Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

671–680 of 1001 posts

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#671

Post by enraged_camel »

f6v wrote: post #546
pmorici wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t Musk the climate change guy you are looking for. He’s done more to advance the cause of sustainable energy than perhaps anyone.

A "climate change guy" would be someone who gets everyone to use a train or a bus, not a premium sedan.

I think Musk deserves credit for recognizing that the USA is so car-centric that any effort to get people to use trains and busses would be met with enormous resistance, whereas popularizing electric variants of the most dominant form of transport can actually be impactful.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#672

Post by cle »

asd4232 wrote: post #637
jdavis703 wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

COVID-19 was a program of systemic action. The US had lockdowns, mask mandates and even soft vaccine mandates. None of this was enough to crush the virus. Why? Because systems are made of individuals who will decide whether or not they want to collaborate on solving a problem.

That's why individuals should not have the freedom of choice. China's actions against the virus proved rather effective because the government actually has authority there. Western democracy is clearly weak when it comes to dealing with crisis of any kind.

Individuals always have the freedom of choice. Authoritarian governments only work when people choose to tolerate them. If the Chinese people lose faith in their government, we'll see how effectively it can manage a crisis...

In the US, many people don't have faith in strong centralized authorities. Becoming more authoritarian will only make that worse, not better. It is not a problem of political systems, it is a deeper cultural phenomenon.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#673

Post by eplanit »

aivisol wrote: post #379
belorn wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were a study done in Sweden a few years ago that looked at the question about an individuals actions and the corresponding CO2 production. No car > skipping flight > buy green energy > Get a electric car > diet. https://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/article/four-lifestyle-choi...

The highest bar in the chart says "have one fewer child". It actually exceeds any others by extremely large margin [0]. How is that even considered as the option? One child less means halving population after every generation. Eliminate the population and problem solved? [0] https://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/drimage/1120/630/4832/fourc...

Massive population reduction (I don't think any serious person is suggesting elimination) would be the single most effective advancement we can make in reducing our environmental problems. It's definitely a tough sell for politicians, and environmentalists seem dismissive of it -- which makes me doubtful of their policy prescriptions. If population reduction isn't on the table of things to achieve, then the other arguments are lost on me. Nothing is sustainable when scaled up to an ever increasing population size.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#674

Post by amanaplanacanal »

sailingparrot wrote: post #597
newbamboo wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bingo. It’s great folly to think climate change can be solved by “waking people up” and that whole endeavor probably just makes things worse. It becomes a red/blue issue where nearly half the population take opposing sides, like mindless zombies. A solution, if we are to find one, will not come from the many but from the few, maybe just a single person or invention. Emerging economies pollute, necessarily. That’s the…

> A solution, if we are to find one, will not come from the many but from the few, maybe just a single person or invention. This is going to sound harsh, but to me this argument seems like a mental contortion to absolve yourself from doing anything and not feel bad about it. In the past 20 years we have seen significant progress in slowing down, or even reducing for some countries, the emission of CO2. It is not enou…

> In the past 20 years we have seen significant progress in slowing down, or even reducing for some countries, the emission of CO2. It is not enough, but it's definitely significant. This happened thanks to the many, via awareness campaign and political pressure.

I’m guessing this has nothing to do with awareness campaigns and everything to do with the relative price of coal, natural gas, and renewables. People just did whatever was cheapest, and that meant switching away from coal.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#675

Post by dleslie »

rich_sasha wrote: post #170

It’s just so hard to know what actions have what impact on CO2 production. Some are high-pain, low-gain (switching devices off instead of standby?), some are opposite (cycling instead of driving when possible etc). For that if for no other reason, I’d rather if consumer prices included an explicit CO2 tax. The here can be a rebate for poorer people, or personal allowance, whatever, but there would be a fixed yardstic…

If you fly to go skiing then it's the vacation. Jet fuel isn't clean burning by any means. Car is next.

Depending on how your power is generated, that energy use may be carbon neutral.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#676

Post by ttiurani »

jsonne wrote: post #360

If there is anything covid has taught me its that collective action isn't something we can rely on and is a lot more wishful thinking about the state of humanity rather than a sober look at the reality. Governments need to tax CO2 emissions on the business side and pour the money into carbon capture technology in the private space through investment and perhaps some sort of bounty program (you get $x for each ton you…

> I'm past hoping for people to do the right things en masse.

