[HN Gopher] The Arctic Is Warming Four Times Faster Than the Res...
___________________________________________________________________
The Arctic Is Warming Four Times Faster Than the Rest of the World
Author : infodocket
Score : 165 points
Date : 2021-12-14 18:01 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.science.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.science.org)
| bijant wrote:
| The arctic is too damn cold anyways. It's great if we can finally
| go there without freezing to death.
| Fervicus wrote:
| I would recommend the book Apocalypse Never by Michael
| Shellenberger. It's an interesting read where the author talks
| about how environmental alarmism hurts us and makes us focus on
| the wrong things and the importance of nuclear.
| jcadam wrote:
| I am happy to report that winters up here in the sub-arctic part
| of Alaska are cold AF. Winter even arrived a bit early this year.
| mrjangles wrote:
| >But that figure, found in scientific studies, advocacy reports,
| the popular press, and even the 2021 U.N. climate assessment, is
| incorrect
|
| So my understanding is that linking papers that claim the IPCC is
| wrong makes you a science denier, or am I confused about how the
| rules work?
| black6 wrote:
| You're only confused about how they work _today_ because they
| changed from _yesterday_ and are most assuredly different than
| what they will be _tomorrow_.
| mostertoaster wrote:
| We've always been at war with Eurasia. Wikipedia told me so.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| What were the rules yesterday and what are they today?
| fallingknife wrote:
| You are confused about how the rules work. You are only a
| "science denier" if you say that global warming will be less
| severe than the IPCC.
| _jal wrote:
| Since you're apparently such a free-thinking rebel, why would
| you care?
| emodendroket wrote:
| Can't wait till we start settling the Arctic.
| gremloni wrote:
| Gross. It's still going to be cold a lot. Endless seas of
| mosquitoes and biting insects during the brief summer. Hell on
| earth.
| emodendroket wrote:
| I was just goofing but that sounds like a lot of places
| people live to be honest.
| scotth wrote:
| Can't tell if this is a joke -- the arctic is floating ice, not
| land.
| bijant wrote:
| There is quite a lot of land within the arctic circle. If it
| continues to warm up it will become more conductive to human
| settlements and agriculture. hn is a place where most people
| see the upsides of change, I don't understand why so few here
| admit the benefits of climate change.
| mym1990 wrote:
| Certainly any large scale change will bring benefits for
| some groups and problems for others, but at a net level it
| is hard to see the benefits outweighing the costs for
| climate change. But all of those things are so hard to
| model and this article is one of the many pieces that
| points to that.
|
| Curious questions though: If the Arctic region becomes
| habitable, who presides over it? Will it just become a
| haven for the rich? Can it be used as a model to figure out
| how to settle other planets?
| emodendroket wrote:
| I was kidding.
| forgatmigej wrote:
| You might be thinking of the Arctic Ocean. As far as I know,
| the Arctic is the area enclosed by the northern polar circle.
| It includes land, and some of your favorite countries are
| partly inside the polar circle
| fulafel wrote:
| There are a bunch of cities as well, and other populated
| areas, so mind your step in picking areas you plan to
| settle:
| https://notebookfromthenorth.com/2019/11/10/20-cities-of-
| the... https://www.sidmartinbio.org/what-is-the-population-
| of-the-a...
| scotth wrote:
| Ah, I stand corrected.
| i_love_music wrote:
| Honest question - how do you all cope with this? Do you ignore it
| because it is painful? Do you donate to environmental groups like
| the EDF or NRDC? Did you quit your tech/advertising job to work
| on renewable energy?
|
| I personally have been donating to environmental groups, but it
| feels like a cop-out. I'm using money to pay-away some of my
| guilt and my unwillingness to put more substantial effort towards
| such an important cause as this. It weighs on me daily though.
|
| So honestly, how do you all cope? For those of you who have had
| the willingness/bravery to go "all-in", how did you do it? I'm
| addicted to my comfortable, wealthy lifestyle as a software
| engineer and I'm ashamed of it.
| antocv wrote:
| > how do you all cope with this?
|
| Did I ask to be born into this world? No. Not my problem.
|
| If you truly want to solve the climate change problem you have
| to find a way to delete most humans from the planet. There is
| really no other way, too many humans will change its
| environment, just like any other organism achieving exponential
| growth. All other solutions are just coping.
|
| If you dont like that solution you can work on modifying the
| humans to not be humans anymore, but perhaps like an organism
| living in a pod connected to a metaverse with neuralink like in
| the matrix. The environmental footprint of such a solution
| would be globally insignificant.
|
| If you dont like that, accept, adapt and live on.
| belval wrote:
| > How do you all cope with this?
|
| I ignore it.
|
| > Do you ignore it because it is painful?
|
| Yep
|
| Honestly, I am young enough that in elementary school they were
| already talking about global warming, we were told that it
| would be too late soon and that we had to do something about
| it.
|
| 15 years later nothing has been done about it, but then again
| nothing really went wrong yet, being told everyday that the
| world will end has the pervasive effect that it feels pointless
| to really try and change things. You just feel numb and wait
| for _something_ to happen.
| afandian wrote:
| > nothing really went wrong yet
|
| Seriously, what do you consider to be 'something' or 'going
| wrong'?
|
| There are so many things, and they are going so badly wrong.
| Case in point current Kentucky tornadoes and the article
| you're replying to.
| [deleted]
| MichaelBurge wrote:
| Can scientists definitively pin the Kentucky tornado on
| global warming? That is, is it conclusively known that "If
| emissions were curtailed by X% 20 years ago, the count of
| tornadoes with a strength of at least Y that passed through
| Kentucky would've been reduced by at least 1"?
|
| My impression is, that assignment of blame seems much more
| precise than other predictions from weather forecasts that
| I've seen.
| polotics wrote:
| Why would any hypothetical scientist have to entertain
| your fancy? Actual scientists are telling us what's going
| on as precisely as can be computed. There is no doubt
| anymore. You will however be able to ask for more
| precision for as long as no other more pressing thing
| becomes what you're asking for, most likely because of
| what climate change will inflict.
| [deleted]
| MichaelBurge wrote:
| I was thinking the EPA or NWS might have a document
| describing exactly how the tornado originated, so no
| effort would be needed beyond linking to it.
|
| It sounds like you've talked to scientists somewhere and
| there is no such document, though.
| [deleted]
| thehappypm wrote:
| This is the problem: if you blame every extreme weather
| event on global warming, global warming could be totally
| made up!
| belval wrote:
| I am not denying that there are more extreme weather event,
| I hope my comment didn't come off as denying climate
| change, because that's not what I was trying to convey.
|
| > nothing really went wrong yet
|
| Nothing went wrong in the sense that nothing went wrong for
| me, for my loved ones, for people I actually know.
| afandian wrote:
| I didn't think that, I was just curious about your
| perspective. I think I'm observing the same stuff
| everyone else is observing and, even the other side of
| the world, it feels _far_ too close for home,
| geographically. And, having a child, it seems far too
| close to home temporally too.
| starik36 wrote:
| It sounds like you are quite young compared to me. They were
| talking about it in the late 80s while I was in high school.
| I remember Al Gore in the 90s was saying that Florida will be
| under water in 10 years or something like that. So this
| conversation has been going on for a long time.
|
| > 15 years later nothing has been done about it.
|
| That is absolutely is not true. When I moved to SoCal in the
| 80s, for the first six months I didn't realize there was a
| mountain nearby because of all the pollution and resulting
| haziness. You can clearly see it today because the cars have
| gotten a lot cleaner. This is just one anecdote.
| belval wrote:
| I meant nothing was done w.r.t CO2/CH4-based global
| warming. I think some form of pollution (smog/acid
| rain/CFC) were tackled surprisingly efficiently because
| they didn't require a complete rethinking of our lifestyle.
| lkbm wrote:
| It took us a long time, but overall emissions in the US
| are down about 10% from their peak in 2005, even when you
| adjust for us exporting manufacturing to elsewhere. This
| only brings us down to ~1996 levels, but it's a good
| sign. Per capita, we're back down below 1990 levels[0].
| (I think this is mostly from some energy-efficiency
| improvements and less coal, though a lot of that has just
| shifted to natural gas[1].)
|
| It's not nearly enough, and may be overwhelmed by China
| and India's development, but significant positive change
| is happening. It just took us until ~2007 to really get
| things moving.
|
| [0] https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2
|
| [1] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-
| gas-emis...
| WaltPurvis wrote:
| Yeah, it's difficult to figure out how to act/think/feel on an
| individual level.
|
| I recently read an interesting article related to this:
|
| The Climate Crisis Is Worse Than You Can Imagine. Here's What
| Happens If You Try.
|
| https://www.propublica.org/article/the-climate-crisis-is-wor...
| kingkawn wrote:
| Organizing my life so that I can enjoy these last few years of
| relative calm and safety before shit hits the fan forevermore
| jlarocco wrote:
| I do my part by bike commuting, conserving energy, reducing
| consumption, etc.
|
| But I don't worry about the big picture because I can't change
| it, and I think at this point it's too late to "fix" the
| problem anyway.
|
| If humans drive themselves extinct it's not going to happen in
| my lifetime, and it's really not a big deal in the grand scheme
| of things. We won't kill _everything_ , and something else will
| evolve to take our place.
| andai wrote:
| The price of gas recently increased sixfold here, so I just
| stopped heating my apartment. It's 12-13C in my living room and
| after a few weeks of discomfort this now feels like a
| comfortable temperature to me. (I might need to turn it on in a
| few weeks though, if it gets much colder. Even so, I've
| recalibrated my body to feel comfortable at a much lower
| temperature now, which is super cool!)
