has the privilege of being one of the only commanders to lead a military attack against US Veterans over the fear the ruling class of the time had of ret. General Butler. If an uprising happened in the US military, then the pampered generals and their sycophants would do everything they can to squash it.