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

Tough truths about climate

gatesnotes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 131 posts

Re: Tough truths about climate

#91

Post by Retric »

HK-NC wrote: post #60
Retric wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO it’s about minimizing harm at this point. There’s levels of societal collapse, mass migration can destroy the existing social fabric without necessarily being that terrible. Fertility rates being so low means developed countries will likely want large numbers of immigrants. At the other end stopping all CO2 production tomorrow would result in severe consequences. We can’t transport food to cities without burning…

Is infinite growth really a positive thing on a finite planet? Are native populations replaced physically and culurally the answer to making an imaginary number go up annually?

My point was about a declining global population concentrating in a few areas not being a major issue.

Globally more babies were born in 1985 than 2025. Population growth at this point is all down to people living longer but that’s a one time correction, we’re already in a steady state situation and heading to decline. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-births-per-year

Re: Tough truths about climate

#92

Post by Retric »

jshen wrote: post #41
Retric wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO it’s about minimizing harm at this point. There’s levels of societal collapse, mass migration can destroy the existing social fabric without necessarily being that terrible. Fertility rates being so low means developed countries will likely want large numbers of immigrants. At the other end stopping all CO2 production tomorrow would result in severe consequences. We can’t transport food to cities without burning…

I don't see any progress in terms of the rate of increase in atmospheric co2 over time. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...

That graph is well below earlier forecasts. Accurate predictions require more than simple extrapolations which 30 years ago suggested exponential growth. Instead CO2 per capita and especially in terms of GDP resulted in a different story.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita

Add in more kids being born in 1985 than 2025 and per capita numbers matter. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-births-per-year

Poor countries are rapidly becoming wealthier which is obviously a good thing. Meanwhile wealthy countries are becoming a lot more efficient with their carbon emissions. Where those lines intersect is what matters in the near term because poor countries aren’t copying 1950’s technology. Skipping power hungry CRT screens and inefficient engines etc just makes economic sense. China emissions spiked as they industrialized but they are currently minimizing their investment in outdated fossil fuel based technologies in favor of solar and EV’s etc.

Re: Tough truths about climate

#93

Post by fuzzfactor »

jader201 wrote: post #2

> Although climate change will have serious consequences—particularly for people in the poorest countries—it will not lead to humanity’s demise. People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future. Interesting and different perspective vs. what many others often say (but that’s one of the points he’s making). I feel a lot of climate articles — and the comments attached to their H…

>—it will not lead to humanity’s demise.

Can't read the article, but if he doesn't think climate change will do it, is he offering any new alternatives?

Re: Tough truths about climate

#94

Post by josefritzishere »

There is really no source that indicates greenhouse gas emissions are in decline unless the writer means over a very short, even immaterial period of time. With that opening gambit being either disengenusous or dishonest, it's hard to credit any of the deductions that follow. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions

Re: Tough truths about climate

#95

Post by fulafel »

ares623 wrote: post #64
energy123 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another spherical cow solution.

I wonder how software engineers will fare in a “self reliant” economy. Do unvested stocks work in a barter?

Without trade interdependencies wars seem much more attractive to powerhungry leaders of countries, engineers can probably earn a living building killer ai robots.

Re: Tough truths about climate

#96

Post by WillPostForFood »

kennywinker wrote: post #18
jader201 wrote: post #2

> Although climate change will have serious consequences—particularly for people in the poorest countries—it will not lead to humanity’s demise. People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future. Interesting and different perspective vs. what many others often say (but that’s one of the points he’s making). I feel a lot of climate articles — and the comments attached to their H…

I think he’s probably right, but to be clear there are billions of deaths that fit into his prediction. Humans living and thriving does not preclude a massive drop in population. It is very hard to gauge what he actually believes will happen based on these words

to be clear there are billions of deaths that fit into his prediction.

That's not clear at all. Claiming 25%+ of the world will die is the kind of hyperbolic doomsday claim the Gates is trying to move away from because it distracts from sane climate mitigation strategies.

Re: Tough truths about climate

#97

Post by senordevnyc »

jshen wrote: post #12
jader201 wrote: post #2

> Although climate change will have serious consequences—particularly for people in the poorest countries—it will not lead to humanity’s demise. People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future. Interesting and different perspective vs. what many others often say (but that’s one of the points he’s making). I feel a lot of climate articles — and the comments attached to their H…

He says that as if he's certain it can't possibly, even a remote possibility, lead to societal collapse. First, there is no way he can be certain about that. Second, what is an acceptable probability for an existential threat? That's the real question to answer, and he didn't attempt to answer it.

You also didn't attempt to answer it. What probability of societal collapse (however you define it) do you find acceptable?

Re: Tough truths about climate

#98

Post by fulafel »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #66
fulafel wrote: post #19

Interesting that there's zero mention of regulation, even thought that's cheap and effective in ramping down fossils use as proven by the carbon trading system in EU.

Carbon taxes are probably the most effective tool but politically unpalatable.

What's the advantage over the so far politically palatable carbon trading systems? Seems to me the end result is pretty much the same, except in carbon trading systems the market mechanism automatically adjusts the price to the available quota.

Re: Tough truths about climate

#99

Post by mmooss »

jader201 wrote: post #2

> Although climate change will have serious consequences—particularly for people in the poorest countries—it will not lead to humanity’s demise. People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future. Interesting and different perspective vs. what many others often say (but that’s one of the points he’s making). I feel a lot of climate articles — and the comments attached to their H…

I wish sophisticated communicators like Gates would skip the strawpeople arguments as setups; it's the end of any serious examination before it even begins.

> doomsday message

That term reveals a partisan position: it's a strawperson ridiculing those who talk about the great risks and harms of climate change. 'Don't look up!'

> Interesting and different perspective

It's an old, well-worn perspective, that is commonplace now - especially in American business and government, it's more common than the 'realist' perspective on climate change. It's incredible that they - the entrenched, very powerful status quo power structure - depict themselves as insurgents for advocating the same old climate denial policies.

IMHO: The entrenched capitalists (including Gates) and their power structure simply don't want to change - a bias of the status quo. They are asserting a reactionary conservative position - no change, no matter what, and hate those who want change - regardless of its validity in reality, with the idea that nobody can make them change. They make spurious arguments like Gates to divert people - a tactic they can do endlessly.

The idea that the answer to the enormous damage of the entrenched capitalists is empower them more is, when you think about it, laughable and absurdly myopic and self serving. They can't even carry out the charade for 10 minutes - now those entrenched capitalists are building massive power-consuming datacenters, eliminating ESG, destroying renewable energy in the world's biggest economy ... I'm sure they'll save us.

But notice I keep talking about entrenched capitalists. An essential of capitalism and free markets is creative destruction. These failed capitalists - and climate change is an historic failure, about which their predictions and decisions were enormous errors - should be destroyed (economically) and buried like Lehman Brothers, and new ones, who correctly anticipate it and deal with it, should be funded.

Really, all we need is to stop making taxpayers fund climate change - prevention, remediation, cleanup from disasters, etc. - and have a GHG tax that prices things according to their real cost, rather than subsidizing the current failures. Then real, innovative capitalists in a free market can thrive.

Re: Tough truths about climate

#100

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

robocat wrote: post #86
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inflation is already lowering the living standards of millions, but without any reduction on ghg. So the most realistic approach is that we have to deal both reduced living standards AND a changing environment. But the rich will be rich, so there's that.

> But the rich will be rich If you're in a developed country, you are the rich.

For now.
Post reply on HN