|
| I did this due to some combination of poverty and stoicism, but
| it made me realize how much gas I was burning before without
| really _needing_ it. (I always felt a little bad using so much
| of a nonrenewable resource.)
|
| Sure I _like_ it when it 's warm inside, but really it's an
| unnecessary luxury we've all gotten used to. (At least for the
| young and healthy -- I hear for older people cold temperatures
| can be harmful?)
|
| Worth noting though that I do get some heat through my walls
| from the neighbors -- if we all turned off the heat it would be
| a lot colder ;) Even so I reckon the usage could be cut by a
| good deal (40-50%?) without any serious issues, it would just
| be a very unpopular proposal.
| mdorazio wrote:
| Step 1: Take a deep breath. The world is not ending tomorrow,
| or next year, or even in 100 years. Subjecting yourself to
| excess fear is not helpful. You will be fine. Your kids will be
| fine. _Their_ kids will mostly be fine.
|
| Step 2: Try to understand what will actually happen and prepare
| yourself accordingly. Severe weather systems will probably
| continue to worsen - you can prepare yourself for those. You
| can look up the realistic model predictions for sea level rise
| and compare on a map like [1] what that means and choose where
| to live accordingly (aside from Florida, the real risks are
| from hurricanes). Etc.
|
| Step 3: Ask yourself what you can realistically do and what you
| cannot realistically do. For the things in the latter bucket,
| refer to Step 2 and don't worry about them so much. For things
| in the first bucket, do what you can. Personally, I donate to 3
| different orgs to more than offset my carbon footprint, and I
| try to lead a low-carbon lifestyle where possible (don't use
| A/C or heat as much, eat less meat, drive less, etc.).
|
| Step 4: If you want to take a "big plunge", ask yourself
| seriously if you would do more good by quitting your job to
| work on this space, or if something else would be more
| effective. In most cases, it's more effective to donate more
| money to the change you want to see, or to become more involved
| in politics. In most cases, the core causes of climate change
| aren't going to be solved by new tech.
|
| [1] https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/dataset/sea-level-rise-
| map...
| polotics wrote:
| There is no indication that you or your kids will be fine.
| The pace of extreme events is going much faster than any of
| the quite-conservative models could predict. It is most
| certain that my children's children lives will be heavily
| affected if not wholly dominated, by the combination of
| climate disruption, resource depletion, and biodiversity
| plunge. There is no reason to be panic but at this point not
| advocating for a tenfold drop in fossil fuel consumption is
| madness: don't fly, avoid driving, reduce meat consumption,
| inform your friends.
| Aloha wrote:
| A changing climate doesn't mean an unlivable earth.
|
| We're focused on trying to shove the genie back in the
| bottle, rather than dealing with the rather wrenching
| changes ahead. We should be investing on dealing with the
| wrenching changes ahead, because some measure of them are
| coming, like it or not.
|
| How is a global 10x reduction in consumption of fossil
| fuels even possible, in the 5 year timespan people seem to
| think we need to do it in? Like it might be possible in the
| developed world, but the rest of the world? I don't think
| so.
|
| I'm a big believer in sustainable living, and have been for
| decades, but I think we missed the boat on substantially
| stopping climate change.
| cogman10 wrote:
| > A changing climate doesn't mean an unlivable earth.
|
| Depends on which part you live in.
|
| Unfortunately, the most populated regions are likely to
| be hit the hardest. And, really unfortunately, it is the
| developing world that will suffer the most.
|
| Nations near the equator and island nations are going to
| have the hardest time with climate change.
|
| I agree, climate change is unstoppable. Really, the focus
| now is doing what we can to decrease it's impact.
| vanusa wrote:
| _A changing climate doesn 't mean an unlivable earth._
|
| Unfortunately this isn't true - certain parts of the
| earth (perhaps affecting as many as 1B people) will in
| fact become unlivable, as we approach warming scenarios
| above 1.5 degrees.
| time_to_smile wrote:
| > A changing climate doesn't mean an unlivable earth.
|
| For virtually the entire history of life on this planet
| for the majority of life on the planet, this statement is
| false.
|
| Peter Ward's _Under a Green Sky_ is a great read on this
| subject from a scientific point of view and Peter Brannen
| 's _The Ends of the World_ covers it more broadly with a
| more journalistic style.
|
| The geological evidence we have strongly suggests that
| rapid rise in CO2 and sudden climate change have been
| responsible for many of the great extinction events in
| the fossil record.
|
| While the magnitude of our current CO2 spike is not as
| severe as the most extreme cases, it is happening at a
| rate that is unprecedented in the history of life on this
| planet.
|
| Now to be clear, there are many, many unknowns about
| exactly how things will play out, so this isn't a "we're
| definitely going extinct in the near future!" message.
| But species extinction is absolutely in the cards (it is
| worth pointing out we're already in the 6th largest
| extinction event).
| ksdale wrote:
| This. There is such a huge chasm between mass death, and
| practically any other consequence of climate change. As
| long as mass death doesn't occur, people will adapt to
| what happens (and it may be rather unpleasant, to be
| sure...)
|
| A huge loss of biodiversity is a massive tragedy, but as
| far as our grandchildren being "fine," people have lived
| for basically all of history in circumstances much worse
| than they're likely to encounter.
| s5300 wrote:
| Isn't mass death one of the first things we're going to
| be dealing with though?
|
| Some places are _already_ hitting wet bulb temperatures.
| Even slight increases in average temp are going to make
| the amount affected by wet bulb cascade quite quickly. In
| the regions where it's hitting /will be hitting,
| infrastructure is sparse, and wet bulb without
| infrastructure to deal with it is death.
|
| I have had somebody on HN argue with me quite animatedly
| about wet bulb being "fake news" though... ergh
| time_to_smile wrote:
| > people have lived for basically all of history in
| circumstances much worse than they're likely to
| encounter.
|
| I see people make this claim all the time, but it is
| blatantly false.
|
| The XKCD earth temperature timeline is a good, quick
| example [0].
|
| Even better is this plot of Temperature of the Planet
| Earth [1]. Make sure to take a second to look at the
| spike at the end.
|
| We're facing temperatures in the next 100 years that this
| planet has not seen for millions, happening at a pace
| that may have never occurred before.
|
| People have never seen anything close to what we are
| facing in the near term, and absolutely nothing like what
| awaits for us in 100 years.
|
| 0. https://xkcd.com/1732/
|
| 1. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5
| /5f/Al...
| Aloha wrote:
| As this risk of asking an obvious question, we lived in a
| much cooler earth, why is a much warmer one an issue?
|
| Humanity is quite adaptable, why would we not adapt to
| this?
| ksdale wrote:
| I'm not saying that the climate isn't going to change
| drastically, I'm saying that as long there isn't mass
| death, people will adapt, and most likely will continue
| to have a higher standard of living than people did for
| most of history.
|
| And certainly the pace of change is very alarming, but
| millions of years ago, when the temperature was so high,
| I'm pretty sure the Earth was capable of supporting just
| as much or more biomass.
|
| "People have never seen anything close to what we are
| facing in the near term, and absolutely nothing like what
| awaits for us in 100 years." I keep seeing people make
| this claim, assuming it is self-evident that this means
| apocalypse. It's true that this has never happened
| before, and that's the only thing that's set in stone.
| Humans possess tremendous ingenuity and flexibility. Like
| I keep saying, assuming everyone doesn't starve to death,
| people can adapt to anything else.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| >but millions of years ago, when the temperature was so
| high, I'm pretty sure the Earth was capable of supporting
| just as much or more biomass.
|
| those idiots concerned with human life, the main thing to
| worry about is maintaining the proper biomass!
|
| >Like I keep saying, assuming everyone doesn't starve to
| death, people can adapt to anything else.
|
| So in a situation where there will be at the same time
| increasing temperatures (killing off plants not used to
| those temperatures), weather disruption, mass death of
| insect species, and water depletion in regions not
| necessarily used to it - famines not being a major issue
| seems a hell of an optimistic assumption to make.
| ksdale wrote:
| I mean... we eat biomass? Mass starvation will occur when
| we can't grow food anywhere. We literally grow the food
| we eat in a year in a year. I don't think it's
| ridiculously optimistic to assume that if starvation was
| on the horizon, we'd be able to spin up food production
| in the places where the climate allowed it, and this
| stuff is going to happen on the scale of years at worst,
| but probably the scale of decades. I think it's a hell of
| a pessimistic assumption to make that half the world's
| population is going to starve to death.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| >if starvation was on the horizon, we'd be able to spin
| up food production in the places where the climate
| allowed it,
|
| Ok probably I do tend towards pessimism, but I would
| suspect that food would go to people who could pay for
| the food, so like say if your country's economy in the
| past was very reliant on agriculture and now that
| agriculture ain't working, you ain't getting any food in
| from outside - unless we assume that the crisis will make
| people more humanitarian which maybe it will but still
| seems to be on the optimistic side.
|
| So I assume people from the hottest regions of the world
| will probably be hit with more extreme famines than they
| are used to and lots of those people will die. Since
| there is a lot of fear of water wars breaking out, not
| sure if the majority will die from starvation or war.
| CodeGlitch wrote:
| Not that long ago (2000 years) the Earth's climate was
| warmer than it is today:
|
| https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22040-tree-rings-
| sugg...
|
| The Romans did just fine.
|
| From the link:
|
| "In fact, it shows that human CO2 emissions have
| interrupted a long cooling period that would ultimately
| have delivered the next ice age."
|
| You know what...the Earth's climate has changed multiple
| times and we're still here. So the alarmist attitude that
| we're all going to die is not warranted IMHO.
| crate_barre wrote:
| Haven't you heard? Outrage is all the rage now days. The
| hotter the take, the better.