This isn't either or: we can heavily incentivize creating climate change tech AND drive for a systemic change. It is IMO immoral to just give up on a sustainable political solution because it is hard: huge changes have happened in the past and can happen again.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#677

Post by triceratops »

jonpo wrote: post #175
mytailorisrich wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are all marginal issues. Even at the current level of population demand on resources is too great and will be massively too great if poverty is eradicated (as it should). The long term solution for both the environment and people's quality of life (I don't think that not being able to travel, not being able to eat what one wants, having to live in a small flat in a dense city with mass transit only is a good li…

Start with the entirely unnessecary carniverous apex predators (aka pets) people insist on keeping. If people cant get rid of pets, then asking them to avoid replicating their own DNA is going to be a challenge.

Have you considered that for many people have pets because they don't have/can't have/don't want children? Compared to an actual human child, the footprint of a pet is quite minimal and their lifespans are short.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#678

Post by mytailorisrich »

jonpo wrote: post #175
mytailorisrich wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are all marginal issues. Even at the current level of population demand on resources is too great and will be massively too great if poverty is eradicated (as it should). The long term solution for both the environment and people's quality of life (I don't think that not being able to travel, not being able to eat what one wants, having to live in a small flat in a dense city with mass transit only is a good li…

Start with the entirely unnessecary carniverous apex predators (aka pets) people insist on keeping. If people cant get rid of pets, then asking them to avoid replicating their own DNA is going to be a challenge.

Well, if we need to change our diet, give up pets, give up travelling, give up individual travel in general, etc. then I think that proves the point I'm trying to make.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#679

Post by dleslie »

Joeri wrote: post #70
skinkestek wrote: post #31

So now we can get rid of fast fashion, mandate reusability for products, reintroduce basic woodworking, metalcrafting and sewing/repair work in school and with that get rid of a huge chunk of the needless shipping? Or are we still going to go after individuals eating traditional food while thought leaders fly across the globe in private jets (no kidding) telling us we need to change our diet? PS: I'm already a enthus…

Individual action won’t solve this problem. We need to leave the fossil fuels in the ground, which means switching energy sources, which is not something individuals have much influence on. Reducing energy use at the individual level is good, but insufficient if the energy used comes from fossil fuels. I’m not sure we need to switch lifestyles that much, but we will need to radically change energy production. There h…

> Individual action won’t solve this problem. We need to leave the fossil fuels in the ground, which means switching energy sources, which is not something individuals have much influence on.

The covid shutdown should have put this myth to bed forever.

Hundreds of millions stuck at home and no longer commuting took a massive dent out of carbon emissions and sent shock waves through the oil industry.

Individual action can save the planet; we have to be drops in the flood.

> I’m not sure we need to switch lifestyles that much, but we will need to radically change energy production.

There's no way we can continue to works as we do and plan cities as we do and stem the oncoming catastrophe with any alacrity.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#680

Post by baron_harkonnen »

jcfrei wrote: post #489
headmelted wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. A 200% value-added tax on fossil fuels that rises by 10% every year would provide the capital. EDIT: To clarify, this is not a suggestion to raise capital from the tax as much as it's to raise capital from the use of fossil fuels. It's a suggestion for an increasingly punitive financial cost to force behavioural changes.

That's not going to work. A lot of people (and industries) rely on cars to do their jobs. It's a lot of low-income households who rely most on cars because they live in remote areas due to housing costs and have to commute to city centers to find work. Such a tax would cause a huge backlash in large parts of the population in any country and the government who enacts it would be quickly disbanded. We need subsidies t…

> That's not going to work. A lot of people (and industries) rely on cars to do their jobs

Unfortunately economic contraction is going to essential if we are going to reduce GHG emissions. We've tried the "full steam ahead, green energy will catch up!" approach for decades and it emissions have only gotten worse.

Don't forget those same people that would suffer from not having cars will suffer even more under the worse case climate scenarios.

Post reply on HN