61–70 of 102 posts
I have believed for years that Americans would have a completely different attitude to global warming if the Lower 48 had more glaciers. In the Alps, you can easily walk to places where there are 100m of ladders to reach a hut that used to be at the level of the ice. In Canada, you can drive to places that used to be the toe of a glacier, then drive another half-mile to the parking lot, built at the edge of the glaci…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/which-countries-hav... I would be surprised if China ends up dumping more CO2 than the US (and then if we look at per capita, even more so).
CO2 since 1750! This isn't serious. Who is currently today doing the thing? china Does the climate care about per capita? no
I have believed for years that Americans would have a completely different attitude to global warming if the Lower 48 had more glaciers. In the Alps, you can easily walk to places where there are 100m of ladders to reach a hut that used to be at the level of the ice. In Canada, you can drive to places that used to be the toe of a glacier, then drive another half-mile to the parking lot, built at the edge of the glaci…
I have believed for years that Americans would have a completely different attitude to global warming if the Lower 48 had more glaciers. In the Alps, you can easily walk to places where there are 100m of ladders to reach a hut that used to be at the level of the ice. In Canada, you can drive to places that used to be the toe of a glacier, then drive another half-mile to the parking lot, built at the edge of the glaci…
[flagged]
The people worried about melting glaciers are not laminating the loss of pretty ice. They are worried about where this extra energy will go once there is no more ice to change phase and absorb it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
China is building, domestically deploying, and exporting solar, wind, batteries, and EVs so fast that the world will have no choice but to rapidly move towards net zero simply due to economics. Existing excess atmospheric carbon emissions remain to be sequestered. China deployed 277GW of solar in 2024 and is accelerating, having deployed 212GW in the first half of 2025. 1GW of solar is being deployed globally every 1…
I hope so, but to do that it isn't enough to make renewables economical. You also have to make carbon uneconomical. China's CO2 emissions have continued to increase rapidly along with renewables. Energy is really useful and we don't have enough to fulfil demand. Unless renewables + nuclear are cheaper than carbon and not supply constrained I'd expect both sources to increase in tandem.
China's emissions fell 2.7% this year. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45108292 Not per-capita emissions, total emissions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
China is building, domestically deploying, and exporting solar, wind, batteries, and EVs so fast that the world will have no choice but to rapidly move towards net zero simply due to economics. Existing excess atmospheric carbon emissions remain to be sequestered. China deployed 277GW of solar in 2024 and is accelerating, having deployed 212GW in the first half of 2025. 1GW of solar is being deployed globally every 1…
> China is building, domestically deploying, and exporting solar, wind, batteries, and EVs so fast that the world will have no choice but to rapidly move towards net zero simply due to economics. I can't help but read "we're going to produce and consume more than ever" and I really don't see how it ends in a good way... Take transportation alone, 1.3 billion ICE vehicles to replace by EVs, there is nothing green abou…
Less than we need for fossil fuels though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Production rates are subject to change. China is showing it wants to move towards a future where it emits less CO2 and the US recently elected and appointed cronies to take us in the opposite direction.
CO2 emissions by country: China vs US. Number only.
China: down 2.7% this year
US: up 4.2%.
That's total, not per-capita. Try some other excuses to do nothing about climate change.
Sounds like free real estate! Humans have a pretty hard time living on glaciers AFAIK.
Glaciers are a crucial component of many ecosystems and ways of life. We can't live on them, but they make it so we can live where we do live now.
I’m having a hard time contributing anything intellectually interesting. This is emotionally terrifying to me. What can be said?
I have believed for years that Americans would have a completely different attitude to global warming if the Lower 48 had more glaciers. In the Alps, you can easily walk to places where there are 100m of ladders to reach a hut that used to be at the level of the ice. In Canada, you can drive to places that used to be the toe of a glacier, then drive another half-mile to the parking lot, built at the edge of the glaci…
[flagged]