| CodeGlitch wrote:
| Oh yes, also forget about this one:
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
|
| During the middle ages, so even more recent.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| " In most cases, the core causes of climate change aren't
| going to be solved by new tech."
|
| Why not?
|
| If for example a cheap, simple new technology would be out by
| tomorrow, that provides allmost unlimited energy (let's say a
| wonderful simple approach to cold fusion*) - then all the
| dirty stuff we do today, because it is cheap - could be done
| without the dirt of fossil fuels.
|
| * but I do not believe that will happen at all. I rather
| would invest in harvesting more the energy provided by us of
| the big fusion plant called the sun
| [deleted]
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| >If for example a cheap, simple new technology would be out
| by tomorrow, that provides allmost unlimited energy (let's
| say a wonderful simple approach to cold fusion*) - then all
| the dirty stuff we do today, because it is cheap - could be
| done without the dirt of fossil fuels.
|
| To paraphrase something that I remember reading once but
| now cannot find because Google cannot ever help you find
| anything useful (nor can the others but at least you aren't
| giving them all your privacy for nothing):
|
| The person who creates a new and abundant source of energy
| without at the same time creating an equivalent heat sink
| for this planet would be history's greatest monster.
| [deleted]
| mdorazio wrote:
| I try to stay at least reasonably well-informed of
| developments in the space, and the bottom line is two-fold:
|
| 1) There is no magic bullet technology just around the
| corner that will solve all our problems for either energy
| generation or carbon sequestration. Fusion is decades away
| from practicality, renewables will take decades to slowly
| scale up and replace fossil fuels, carbon sequestration at
| scale is expensive without a real economic output, and
| climate change is a global problem rather a country-
| specific one, which leads to #2
|
| 2) We have all the technology we need _today_. What we lack
| is the political, social, and economic willpower to make
| climate change a priority globally. A true carbon tax with
| proceeds going to renewables development & sequestration
| would solve a huge portion of the problem, as would
| removing subsidies for high-pollution activities. The fact
| that these things aren't even taken seriously at the
| congressional level tells you all you need to know.
| xwdv wrote:
| You cope with it as a terminal cancer patient might cope.
|
| Personally I'm not changing anything. This world is coming to
| an end soon and I'd rather enjoy life as I always imagined it
| would be for as long as I can, than to adopt unnatural
| behaviors in a futile attempt at saving the planet.
|
| The next generations are screwed, fortunately I find them quite
| annoying so I don't care too much about what happens to them. I
| have no children of my own to worry about, though I may still
| consider having some if I can imagine a way for them to live a
| good life and of course if I can find a suitable woman to mate
| with, but I will not expect grandchildren. I will be far too
| old anyway, and my children will have to make the call if the
| world still has support for another human generation to be
| born.
|
| Overall, the feeling that one should be getting their affairs
| in order looms with each passing day, and planning for the
| future doesn't seem wise.
| phh wrote:
| I kinda believe that capitalism can go in the right direction
| (though government action is needed) with pushes from all of
| us:
|
| I chose a job specifically because it aims at reducing e-waste,
| and that's a real business incentive so I know I won't hit
| corporate walls. Turns out the job also tries to optimize
| electricity consumption, which is a target I don't think is
| very useful, but still feels like the right direction. (For
| reference, said job has a 10 yr old product upgraded to brand
| new Linux 5.15)
|
| Except for that, the usual, ESG, eating less meat, using cars
| as little as possible. All of which are monetary incentives for
| the economy to go "in the right direction".
|
| I also work on Android custom ROMs on my free time. I have yet
| to determine whether this is a net ecological positive (I buy
| many smartphones for that project so it has its own cost), and
| I have a very hard time turning it into monetary incentives.
| diveanon wrote:
| By not having children.
|
| If the world is doomed I don't see a point in bringing life
| into it just suffer.
|
| Having children is the literal worst thing you can do for the
| environment at this point.
|
| Just adopt if that is what you want, plenty of needy kids out
| there.
| mdavidn wrote:
| I don't eat meat, and I encourage friends and family to avoid
| it. Livestock production is surprisingly bad for the
| environment. Cows are particularly bad, consuming somewhere
| around 25 times more calories and 4 times more protein from
| feed than they yield in beef.
|
| Absolute vegetarianism is not necessary, either. Even
| incrementally eliminating meat in some meals will help.
| [deleted]
| pdonis wrote:
| _> how do you all cope with this?_
|
| The same way I cope with change in general: by adapting. Which
| is the approach I think we should be taking in general as a
| society towards climate change.
|
| _> I 'm addicted to my comfortable, wealthy lifestyle as a
| software engineer and I'm ashamed of it._
|
| You shouldn't be. Most people in the world demonstrate by the
| choices they make that they prefer a more wealthy lifestyle to
| a less wealthy one. There are people who don't, but even most
| of them depend for some essential functions on technology that
| is only possible in a wealthy society. (Anyone who really
| doesn't depend on technology for anything won't be posting here
| or reading posts here anyway.)
|
| Human activities can certainly affect the environment, and not
| just the climate. IMO the hysteria over climate change has had
| the unfortunate effect of putting many other more pressing
| environmental issues on the back burner. We should be good
| stewards of the environment, but that requires being as
| objective as we can about how much priority issues actually
| deserve, and also requires recognizing that the best way to fix
| environmental issues in general is to create more wealth. The
| wealthier the world is, the cheaper fixing up the environment
| becomes in comparison.
| dillondoyle wrote:
| What's an example of a more pressing environmental issue than
| climate change?
| thehappypm wrote:
| Mass extinctions due to things like insecticides.
| foobiekr wrote:
| This. I've even considered buying a large swath of land
| and letting it go fully natural.
| thehappypm wrote:
| You could start a land trust of some kind. Massachusetts
| has a huge one called the Trustees and many of the best
| hiking trails and beaches are actually Trustees land.
| It's private, but generally open to the public. Tax-free
| for them, which would be better than you paying property
| taxes on unused land.
| songzme wrote:
| I found a permaculture community and found a guy who
| loves to tend to the land but has no money, so I gave him
| a downpayment to buy an 8 acre piece of land about 2
| hours away from me.
|
| > letting it go fully natural
|
| The piece of land we bought was fully natural for a long
| time and it wasn't pleasant when I first visited. It was
| extremely thick and hard to even walk about, so the first
| step we had to do is clear it out to make a living space.
|
| Here's his blog about his updates on the land:
| https://libresults.com/c/walkabout-update-7-lots-of-rain-
| and...
| Baeocystin wrote:
| Ocean acidification and the potential collapse of the
| planktonic base of the food web. By a long shot, IMO.
| porb121 wrote:
| why do you think ocean acidification happens
| piva00 wrote:
| Caused by... Anthropological climate change due to CO2
| dissolution into oceans' waters, so it's a subset of the
| larger issue, fix pumping CO2 into the atmosphere then
| tackling ocean acidification becomes more easily
| approachable.
| Baeocystin wrote:
| Sure. My point is only that temperature changes in and of
| themselves, as bad as they are, aren't the most incipient
| danger.
| pdonis wrote:
| Chemicals in our food and water supplies.
| chapium wrote:
| For me, I'm making adaptations to my lifestyle now anticipating
| what will be necessary in the long-term. This way, myself or my
| children will not be in shock as society adapts.
| cosmic_shame wrote:
| For example?
| chapium wrote:
| So far, I'm shopping locally as much as possible.
| Eliminating trips > 10 miles by car and using
| metro/bus/bike instead. I'm trying to eliminate one time
| use packaging where possible and reusing things rather than
| throwing them away. These are small steps and gradual
| changes. The main question I keep asking myself is, what
| would the world be like if 6 billion other people made the
| same choices.
| phs318u wrote:
| I accept that I contribute to the outcome but I can't control
| the outcome. Therefore I choose my actions on the basis of how
| I want to define myself. I don't do this for any other reason
| than that I want to define the way in which I give my life
| meaning. I try and stay true to my self definition in all my
| actions. For everything that I can't control I adopt a Stoic
| attitude of acceptance. Acceptance does not mean resignation. I
| still act, but I accept that the outcome a not down to just me.
| Because I act in accordance with my self-definition, and
| because I try to adopt an attitude of acceptance, I can sleep
| at nights. Mostly.
|
| That's not very specific, but I hope it helps you in some way.
