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

Canada battles more than 180 wildfires with hundreds dead in heat wave

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 160 posts

Re: Canada battles more than 180 wildfires with hundreds dead in heat wave

#71

Post by kergonath »

mistrial9 wrote: post #61
alkonaut wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consumers in the west are (obviously) responsible for a lot of the emissions that take place in China too. And regardless - for the sake of solidarity with the developing world I think it must be considered fair that us westerners take a bigger responsibility than developing countries. There are two arguments here that are both equally valid: 1) This just won't work unless everyone is on the same page, including Chin…

but you are arguing a talking point from a decade ago -- China is definitely taking actions to diversify its power generation with solar production, convert existing systems to electrical inputs, use higher-efficiency parts like LED lighting, and other important steps. They are competing directly in science with the West in publications and PR and business cases. This re-hash amongst Western chatty people is well-int…

> This re-hash amongst Western chatty people is well-intentioned perhaps, but the targets really are moving as this debate has not.

It’s not. It’s an excuse for doing nothing whilst blaming the Chinese.

Re: Canada battles more than 180 wildfires with hundreds dead in heat wave

#72

Post by somedude895 »

nicklecompte wrote: post #42
jcfrei wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A big part of the problem are the green parties themselves. They were in many cases started as a youth movement against nuclear power in the 60s. The basis of these green parties consists of people who are ideologically opposed to nuclear energy and their youth rebellion against it is now part of their identity. This is why the leadership of green parties cannot support nuclear energy even though opposing it is compl…

European nuclear advocates really don’t have a satisfactory political response to Chernobyl and Fukushima. Truthfully, the best argument for nuclear power is an extremely unpleasant one: a bit of radioactive contamination (an immediate and visceral threat) is a small price to pay for the emissions offset (still a somewhat abstract and distant threat). The numbers check out but it is undeniably ghoulish. But pretendin…

> But pretending people are motivated by sheer hippie-foolishness is just an ignorant ad hominem.

I couldn't see any obvious ad hominem in the comment. They are correct in that the anti-nuclear stance of many Greens is often dogmatic to a point where they wouldn't even discuss it if the alternative were a social and economical catastrophe. And I don't think it's too far-fetched to attribute the emergence of that dogmatism to the early green movements.

Re: Canada battles more than 180 wildfires with hundreds dead in heat wave

#73

Post by tokai »

cbsks wrote: post #66
itsoktocry wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And yet we'll continue to treat climate change as an inconvenience that can be addressed in 20 years According to the EPA, wildfires over the past 40 years are slightly down. Can you point to different data that ties these wildfires to climate change? https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica...

Are you just looking at the total number of fires in Figure 1? Figure 2 shows that annual wildfire-burned area has been increasing in the last 40 years. Figures 3, 6 and 7 also back that up.

I guess the larger the wildfires are the lower the number of individual fires are. When everything is burning there will be only one fire.

Re: Canada battles more than 180 wildfires with hundreds dead in heat wave

#74

Post by akarma »

xroche wrote: post #67
nicklecompte wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

European nuclear advocates really don’t have a satisfactory political response to Chernobyl and Fukushima. Truthfully, the best argument for nuclear power is an extremely unpleasant one: a bit of radioactive contamination (an immediate and visceral threat) is a small price to pay for the emissions offset (still a somewhat abstract and distant threat). The numbers check out but it is undeniably ghoulish. But pretendin…

> Chernobyl was a traumatic event And yet the number of casualties is lower than the number of casualties caused every year in Europe by coal: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/12/european... I don't deny it was a traumatic event. But like airplane crashes, the emotion can differ from cold numbers.

I think that's exactly what the above commenter was saying in: "European nuclear advocates really don’t have a satisfactory political response to Chernobyl and Fukushima."

If a country experiences a nuclear accident like Chernobyl or Fukushima, your "number of casualties is lower than if we moved to coal" argument won't work. Cold numbers won't beat emotion.

