The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs • Hacker News Board

Re: The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

#91

Post by merpnderp » Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 3:58 PM UTC

jstummbillig wrote: post #78

partialrecall wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adherence to the truth is more important than adherence to a narrative. Promoting a good cause by allowing falsehoods to spread may seem helpful in the short term, but in doing so you're building a house on a foundation of sand. When you promote trivial falsehoods instead of calling them out, you allow your opposition to be the one who calls out those falsehoods, and thus undermine your cause. When somebody on your s…

This is incredibly naive in a reality, where the POTUS can contradict himself on social media – with traceable evidence dating back often not more than a week – and absolutely nothing coming of it. Right now, when it comes to public opinion and action, volume clearly beats a good signal/noise ratio. This is not an isolated issue, this happens all around the globe. Populism is on the rise. Simple beats true. Yes, you…

Maybe we should take this as evidence that fighting lies with lies doesn't work, and in fact makes the problem worse?

Re: The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

#92

Post by partialrecall » Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 4:01 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #74

gambiting wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but the temperature rose to those levels over millenia, not just hundreds of years. Ultimately, life on Earth will adapt - it's just that we might not survive long enough to witness the adaptation.

> the temperature rose to those levels over millenia, not just hundreds of years We don't actually know that. The time resolution of the data is not good enough to tell us. It's quite possible that it happened faster in the past as well. > we might not survive long enough to witness the adaptation Quite honestly, I don't understand why people think our ability to adapt is so poor. We already have more than 5 C variat…

> "The time resolution of the data is not good enough to tell us."

Is that actually true? What's the sampling rate and subsequent Nyquist frequency? It's my impression that the sampling rate given by ice core samples is surprisingly high (something in the neighborhood of year-by-year.)

Re: The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

#93

Post by partiallypro » Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 4:01 PM UTC

vfc1 wrote: post #20

It might be that burning down every living tree would not make a dent in the oxygen supply, but having the earth temperature go up 5 degrees would kill most phytoplankton, and that would end the oxygen supply (eventually). This type of articles is the last thing we need right now, it all piles up on the narrative that the consequences of climate change are really not that bad and there is no real urgency in doing any…

> This type of articles is the last thing we need right now, it all piles up on the narrative that the consequences of climate change are really not that bad and there is no real urgency in doing anything about it.

Actually it does the opposite. The climate change deniers have for so long hinged on the fact that people openly lie about the climate to push an agenda. You can't fault them for that...and having people who are proponents of doing something calling out the nonsense/lies that their allies say, actually emboldens the climate change position. If you can't even hold your own viewpoint accountable how are you going to hold deniers accountable or change their minds? People have focused so much on shoving a viewpoint down people's throats that they have completely forgotten how persuasion works and that you need a social movement to have a political one.

Re: The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

#94

Post by input_sh » Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 4:03 PM UTC

ptah wrote: post #89

input_sh wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...but how can we move that further as not only a society, but a species? The answer is simple, the execution is hard and will piss a lot of people off: start treating red meat as a luxury item, and slowly introduce taxes on top of its price, like we do for alcohol and tobacco. Nothing drastic of course, just a few cents extra every half a year or so to make people reconsider their eating habits again and again. Bu…

you don't have to tax beef. merely remove the subsidies given to it's producers and let the free market cut down the consumption

Did you read my second paragraph?

Re: The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

#95

Post by Carioca » Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 4:07 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #85

Carioca wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are other measures that could help, like actually policing the region and promoting economic alternatives for local population. Sadly, the currently Brazilian government decided to stop both of them

I dislike the Brazilian government, but the rest of the world shouldn't wash their hands of the problem either. If the Amazon is important to the whole world, the whole world should be giving that government a damn good deal to convince it to prevent deforestation. As an European, I was quite disgusted by the reactions of the "EU leaders".

I wholeheartedly agree, but Bolsonaro has made it so that every step in that direction is extraordinarily difficult. There is a fund (Amazon Fund) that both provided material resources to IBAMA[1] and financed sustainable economic practices. Earlier this year, the government fired the board of directors of that fund and ended its transparency efforts. The money mostly came from the Norwegian and German governments, to the tune of about US$1.2 billion total[2]. Now both countries have stopped donating to the fund[3]. When Macron offered US$ 22m to help with the fires, Bolsonaro responded by first accusing him of being a “colonialist”[4]. He then proceeds to call Macron's wife ugly because WHY NOT?[5]. His finance minister, who was supposed to be one of the more moderate forces in this government, repeats the insult in a conference[6]

This was all “free money”, only strings attached was oversight of its usage

1: Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources, one of two federal agencies in charge of conservation

2: http://www.amazonfund.gov.br/en/donations/

3: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/16/norway-halts-a...

4: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/27/world/americas/brazil-ama...

5: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/26/macron-rebukes...

6: https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/business/2019...