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| I buy carbon offsets for myself and family. I think they are
| important, if imperfect. They will improve with time.
|
| And I spend time teaching entrepreneurship to students
| interested in sustainable tech.
|
| And I keep trying to engage in the design of marine cloud
| brightening technology, which I view as a potential high-impact
| cooling tech. We need to buy time for society to transition. No
| support yet, but I'll keep knocking.
| mactavish88 wrote:
| Climate panic isn't constructive (at best it causes anxiety and
| depression and energy directed in ways that aren't
| constructive, at worst apathy), so I've made peace with the
| prospect of a highly turbulent future.
|
| Some of my personal goals include finding and supporting carbon
| capture/sequestration efforts, and activism organizations who I
| believe can lobby for meaningful policy changes in a better
| direction. That, because I don't have the skills/network to do
| something about it directly. If I did I'd be doing something
| about it directly.
|
| Beyond that, I believe we all have to accept our limitations,
| that there's a lot of luck/random chance/etc. in us being alive
| here on this planet in the first place and be grateful for
| that, and then do our best to be kind/generous to and have
| empathy for people suffering from the climate-related
| disasters.
| jahnu wrote:
| I agree. However, I do wish to note that bad actors are
| recasting urgency as panic.
| Fervicus wrote:
| There are also bad actors using panic nefariously, to the
| detriment of actual progress.
| mactavish88 wrote:
| The difference, as always, lies in action. Talk is cheap
| (and even cheaper than ever in the age of social media).
| xg15 wrote:
| > _so I've made peace with the prospect of a highly turbulent
| future._
|
| It remains to be seen whether the highly turbulent future has
| made peace with you.
|
| If we can believe the predictions, things have just gotten
| started. However, we can expect more extreme weather events,
| more large-scale refugee movements and who knows what else,
| which might also affect day-to-day life in rich countries.
|
| Until we at least have a clearer idea what exactly we can
| expect in the next decades, I'm not convinced this "making
| peace", trusting, we'll "adapt" is any more realistic than
| some procrastinaling college student who fully trusts his
| future self to wing that term assignment in an allnighter.
| AlexCoventry wrote:
| > trusts his future self to wing that term assignment in an
| allnighter.
|
| Reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_(novel)
| mactavish88 wrote:
| Who said anything about being confident in our ability to
| adapt? I'm totally fine with the worst case possibility
| that we're facing an extinction-level event here with the
| looming climate disasters. If that's what nature is going
| to give us, what choice do I have but to accept it?
| gdubs wrote:
| I bought an old eroded farm with my wife and we've been
| restoring habitats, placing parts of it into conservation, and
| working towards regenerative farming practices.
|
| We also went pretty much entirely plant-based with our diets
| years back, and traded in our hybrid for an electric vehicle.
|
| I'm not under any illusions that those steps are going to
| change the outcome -- but our hope was to make people
| interested in nature, where food comes from, and to learn more
| ourselves in the process.
|
| I also find that meditation has a lot of value for me when it
| comes to coping with such massive issues. It reminds me that I
| can always change myself, and hopefully through that find ways
| to spread a compassionate mindset towards others.
|
| I have three little kids, and a pretty clear-eyed sense of what
| their world is shaping up to be. I just try to focus and much
| of my energy as I can on setting a good example for them.
| Hopefully they'll grow up with the tools and knowledge
| necessary to find ways to thrive in a challenging environment.
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| Honestly it doesn't even rank on the list of things I worry
| about. Where I am there's a housing crisis, crime is getting
| worse, taxes are getting higher, and rapid population growth is
| destroying everything I loved.
|
| Also, I haven't done the research to determine - to my own
| satisfaction - whether this is man made or not. Sorry but my
| institutional trust is near rock bottom, and considering I'm
| not an atmospheric physicist I'm unlikely to ever have a clear
| picture.
| prawn wrote:
| I expect all of these things you listed will be exacerbated
| by what's happening on the climate front unfortunately. A
| gentle squeeze.
| 2Xheadpalm wrote:
| Plant some trees, preferably food bearing ones (if it makes
| sense in the location), nurture them. Bask in their growth.
| Simple, effective, takes little time and next to no money
| relatively. It is something just about anyone can do if
| motivated and will most likely still be around long after you
| have gone. Forget the enormity of the issues and just do
| something small, in your control that can have a +'ve effect!
| huetius wrote:
| I presently work in a clean tech sector, but I have no
| illusions that we will be able to successfully avert a large
| portion of the consequences of climate change. It is, of
| course, important to make sacrifices and responsible choices in
| the present, but in my view the central interior disposition is
| accepting it and summoning the courage to endure.
| Godelization wrote:
| Cold kills 4.6 million human beings annually, while heat kills
| only around 450k. There is nothing scary here to cope with.
| realce wrote:
| This sounds trite or oversimplified, but the best thing you can
| do is stop using every single industrial supply chain you
| possibly can. The urge to produce/consume away the consequence
| of industrialization is a capitalist pidgin-hole and is
| impossible.
|
| The more involvement you have in global industry, the more
| entropy you are morally responsible for accelerating. Involve
| yourself as little as possible.
| notjustanymike wrote:
| Whisky helps.
| [deleted]
| roughly wrote:
| I donate to groups. I also purchase carbon offsets for my
| personal energy use, use my power company's "all renewables"
| option, and have gotten much more attentive to the carbon costs
| of the things I do. I know it's a drop in the sea, but it's my
| drop. I also work at a company whose outputs I think will help
| the problem.
|
| The approach I've found works best for me for lifestyle changes
| is to treat them as a slow ratchet - make a decision like "cut
| down on meat" (or whatever), and just start taking steps down
| that road. Take the steps that you feel like you can, get used
| to them, and then take another step. It's hard to change
| everything overnight, but you can make a remarkable amount of
| change if you're attentive over time.
|
| That said, it's still the existential elephant in the room. I
| don't look at it every day, and when I do, it's terrifying. But
| it's just too big for me alone to face - all I can do is what I
| can do, and hope it adds up with what everyone else is doing to
| make a difference.
| NumberWangMan wrote:
| I volunteer with Citizens' Climate Lobby, which I think is the
| most effective action an individual can take, probably. The
| best individual action is to put pressure on politicians for
| collective action. We have to fix the rules of the game --
| right now, it's way too cheap to pollute.
|
| One important thing we do is to call Congress regularly and
| express our support for a carbon fee & dividend policy, for
| example: https://citizensclimatelobby.org/senate/
|
| And of course, there's lots more to volunteering with CCL if
| you want to get more involved.
| pueblito wrote:
| That looks a lot like a scam
| bjt2n3904 wrote:
| I ignore it. Not because it's too painful, but because I
| largely see "climate issues" as driven by politics, and not by
| actual problems.
|
| There are PLENTY of problems that I (and my community) are
| facing right now, that are far more pressing than some
| existential threat that guilts me into paying indulgences to
| the Church of Climate Change to absolve me from my "sins".
|
| Every hour that I spend teaching kids to read will be far
| better spent, than any dollar I put into some slush fund so
| that the megachurch pastors of Climate can fly around in their
| jumbo jets speaking at million dollar dinners for celebrities
| to lecture us on how we need to only use one square of toilet
| paper when we use the bathroom.
|
| Seriously. People dog pile on Joel Osteen and Kenneth Copeland
| for being massive frauds, but buy right into the same thing
| when it comes to the environment.
| disambiguation wrote:
| "Life is absurd" ~Camus
|
| Once you make peace with that, coping with feelings of
| powerlessness is child's play.
| [deleted]
| walteweiss wrote:
| I just blame others and don't take it as my fault, I am too
| young for taking the responsibility. Those are the older
| generation, who allowed all that to happen, because that over
| comfortable life looks very appealing, I assume. (I personally
| never had an issue with that.)
|
| What can you do? Just stop over-consume things, that simple.
| Wear clothes till they wear out, fix them when you can, reuse
| them (e.g. you can make that cover for your laptop out of your
| old jacket very easily). Don't upgrade your phone (and laptop,
| and tablet) every other year, just keep it as long as you can.
| Yeah, that's difficult, because somehow every software
| application is super bloated. Don't buy that smart watch, you
| don't need it, and they all are useless anyway. Don't fly on
| planes that often. Don't buy car, because you don't need it in
| most cases. If you need car, use it as seldom as possible. I am
| sick of all those fat asses comminuting alone, especially
| inside fat cars. Possibilities are limitless, but the general
| public is quite mindless, to say the least.
|
| That may sound insane for some of you, but it is not that
| difficult. As a person who grew up in a poor environment (i.e.
| no car, no tech, no fancy stuff, saving water, gas, electricity
| to keep the bills low) I have zero issues with keeping that
| life style up to this day. I can pay for all that, it's not the
| money issue, it's about being aware whether you really need all
| that stuff.
| Disruptive_Dave wrote:
| Full acceptance. Until someone shows me that I can actually
| halt/reverse it, all I can do is wake up and be a good person.
| Part of this is my belief system; there is no universal law
| that states human beings, or the earth for that matter, will
| exist for all time. Once that is truly accepted, your entire
| perspective changes.
| stragio wrote:
| I developed my own website to show the climate consequences per
| country: https://howhotwillitget.com
|
| And try to educate those around me bit by bit.
| SuoDuanDao wrote:
| I think I've done my best to go all in. You can judge for
| yourself from the following timeline:
|
| 2008: After a couple grueling winters in Canada's oil field, I
| come to the conclusion that switching off fossil fuels is going
| to be the defining project of the coming century and that it
| might be the best place to apply my natural talent at math and
| science.
|
| 2009: Begin studying Sustainable and Renewable Energy
| Engineering (undergraduate program) with dreams of leveraging
| the clout an engineer has towards advancing the technology that
| underpins our way of life.
|
| 2014: Graduate, start looking for clean energy jobs
|
| 2015: Take a job in telecoms, continue trying to break into the
| renewable energy industry
|
| 2017: Give up on breaking into the renewable energy industry.
| Rethink my initial assessment that the limiting factor for
| switching off fossil fuels is brain power. Come to the
| conclusion that it's really lacking capital and initiative.
|
| 2019: Co-found a startup in the horticultural space, with
| ambitious plans to make local food and medicinals production
| easier whatever climate disruptions happen. Keep the day job to
| ensure reliable capital.
|
| 2020: Join a second greenhouse start-up in a less directly
| involved capacity.
|
| 2021: The first startup fails (not official yet, but my partner
| and I have agreed to pursue other projects).
|
| I tell people this and some say it sounds pretty depressing,
| but none of it has ever made me feel depressed. I guess I don't
| question that I'm doing my best, so I've never felt like giving
| up; though I've definitely had to acknowledge I was barking up
| the wrong tree a few times.
|
| Gordon White, whose work on this subject I follow, says it's
| important to distinguish the rescue mission from the salvage
| mission. There are aspects of modern life that are worth
| rescuing, but most are just worth salvaging, they're tools that
| can be used to get through the coming times. From that
| perspective, I've never felt particularly bad about taking part
| in modern society, because I see myself as getting out as many
| resources as possible for building what comes after. My
| attempts at building anything have so far been fruitless, but I
| don't feel as though I'm playing the wrong game as it were.