Edit: On downvotes, it's very demographically consistent of HN to not believe or want to hear that emotions rule over cold numbers for many people in the world. I'm not saying that coal is better than nuclear (it's not per the numbers), but you need a satisfactory answer when a disaster happens, and rationalizing the deaths of thousands of people as "a preferred alternative to more deaths over time" won't cut it.

Re: Canada battles more than 180 wildfires with hundreds dead in heat wave

#75

Post by mercy_dude »

vegetablepotpie wrote: post #31
poutine wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lead by example? If you think China gives a crap about your example you’re horrendously naive.

Not OP, but I can address this. Leading by example does not compel anyone to act, it works the same way that nuclear treaties do not reduce nuclear arms. But we still have treaties and we have had no nuclear war in the last 70 years. Leading by example is necessary but not sufficient for carbon reduction. But it removes accusations of hypocrisy when talking about solutions, which makes discussions much more productiv…

> China does have climate policy and it’s and issue that they do not ignore. They plant trees at the interface of deserts to prevent their expansion, they produce 80% of the worlds solar panels. China is the world's leading country in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over double the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States.

Sounds like you are avoiding the core question surrounding the real issue at hand - China and India are among one of the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas. There is no policy that can change that fact.

Re: Canada battles more than 180 wildfires with hundreds dead in heat wave

#76

Post by chmod775 »

poutine wrote: post #55
chmod775 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Naive is only considering the absolute amount of emissions within some arbitrarily drawn lines on a map. The only metric that is fair, and countries like China will consider fair, is per-capita emissions. A Canadian can't justify causing three times as many CO2 emissions as a Chinese by virtue of being Canadian alone.

Staking the future of the climate on trusting countries to be fair is childish thinking. The ONLY metric that matters is global gigatons of CO2 emitted per year. This needs to decrease. Playing hand waving games with per capita between countries is pure nonsense and provides cover for emitters.

I was trying to highlight the insulting nature of the post I replied to by repeating the same insult verbatim.

I wasn't trying to start a comment chain where everyone's comment is prefaced with "You're naive/childish/stupid".

Re: Canada battles more than 180 wildfires with hundreds dead in heat wave

#77

Post by fatsdomino001 »

chmod775 wrote: post #24
poutine wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lead by example? If you think China gives a crap about your example you’re horrendously naive.

Naive is only considering the absolute amount of emissions within some arbitrarily drawn lines on a map. The only metric that is fair, and countries like China will consider fair, is per-capita emissions. A Canadian can't justify causing three times as many CO2 emissions as a Chinese by virtue of being Canadian alone.

yes we can. We live in a more northern environment, necessitating high CO2 emissions. Maybe not three times, but factor in the fact that Canadians are so distantly spread out adds more weight to the necessity of Canadians having higher CO2 emissions per-capita than China. It's not apples to apples comparison.

Re: Canada battles more than 180 wildfires with hundreds dead in heat wave

#79

Post by LightG »

poutine wrote: post #10
goodcanadian wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is such a thing as leading by example. It is imperfect, to be sure, but it does have an effect. At the moment, Canada is one of the worst countries in per capita greenhouse gas emissions, so perhaps, we can try to do a bit better before blaming other countries. Someone has to go first.

Lead by example? If you think China gives a crap about your example you’re horrendously naive.

If that's true, then it's doesn't take a genius to sugget a multi-pronged strategy.

1) Lead be example. If that fails:

2) Import-tax the f@ck out of them, unless they comply with regulations.

3) Goto (1).

Re: Canada battles more than 180 wildfires with hundreds dead in heat wave

#80

Post by throwaway210222 »

chmod775 wrote: post #24
poutine wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lead by example? If you think China gives a crap about your example you’re horrendously naive.

Naive is only considering the absolute amount of emissions within some arbitrarily drawn lines on a map. The only metric that is fair, and countries like China will consider fair, is per-capita emissions. A Canadian can't justify causing three times as many CO2 emissions as a Chinese by virtue of being Canadian alone.

CO2 emmissions should be allocated per great grand-parent and shared amongst all descendents equally. i.e. allocate on the population when the 3rd industrial revolution started.

Simple per-capita emissions unfairly favours those who like to procreate irresponsibly on a resource-constrained planet.

Post reply on HN