Re: The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

#96

Post by bilbo0s » Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 4:08 PM UTC

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #67

vfc1 wrote: post #20

It might be that burning down every living tree would not make a dent in the oxygen supply, but having the earth temperature go up 5 degrees would kill most phytoplankton, and that would end the oxygen supply (eventually). This type of articles is the last thing we need right now, it all piles up on the narrative that the consequences of climate change are really not that bad and there is no real urgency in doing any…

Um, the oxygen component is a red herring and distraction to the climate debate. It took many millennia of a tiny oxygen excess to get us the atmospheric mix we know. It's CO2 (and species and habitat loss) that matters, and the Amazon is hugely important for those, and for the climate of the region. Which the article seems pretty clear on. So how is it presenting an impression climate change isn't that bad, or there…

I don't think HN User "vfc1" read the article.

That happens with troubling frequency on HN.

Re: The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

#97

Post by vonmoltke » Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 4:10 PM UTC

ptah wrote: post #89

input_sh wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...but how can we move that further as not only a society, but a species? The answer is simple, the execution is hard and will piss a lot of people off: start treating red meat as a luxury item, and slowly introduce taxes on top of its price, like we do for alcohol and tobacco. Nothing drastic of course, just a few cents extra every half a year or so to make people reconsider their eating habits again and again. Bu…

you don't have to tax beef. merely remove the subsidies given to it's producers and let the free market cut down the consumption

How much are those subsidies? Would it really be enough to raise the price sufficiently to drive change?

Re: The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

#98

Post by yes-except-no » Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 4:14 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #74

gambiting wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but the temperature rose to those levels over millenia, not just hundreds of years. Ultimately, life on Earth will adapt - it's just that we might not survive long enough to witness the adaptation.

> the temperature rose to those levels over millenia, not just hundreds of years We don't actually know that. The time resolution of the data is not good enough to tell us. It's quite possible that it happened faster in the past as well. > we might not survive long enough to witness the adaptation Quite honestly, I don't understand why people think our ability to adapt is so poor. We already have more than 5 C variat…

Congratulations, you are part of the problem :) This type of answer is on par with "The earth won't die, only humans, the earth will be fine!". That's great, but we're kinda focusing on humans, and being pedantic will not help the situation.

1/ Temperatures raising by 5 degrees in europe, or midwest US will mean droughts, because many of the plants we cultivate will not have the time to adapt and will plain die.

2/ The "alarmist" rethoric has been held back every time, because people like you would say that scientists are exaggerating. Exxon predictions from the 70s are being confirmed. Every single study that you read in journals for the past ten years about climate change only shows the lowest bound, because people cannot handle urgency. And every single time, without fail, it reaches the higher bound or worse.

3/ People won't adapt because people will _die_. We're not talking small deaths. We're talking tens of thousands because of heat waves, millions due to famine. When half of Africa is going to be knocking at Europe's doorstep because their countries are becoming inhabitable, do you think everything will be smooth?

4/ Bringing more people out of poverty has been the main reason why we're in such a crazy state of things. Yes, China has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty, and I'm glad. But at what cost?

5/ So, your solution is to say fuck it, it's gonna change, keep driving SUVs and make Earth a living hell, we're gonna adapt anyways.

People will _die_ from such ways of thinking. Hope your conscience won't be too bothered.

Re: The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

#99

Post by leephillips » Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 4:14 PM UTC

partialrecall wrote: post #59

ineedasername wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a true fact is playing in to a false narrative, there is a problem with how it's being presented. Calling that out is just as important as calling out falsehoods.

The article contextualizes the truth in terms of the pro-climate narrative, > "Losing the Amazon, beyond representing a planetary historic tragedy beyond measure, would also make meeting the ambitious climate goals of the Paris Agreement all but impossible. World leaders need to marshal all their political and diplomatic might to save it." So what exactly are you calling out? Better the Atlantic be the one to call ou…

The article does not explain why losing the Amazon would have an large effect on global climate, it just makes this assertion. Why would it?

Re: The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

#100

Post by obelos » Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 4:14 PM UTC

wutbrodo wrote: post #62

partialrecall wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adherence to the truth is more important than adherence to a narrative. Promoting a good cause by allowing falsehoods to spread may seem helpful in the short term, but in doing so you're building a house on a foundation of sand. When you promote trivial falsehoods instead of calling them out, you allow your opposition to be the one who calls out those falsehoods, and thus undermine your cause. When somebody on your s…

It's been really interesting to me to see how the concept that lying in support of your preferred narrative is the correct way to engage publicly with a problem has evolved over the last few years. It seems like only a few years ago that people who admitted to this strategy were roundly condemned. Now, it's a completely normal view to go out of your way to openly endorse lying about eg science as a moral course of ac…

“Put simply, our first suggestion is _don’t expect to counter the firehose of falsehood with the squirt gun of truth_.”[1]

Climate denialism is the proverbial firehose of lies. Finely parsing words to maintain some Panglossian notion of a market dominated by rational choice of information-rich actors is not going to turn us away from disaster.

[1] https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PE10...