| Christianity has a similar sentiment, 'in this world but not of
| it', and that resonates as well. I participate in a modern
| western lifestyle, I even enjoy many aspects of it. But I don't
| think it's the only thing worth trying and I won't mourn its
| passing to the same degree as most.
| cmehdy wrote:
| It looks challenging for sure, but most things that have a
| worth to us humans can be challenging, and if anything it's
| great to see a path like yours wandering through the problem
| space from energy sources to societal considerations. Rescue
| vs salvage, the way you put it, seems to be a mindset of
| opposition vs growth - and you chose go with the latter. As a
| clinically depressed person, none of what you shared seems
| depressing to me but rather constructive with a foundation of
| hope.
| rangoon626 wrote:
| The realization that in order to actually stop pollution, the
| us government would need to wage war on china
| zksmk wrote:
| The US's green house emissions per capita are twice as big as
| China's[1]. Considering China's population is about 4 times
| bigger it puts the absolute pollution at about 1:2. Chinese
| percent of renewables is 25% compared to the US's 15%[2].
| What exactly do you want from China? I'm not even gonna
| address the war idea...
|
| [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_green
| ho... [2]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by
| _renewab...
| dogcomplex wrote:
| I've recently found a good way of thinking about this in
| Effective Altruism (https://www.effectivealtruism.org/) - aka
| "donating time/money as intelligently as possible for the most
| good". It covers a bunch of intuitions I had and simplifies our
| options. Some highlights:
|
| - Probably the best thing you can do (if you're a relatively-
| well-off tech person) is either dedicate a portion of your time
| to directly trying to solve difficult problems related to
| climate change (or better yet, poverty), or donate directly to
| demonstrably-effective causes
|
| - Poverty is probably the more severe problem than global
| warming itself, and solving it also often indirectly works to
| solve the other. The biggest threat of global warming is how it
| will exacerbate poverty problems. Though ecological destruction
| is another worthy cause.
|
| - By the estimates of some of the most effective charities
| linked above (at the time of estimation), one can roughly
| offset their carbon footprint for around $100 a year if donated
| wisely (best example was paying farmers in the Amazon to not
| deforest their land, preserving forests and preventing logging
| companies from making inroads). This includes average flights /
| meat consumption.
|
| - Another $100 roughly in incentives/advertising to convert
| someone else to a vegan diet, if you want to offset your meat
| eating and are concerned with animal cruelty specifically
| (though you should probably still feel guilty, and there's
| obviously a floor at which this won't be something that society
| can throw money at)
|
| - Around $3k to extend a year of life to a 3rd world person (or
| equivalent quality of life to many). Maybe less by now. Let
| that one sink in. Some of the solutions to provide huge quality
| of life improvements for vast numbers of people are very cheap
| compared to small improvements in first world countries.
|
| - Overall it's very likely that programs like: recycling,
| reducing plastic use (plastic straws), energy-saving
| lightbulbs, bike commuting, eating less meat, green building
| renovations, etc... all amount to just a tiny drop on the scale
| of things, and probably just a few dollars worth of that $100
| of effective emissions potential per year. Renovating the first
| world is probably just not that cost-efficient - or it's
| probably happening regardless of your input, and you're better
| off directing funds/effort/intellect towards something more
| effective. Overall, if your goal is to be a moral person in
| regards to climate change and make the most impact, you're
| probably far better off living exactly how you want to, make as
| much money as you can, and donate a chunk of that ($1k a year
| would be enough to offset 10x yourself) to effective causes -
| instead of worrying about your direct personal impact. (Link
| above directs to some of those charities, and metrics for
| discerning)
|
| - That said, if you have rare skills (as most HN people reading
| this statistically do) and would rather contribute those to
| improving technology and better options, simply pivoting your
| career path can make a bigger impact than even donating.
| There's some calculus to this of course. I recommend reading
| the link above and some of the introductory texts/audiobook for
| help.
|
| Personally, I'm contributing a big portion of my time the last
| few years to assisting with long-shot-but-high-impact logistics
| infrastructure startup causes I believe in, which I feel my
| skills are hopefully well suited for and might not succeed
| without me. If they pay off and it takes off - great. If not,
| I'm at least contributing the best I have of my
| skills/experience to a lottery that - if enough people follow
| suit - eventually some high-impact project will succeed in.
| Sometimes the aggregate of just giving your time to projects
| that don't make so much sense economically to you personally
| (usually due to risk of failure) can go a long way in pushing
| industries toward overall better outcomes. If this project
| fails or I find my time isn't being used effectively though,
| and my moral compass keeps bugging me, I'll probably just
| "retire" back to just finding a non-saving-the-world job that
| pays well and giving a portion of those earnings to charity.
| (aka Work to Give, the best option for the vast majority of us
| since work is often not all that obviously moral/important).
| Tarsul wrote:
| you bring up very good points, however cutting your own
| emissions is very helpful because a) rich people emit the
| most and b) you can be 100% sure that it works (whereas with
| donating you have to trust third parties) and c) it's pretty
| simple, even easy, to eat less meat, use less (traditional)
| energy and fly less. And to drive a smaller car (I don't
| judge americans for driving because it appears to be
| necessary there). And to buy less bullshit ;) you can easily
| reduce your CO2 (equivalent) footprint by 1/3 or more (if you
| are a usual person and haven't changed your behaviors yet).
|
| Also, I think it's still misunderstood how fast change can
| happen if the people want it to and the politicians go for
| it. This hyper-capitalism feels like an eternal thing but it
| won't be. Because it can't. Younger generations want change
| and every catastrophe (and there will be many) puts pressure
| on the old institutions to change.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| I've spent more energy forming strong relationships with my
| extended family. I've learned to work outside of work, and am
| picking up new skills. I don't want to be rudderless if things
| become turbulent.
|
| It won't be a super catastrophe in my lifetime, but the
| economic repercussions could case me to be jobless someday, and
| our lifestyles may change significantly in the next 40 years.
| TheAceOfHearts wrote:
| It's not a problem that can be solved at the individual level
| so I don't worry about it.
|
| Since it's a political problem and I lack power to affect
| change at that scale I don't worry about it.
|
| By the time it becomes a serious problem I'll hopefully already
| be dead or die quickly. If I'm somehow still alive then I'll
| worry about it then. Hopefully my death is painless and free of
| prolonged suffering.
| giardini wrote:
| I'm lucky. When I was young I was taught a few ideas that stuck
| and keep me on an even keel. Maybe they'll help you. Among
| them:
|
| _" Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never
| hurt me."_
|
| _" Don't believe everything you read."_
|
| and to some degree
|
| _" Fools' names and fools' faces always appear in public
| places."_
|
| Of course these are exactly as I learned them as a child; I've
| updated them as I've grown.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| How do any of these help? If you're implying climate change
| isn't really happening, denying it doesn't make it go away.
| cmoscoso wrote:
| Isn't the climate always changing?
| ulnarkressty wrote:
| I try to convince others of the enormity of the situation. It
| is not easy, and people are ignorant, often times willfully so.
| However, the efforts are giving some fruit - convinced my
| coworkers to go and vote at the last election, to attend the
| protest marches in our town and to be mindful of their energy
| usage in the office and at home. Even managed to convince my
| bosses to switch the offices to renewable energy and get some
| e-bikes for the people that were a bit farther away to be
| comfortable with a regular bike so they don't commute by car
| that often.
|
| However, I still believe that all these efforts are like a
| band-aid on a dying whale. It takes one colleague to take a
| trip to the Bahamas for all these small efforts to be washed
| away. And unfortunately most people don't want to try harder
| than that. They want their comfort, their cheap burgers and
| EasyJet flights. If all of this comes at the cost of screwing
| the future generations then so be it...
| kfarr wrote:
| IMHO the #1 thing you can do is not use a car and help others
| not use cars, including working to get the infrastructure
| necessary in urban, suburban and rural contexts to make that
| possible. That is what I put my energy into on a local level.
| pengaru wrote:
| Not having any kids is both easier and more impactful.
| SuoDuanDao wrote:
| That seems like it simply creates an evolutionary pressure
| against caring about the collective future.
| criddell wrote:
| That's a hard sell. The personal utility one gets from a car
| is enormous and life changing. The contribution to the
| climate problem from one car is minuscule (but real).
|
| A better approach might be to add a tax to carbon-based fuels
| that is used to fund carbon capture.
| eldaisfish wrote:
| We really need to stop placing the burden on the individual.
| You and I not using cars or minimising our use may help but
| cars are a necessity of life for many. This is true in urban
| and rural contexts alike.
|
| What we should be doing is getting governments to band
| together and penalise industrial-scale polluters. It would do
| more good to take shipping and trucking electric than for you
| to rely on public transit and for me to drive one fewer
| kilometre.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| That would piss off "the individual" because it would
| result in higher prices and hence lower consumption and
| hence lower quality of life.
| mcv wrote:
| Reducing car use is of course a good idea, but it's not
| enough, and it feels rather pointless if everybody else,
| especially corporations, continues to pollute like it
| doesn't matter. Measures need to have teeth. Pollution
| needs to be taxed with the amount necessary to reverse it.
| kfarr wrote:
| > What we should be doing is getting governments to band
| together and penalise industrial-scale polluters.
|
| I agree with this as well. We should do all of the above.
| thehappypm wrote:
| This doesn't really work in a democracy. Look how high
| gas prices have turned so many Americans against Biden,
| and that isn't because of some anti-climate-change
| policy. Try to fight climate change at the ballot box,
| next election you lose all your seats as more people want
| $2 gas than care about the environment.
| trinovantes wrote:
| > cars are a necessity of life
|
| The problem is this mindset. Build better and more
| sustainable cities instead of the suburban hell that is in
| most of North America
| eropple wrote:
| This comment is unhelpful and ineffective, for if it were
| so easy, it would be done already. People have to live
| with the decisions that their grandparents' generation
| made because the inertia of it puts it _firmly_ out of
| the reach of the individual.
| kfarr wrote:
| We do NOT have to live with the decisions of our
| grandparents. We can change the world.
| nickff wrote:
| Industrial-scale polluters are often catering to consumer-
| level demand. Clamping down on industry may be easier, but
| it will restrict the consumer (either via reduced selection
| or increased prices). Individual-level voluntary action has
| the benefits of being more flexible and less tyrannical.
| eropple wrote:
| _> Individual-level voluntary action has the benefits of
| being more flexible and less tyrannical._
|
| It also doesn't work, while serving as a political shield
| to protect industrial-scale polluters. But it allows you
| to deliver with hauteur, so it passes generally without
| comment and things continue to get worse.
| SuoDuanDao wrote:
| I would argue though, that if politics really is
| downstream from culture, that there needs to first be a
| robust culture that is anticonsumerist. These cultures
| exist, the FIRE set being the most clear-eyed to my way
| of thinking. If there is no culture that is willing to
| unplug from the destructive systems, there's no viable
| political movement either.
| [deleted]
| realce wrote:
| > We really need to stop placing the burden on the
| individual.
|
| That's the person who incentivized the polluters to pollute
| in the first place. The individual had no standards except
| an expanding "quality of life" and they were given just
| what they demanded: consumption without regard for
| consequence. This attitude perpetuates it.
|
| You vote with your dollars. Our current corporate players
| are who we paid them to be.
| spaced-out wrote:
| The average person is focused on problems in their own
| life and doesn't have time to keep track of every dollar
| they spend and what it supports.
|
| When a hole was developing in the ozone layer advocates
| spent years trying to get people to stop buying the
| chemicals that were responsible, to no avail. Same with
| the issue of lead in gasoline and white phosphorous in
| matches. The solution in all those cases was to simply
| pass laws to stop a handful of companies from producing
| those products rather than try to raise awareness in
| millions of people.
| chapium wrote:
| Individuals run corporations and collectively we make
| decisions. Cars are a necessity for some, but many can find
| alternatives or lobby their local governments to improve
| alternate forms of transit.
| cryptica wrote:
| I don't feel any guilt about it for several reasons:
|
| - I'm poor, so my impact on CO2 emissions is minimal.
|
| - Rich people will always invest in some green-washing scam
| (whether intentionally or not). Our leaders are not smart
| enough to solve global warming. As a poor person, I have no
| power over anything. Also, I'm trying my best to become rich in
| order to gain the power to improve things. So I'm basically
| doing everything I can to get into a position to solve these
| problems but I'm consistently denied this opportunity... So
| none of it is on my hands.
|
| - At some level, I don't care about global warming enough
| because I don't own any stake in the planet. I'm just renting.
| I'm a nihilist and an atheist; so from my perspective, the
| entire universe ends in about 50 to 70 years anyway... Who
| cares about one lousy planet? When I'm dead, I will have 0
| association with it because I will be nothing. Do I care about
| planet ABC in parallel universe XYZ? No! Because it has nothing
| to do with me... Exactly the same as my relationship with Earth
| in 100 years.
|
| So the simple answer is:
|
| 1. I'm not causing the problem.
|
| 2. I'm already doing everything I can to solve the problem.
|
| 3. It's not even my problem to begin with...
|
| I think most people experience some of these three points. I
| actually experience all 3 so I feel absolutely zero
| responsibility about global warming. If anything, I feel
| contempt.
| dvt wrote:
| The planet will be fine. Humanity in general tends to act so
| self-important. We're just specs of dust on a bigger spec of
| dust. There have been at least 5 mass extinction events, and
| there's going to be more.
|
| A large-enough CME would cripple the entire planet for decades
| (if not centuries). From an existential standpoint, global
| warming is the least of our worries as a species.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| No one is concerned that the inanimate object we call "Earth"
| is going to be harmed or that the Earth itself has an opinion
| on what's happening. We are worried about present and future
| inhabitants, including ourselves. It should not need to be
| said. Citation needed on the least existential threat claim.
| gmuslera wrote:
| I don't.
|
| Big oil is still doing things with impunity. They knew 40 years
| ago that this was going on, they expanded operations, funded a
| denialism campaign, bribed left and right, no consequences
| besides doing more, getting even more money, and people
| consuming more.
|
| Governments follow the money, they don't touch a finger on
| them, even invade foreign countries to give them control over
| even more oil. Other big corporations (banks and so on) keep
| investing money on them.
|
| People are told to "recycle" but to not put a finger on having
| cars, having vacations on the other side of the world or
| consume in general. The top consumers are not the more affected
| in the short term, so they don't do anything really meaningful.
| It is easy to convince masses that is their fault, and the
| small actions that don't affect big money are the things that
| they should do. Against this even the gods are powerless.
|
| And science? It's been very creative in "mitigations" without
| consuming less or producing less oil. Going against the
| symptoms and letting the real problem to keep growing because
| it can't be touched.
|
| More than half of the CO2 emissions since 1751 were emitted in
| the last 30 years, after was evident that something very wrong
| was going on, the IPCC was funded, the UN noted the urgency to
| solve this and more. And the pledges that we managed to get was
| to reach "net zero" that is not to limit oil/fossil fuel
| production (that could still keep expanding over the years),
| but to somewhat compensate what is extracted with what is
| captured. And this of course doesn't cover capturing what is
| already on excess, just try to neutralize the new, and have the
| fantasy to wait 100+ years till that vanishes.
|
| And time is against us. We already, with a mild increase in the
| global average temperature, have big extreme weather events,
| and it not an El Nino year. Some "stable" climate features like
| the polar vortex and the gulf stream seem that are getting
| disrupted. And, of course, this article, that points that the
| biggest warming happens in the artic, where some positive
| feedback loops are rooted, from albedo lost from a blue ocean
| and permafrost thawing will worsen "hands free" the already
| very bad current situation.
|
| So, hoping for the best but expecting the worst. I'm open to
| good surprises, but I don't bet that things will be solved. At
| least my worst scenario is not fast extinction but that we will
| get into a climate dystopia with most people living in weather
| isolated environments controlled by the same big money that
| caused all of this.
| philips wrote:
| Last year we started writing letters to our children. It has
| been an effective way to talk about these issues with
| friends/family and focus our hopes and efforts for a good
| future.
|
| https://ifup.org/letters/dear-zohra-arlan-2020
| horsemans wrote:
| Most Zoomers have already accepted that they are not going to
| have children or live very long.
|
| I think following their example is the best one can do on an
| individual level. It's baby's first civilization and it's over.
| Acceptance at least allows one some dignity.
| cdiamand wrote:
| Do you have any kind of evidence that this is a widely held
| belief amongst this demographic?
|
| You're advocating we stop reproducing as a dignified response
| to your perception that civilization is ending?
| standardUser wrote:
| Honest answer - I only vote for candidates that take this issue
| deadly seriously, and that's about it.
|
| No amount of my meager donations or subtle lifestyle changes
| (I'm already a lifelong carless urban dweller with a low
| footprint by Western standards) will accomplish what can only
| be accomplished by multi-trillion dollar government investment,
| _hardcore_ and wildly disruptive government regulation, and
| aggressive diplomatic efforts. Only governments can truly make
| a dent and I do what I can to elect government officials who
| will do what needs to be done.
| d0mine wrote:
| All that you've mentioned is likely just a busy work unless you
| are willing to start a revolution: there are people making a
| profit due to the status quo and they won't give up peacefully.
|
| People still live too good to support a radical change that
| could save the modern civilization during the climate change.
| hollander wrote:
| It's not only this, but it's covid19, the policital situation,
| disrupting democracy by Qanon and fakenews, drug criminality
| that is a threat to the state, plus the usual mess that is
| political life. On top of that, or maybe on the bottom of it,
| my personal life is a mess in several ways, although I have a
| job, my own house, and I live in one of the best countries of
| the world (see my name).
|
| There is too much happening at the moment, and I'm afraid this
| is just the beginning for this century. But there is only so
| much that I can do. I cannot stop arctic climate change. I
| cannot stop the GOP from destroying democracy in the US. I
| cannot stop drug criminality in my country. So often, I zap
| away, I just don't want to see it. I've paid to compensate for
| the gas use of my car, but I don't think that is a solution. My
| financial situation is not really good, so I cannot do much.
|
| I'm addicted to my lifestyle, which is real average for where I
| live, but going lower would be a real challenge and make life a
| lot less attractive. I don't go 3x per year on holiday. The
| last time I flew was in 2013.
|
| My coping strategy is mostly: ignore it.
| foobiekr wrote:
| I donate to Xerces, bat conservation and non-human-oriented
| charities. It's the only thing I can do and unpopular nature
| charities are desperately in need.
| xyzzy21 wrote:
| The thing is the time-constants of atmospheric green house
| gases are in the centuries so you can't change any of it
| quickly. To Wit: if the deadline is 2035 or 2050, we are all
| already dead if such predictions were true (they are NOT).
|
| On the other hand, a lot of the hype about global warming is
| bullshit. The presumptions often require that you believe that
| all Bangledeshis will quietly remain at their current latitude
| and longitude waiting for the water to rise about them. That's
| clearly not realistic but most of the numbers of "deaths caused
| by global warming" are based on EXACTLY such facile and stupid
| modeling assumptions.
|
| It's like the people making such numbers know NOTHING about
| human behavior (and it's all too likely they actually do NOT).
|
| I have zero concerns about humanity surviving. We are agile and
| adaptive. Will it be MY PERSONAL gene line? Don't know. Will it
| be the majority of gene lines from currently alive people
| surviving? Probably not but that's not unique to global
| warming. Add a World War or a comet and the same is true and
| probably worse.
|
| Of course, I'm a hard ass on numbers and traceable causality
| and frankly that has not been provided. Just ask about CO2
| levels before all the graphs typically trotted out! Pre-Eocene,
| CO2 levels were 4x-10x higher than today. Crickets on that.
|
| http://www.co2science.org/articles/V21/sep/Davis2017b.jpg
|
| You can not generalize or make predictions based data from only
| the last 200 years and ignore 500 MY of data!
| pipodeclown wrote:
| Ok but a significant percentage of the world being displaced
| by global warming, either because their country literally
| drops below the sea or that part of the world no longer
| supporting agriculture/ human life, will lead to deaths
| right? Either through war or those people being trapped
| because the parts of the world that are still habitable won't
| be willing/able to take in the huge flows of refugees.
| Kbsm wrote:
| Honest answer - I don't care at all. Not because I don't
| believe something is happening, but because I don't buy into
| the presumption that we need to preserve Life as it is right
| now.
|
| I believe Life will persevere, sometimes getting better,
| sometimes getting worse, for millennia in the future.
|
| A comment in a different thread on hacker news today quoted
| this from a book: > "Life is composed of reality configurations
| so constituted. To abandon [my wife] would be to say, I can't
| endure reality as such. I have to have uniquely special easier
| conditions."
|
| I don't believe I have to fight or feel guilty that some people
| in the near future will not get a uniquely special easier life.
|
| ---
|
| As another example, there is this community on the internet
| called LessWrong, whose members believe that the single biggest
| problem facing humanity right now is the impending arrival of
| AGI (artificial general intelligence). Many of them truly
| believe this problem is so urgent and important that you
| shouldn't be able to think about anything else. But I would
| guess (if you don't happen to be one of them) you don't really
| think or care about that. Maybe thinking about this analogy
| will help you find an answer to your question.
| evan_ wrote:
| You're misusing that quote. The speaker (a sentient taxicab)
| was asked if it would abandon its life and make a giant
| sacrifice even though it was absolutely certain that doing so
| would not change the outcome.
|
| That's pretty much the opposite of the point of view you seem
| to be extolling. You are _right now_ living a uniquely
| special easier life. You are choosing _not_ to sacrifice it
| for the hope of a better outcome, even though it may not be
| possible.
| [deleted]
| gnramires wrote:
| That doesn't make sense. I appreciate the amenities I have, I
| know I believe quite clearly what a good life is like (with
| some limitations of course), and there is a somewhat clear
| path to improving or maintaining our lives and existences.
|
| To throw it all away and "hope for the best" is foolish to
| say the least. If your life is good or tolerable, if you
| appreciate the wealth of knowledge and culture etc. it's
| because its been a long path to where we are. If you stop
| caring and stop trying, you're simply degenerating to a state
| where life is much harder, less cultured, with probably less
| creativity, entertainment, and so on. Cases of people
| genuinely preferring to live an isolated life in the jungle
| are extremely rare I believe. When I start romanticizing the
| Wild Life, I remember my grandmother that had a very
| difficult childhood, working all day in coffee plantations.
| She didn't learn how to read until later in life because
| feeding her family was the priority. She later, for the most
| part, resented farms and greatly appreciated the urban life
| -- she could still take care of a plant or two in her
| backyard. It's very easy to sit on top of civilization with
| disdain. I think it's our responsibility not only to maintain
| it, but to make the future amazing, as much as our
| imagination allows.
|
| (Here is my personal contribution:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29547638)
| ed wrote:
| This is (sorry) a dumb philosophy that amounts to: don't do
| anything about anything. House on fire? C'est la vie. Don't
| grab a bucket or else you'll admit defeat against reality!
|
| Re the referenced comment:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29544104
| gettaon wrote:
| TIL Taoism is "dumb", well put.
| karaterobot wrote:
| My brutally candid answer is that I'm putting off panicking
| until it directly affects me. I'm at the stage where I assume
| that unless somebody invents a machine that cheaply removes
| carbon from the atmosphere at a global scale, there's nothing
| anybody can do to stop significant global warming and its
| knock-on effects. Certainly, nothing I can do at my scale is
| going to make any difference whatsoever. Even if the entire
| world did everything it has been promising to do, and everybody
| complied 100%, it still wouldn't make a meaningful difference
| over the course of my lifetime. No, it's an R&D problem at this
| point, so why would I think about it more than necessary? I'll
| focus on preparing to deal with the consequences when they
| arrive, since that's at least within my purview.
| dougmwne wrote:
| I release personal responsibility for it. The leaders and
| influence class of a handful of rich countries are personally
| responsible. It is not a problem that can be solved
| individually or through grassroots action. Only coordinated
| political action can change the outcome. A well structured
| global carbon tax or carbon removal grant would begin solving
| the problem rapidly. If you have a vote, use it to support
| candidates who want to enact new green economic policy.
|
| I spent 8 years working for environmental nonprofits and I'm
| proud of my contribution but don't feel like any non-
| influential person needs to walk around with personal guilt, no
| matter what our fundraising materials or political ads may have
| said to the contrary.
|
| So please go live your life as you see fit, and if that means
| going to work for NRDC, then by all means. They are a good
| group of folks that will be happy to have your talent. And if
| that means mega-yachts, go for it till we manage to tax them
| out of existence.
| bserge wrote:
| I ignore it.
|
| Then again, my lifestyle is several times less environmentally
| damaging than 90% of the people here, so my mind is at ease.
|
| If everyone lived like me, we'd be golden.
| Apofis wrote:
| I'm honestly greatly disappointed that the Academic
| Establishment is pandering to politics this hard that they are
| underplaying their own results. It's horrific. They did the
| same thing with COVID. This sort of behavior will be the end of
| us all and is highly unscientific and unethical. They are
| literally getting people killed.
| david422 wrote:
| Personally -
|
| 1. moved to veggie diet 2 years ago
|
| 2. getting solar panels this spring
|
| 3. electric car as soon as I have the money
|
| It's a start.
| paulcarroty wrote:
| Great move. Don't forget to tell your family, neighbors,
| coworkers etc, 'cause it must be collective lifestyle
| changing.
| AlanSE wrote:
| Invest in ESG funds. They vote in favor of corporate
| sustainability. You can do this yourself with proxy campaigns
| cross-referencing with NGO data, but the effort is overly
| burdensome. More importantly, companies know what the ESG funds
| are doing, and they have actual sway to be listened to. They
| don't have lower returns than the index funds you'd buy anyway
| (speculative, depends on your choices), it's a no-brainier.
|
| Oh, and become filthy rich. That will help.
| mostertoaster wrote:
| Eh. Maybe I'll invest in real estate in Greenland, as it might
| turn more green.
|
| As long as air quality remains ok where I live, I don't really
| care about the climate warming, and I feel it is something put
| into motion long ago, that our stupid "carbon credits" won't do a
| damn thing to stop.
|
| If it gets really bad, well, human agency is a marvelous thing.
|
| The last thing we need is politicians with investments in "green"
| technology forcing us to use "green" technology. (Same goes for
| those with investments in fossil fuels, shouldn't be forced to
| use those either)
| gremloni wrote:
| So fuck everyone else as long as I'm okay. You're the exact
| kind of person that comes begging and unprepared when it
| finally effects you.
| Heliga wrote:
| >As long as air quality remains ok where I live, I don't really
| care about the climate warming, and I feel it is something put
| into motion long ago, that our stupid "carbon credits" won't do
| a damn thing to stop.
|
| >If it gets really bad, well, human agency is a marvelous
| thing.
|
| Don't take this the wrong way, but this reads as you're happy
| to ignore the problem because 'f you, I got mine'. Does that
| summarize your position fairly or unfairly?
|
| >The last thing we need is politicians with investments in
| "green" technology forcing us to use "green" technology. (Same
| goes for those with investments in fossil fuels, shouldn't be
| forced to use those either)
|
| Ahh, so much for that human agency that you were so pleased
| with a moment ago.
| nopenopenopeno wrote:
| No more beating around the bush. We need publicly funded nuclear
| power. (because the private sector won't do it themselves)
| gbasin wrote:
| My understanding is that most of the cost is driven by outdated
| and draconian compliance requirements (created by
| public/government agencies). For example, safety requirements
| that don't have a threshold but instead require reducing risk
| "as much as possible" which is equivalent to 0 profit.
| jahnu wrote:
| If we could summon the political will to do that we could
| already summon the political will to transfer subsidies that go
| to fossil fuels to renewables instead and that would mostly end
| the need for nuclear.
|
| *slight edit for clarity
| mostertoaster wrote:
| How confident are you that if all the money that went to
| renewables would not have been better spent simply increasing
| our efficiencies with fossil fuels?
|
| Do you feel like this is something we have the power to stop?
| I feel it is a runaway train, that will just run out of steam
| in a few hundred/thousand years.
|
| I mean I don't like to be wasteful, and we shouldn't pollute
| the earth for the hell of it, but I'm just like what are we
| gonna do?
|
| What if all those politicians selling the story of
| renewables, had lots of investments in those companies? Would
| you still trust that story, that this will somehow stop
| climate change, and not just pad their bank accounts?
|
| Maybe I'm just cynical in this area, and it is easy to just
| look around and say I'm not as bad as most people, but I just
| can't think politicians forcing renewables is a good thing.
| throw1234651234 wrote:
| Renewables are a feel-good hippy joke (the irony, since
| nuclear is more environmentally friendly). Including a random
| source in case you ask for it - there are also cost/energy
| comparisons available if you google around.
|
| "System costs for nuclear power (as well as coal and gas-
| fired generation) are very much lower than for intermittent
| renewables."
|
| https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-
| aspec...
| eldaisfish wrote:
| renewables are not a joke. Please don't minimise their
| contributions in the past two decades.
|
| The better way to characterise the problem is that
| renewables are intermittent - a problem for which we do not
| currently have a large-scale solution. One solution is to
| use a non-polluting technology that currently works -
| nuclear power - while we buy ourselves time to build out
| and develop renewable capacity.
| throw1234651234 wrote:
| Right - we don't have storage capacity. Batteries are
| another joke. So that basically leaves gravity-hydro
| reservoirs, late 19th century style. Nuclear uses far
| less resources (plastics, metals, etc) per unit of energy
| over lifetime.
|
| Still, it's a good distinction to make for people who
| aren't familiar with the topic, so ty for that.
| mostertoaster wrote:
| If we can get to a point of civilization where we have
| mini nuclear power plants that power like 20 houses, and
| mini sewage/water treatment plants for the same, now that
| would be cool.
|
| I wish all the money that went towards renewables
| research instead went towards nuclear...
| mostertoaster wrote:
| I think renewables technology has gotten pretty damn
| amazing though. But that is expected given the massive
| amount of money funneled to its research.
|
| I think the really cool thing that they allow is, imagine
| solar panels becoming so cheap but still efficient, and
| huge batteries like Tesla's power wall, becoming better,
| you can have like whole small towns pretty easily behave as
| their own entire power grid pumping energy where it is
| needed.
|
| It makes the idea of lots of small rural villages seem
| possible which I think is pretty cool.
|
| We could probably see the world population double and yet
| keep similar urban densities.
| fallingknife wrote:
| What exactly are all the subsidies that go to fossil fuels?
| It's always assumed to be true but I just don't see it.
| cronix wrote:
| Here's a recent one. Dumping some of the strategic oil
| reserve into the supply to artificially lower fuel costs,
| otherwise known as a subsidy (Monetary assistance granted
| by a government to a person or group in support of an
| enterprise regarded as being in the public interest).
|
| > Today, the President is announcing that the Department of
| Energy will make available releases of 50 million barrels
| of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower prices
| for Americans and address the mismatch between demand
| exiting the pandemic and supply.
|
| https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-
| releases...
| fallingknife wrote:
| This would be the opposite of a subsidy as it lowers the
| market price and will actually lower the profits of oil
| producers.
| standardUser wrote:
| Much of the money the US spends to keep carbon emissions
| flowing full speed is in the form of securing foreign
| sources of oil.
|
| "US spends $81 billion a year to protect global oil
| supplies, report estimates"
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/21/us-spends-81-billion-a-
| year-...
| Heliga wrote:
| Billions a year for the last hundred years (or whenever the
| technology became available). [1] This does not represent
| all of the subsidies, indirect and direct, nor the huge
| advantage that fossil fuel industry enjoys with millions to
| spend on lobbying and purchasing senators, that is, when
| the senators aren't already getting rich in the fossil fuel
| industry (see Joe Manchin and every 1 in 4 senators)[2].
|
| [1] https://cen.acs.org/articles/89/i51/Long-History-US-
| Energy-S...
|
| [2] https://www.salon.com/2021/11/07/one-in-four-us-
| senators-sti...
| [deleted]
| pdonis wrote:
| _> that would mostly end the need for nuclear._
|
| No, it wouldn't. Renewables are nice, but they are not enough
| by themselves to build the kind of global wealth we need to
| adapt to change. We need nuclear as an energy source for
| that.
| beamatronic wrote:
| We can't even wear masks.
|
| We can't even agree to enforce the rule of law.
| jonnycoder wrote:
| We are a nation of laws, not mandates.
| jahnu wrote:
| That this ultra simple thing to wear a mask meets such
| resistance really shook me up. It's a minority of people but
| it's a much bigger, louder, and powerful minority than I ever
| would have expected.
|
| Still, I remain hopeful as to be otherwise would leave me in
| despair.
| mostertoaster wrote:
| Oh I don't know if it is a minority who "don't want to wear
| a mask". It is definitely a minority who just refuse to
| wear them, despite the government forcing them too. My
| guess is a majority of people would be glad to see mask
| mandates go away, and a minority is willing to speak.
| Though I'm weak and just wear a mask when asked though I
| don't like it. I appreciate those who just refuse.
|
| The strange minority is those who desire this awful hell
| we've enacted with our covid response.
| starik36 wrote:
| Not sure why you are getting down voted. What you said is
| absolutely the case. I wear a mask when I am asked or
| there is a mandate, but I find it annoying at the very
| least.
| ziddoap wrote:
| > _The strange minority is those who desire this awful
| hell we've enacted with our covid response._
|
| Have you considered that rather than people _wanting_
| this "awful hell", that they believe mask mandates are
| our way _out_ of this hell?
|
| I don't know anyone who _wants_ mandates, kids in and out
| of school, masks, etc. But I know plenty of people who
| are willing to inconvenience themselves temporarily for
| what they believe to be the greater good for all.
| mostertoaster wrote:
| For what they believe to be the greater good is exactly
| what is the issue. I believe the greater good would've
| been to just advise people to be safe and stay home if
| sick. Acting like people have the plague when they have
| cold symptoms and most people will just experience minor
| cold symptoms (especially if they're vaccinated or
| already had it), I don't believe is good. Covid is novel,
| the common cold probably once was as well.
|
| I'd argue a majority of people just don't care. They
| don't care they have to wear one, will stop wearing one
| as soon as they don't have to.
| ziddoap wrote:
| > _to just advise people to be safe and stay home if
| sick._
|
| I'm not here to argue the medical science, as I am not a
| doctor and if you are, you have not disclosed it.
|
| My point was you assume people are being sadistic and
| _want_ all of this shit. No one _wants_ everything going
| on, they just believe it is for the best. Or they don 't
| care, as you pointed out. Neither of these is what you
| said at first; that people _desire_ this "awful hell".
| eldaisfish wrote:
| There's good reason to be hopeful. A democratic government
| is bound by duty to act in the interest of the common good.
| Just as there are clowns who refuse to wear masks, there
| are those who will oppose nuclear power.
|
| A government building a nuclear power station is orders of
| magnitude more likely than an entire population complying
| with a mask mandate.
|
| It is unfortunate that too many democratic governments are
| consumed by political bribery and pressure groups rather
| than doing what is in everyone's interest.
| beamatronic wrote:
| There is no "bound by duty" any more. Only selfish
| actors.
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| If nuclear can compete on price; sure why not. But it seems it
| has some issues with that. That's why the private sector is a
| bit hands off on this front. There is no shortage of
| alternatives with more lucrative returns on investment (i.e.
| non negative ones).
|
| And plenty of those alternatives are doing great in terms of
| funding, growth, and cost. Hundreds of GW of wind and solar
| came online during the last two years or so. Most of the
| projections for this market from only a few years ago were
| completely wrong and this growth has caught more than a few
| governments by surprise and prompted quite a few of them to
| move forward earlier announced dates to clean up the grids in
| their country. E.g. the UK is now talking about 2030 for this.
| There might be one new nuclear plant coming online in that time
| frame and possibly a few more might get built. But it's peanuts
| compared to renewables. At this point it seems more like an
| expensive vanity project for politicians than a practical
| solution to supplying energy.
|
| Most of the challenges are actually not adding capacity but
| balancing the grid and moving energy around. Energy storage and
| cables basically. Grid infrastructure is where public spending
| needs to happen. There are a lot of countries that are actually
| slowing down renewable energy deployments because their grids
| just can't keep up. Most of the time when you see a wind mill
| not spinning it's not because it's broken but because it's been
| turned off because the grid can't handle the over supply. Kind
| of embarrassing for the companies involved. All that expensive
| kit and they can't handle the output.
|
| Expensive nuclear plants that you can't turn off and on on
| demand are part of the problem here; not the solution. Mostly
| the hard choice grid providers have to make is turning wind
| turbines off or shutting down e.g. a gas plant. They both cost
| money whether they produce or not. Some grid providers even
| have occasional negative rates because of this: they literally
| pay consumers to consume more electricity. It's preferable to
| temporarily reducing capacity at great cost. That's why grid
| batteries are so hot right now.
|
| IMHO current generations of nuclear technology are a bit of a
| dead end in terms of cost. But maybe somebody figures out a 10x
| improvement. Worth some public spending. Fusion is actually
| getting some traction lately and it seems that is starting to
| attract some serious money and there have been some
| breakthroughs reported recently.
| shakezula wrote:
| Nuclear can't compete on price because it's not subsidized
| and it's (deliberately or not) a legal and compliance
| nightmare, not to mention the NIMBY problems it brings.
|
| But if nuclear was getting even a fraction of the money that
| fossil fuels receives, we would be carbon neutral right now.
|
| You harp on costs, but energy is _always_ expensive, and
| there is nothing, not even renewables, that will provide the
| amount of energy that we will need in the coming years
| anywhere near quickly or efficiently enough.
|
| Nuclear will get cheaper like every other industry does once
| we create the actual market for it. Right now, we just have
| decades old reactors on shoestring budgets and scientific
| studies because _we didn't properly fund it_.
|
| Electric cars alone are predicted to nearly double our energy
| grid requirements in the next few decades[1]. We're not
| moving anywhere nearly fast enough with renewables to account
| for the growth from those vehicles alone.
|
| [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-weather-grids-
| autos-i...
| vkou wrote:
| Both the public and the private sector (depending on what power
| generation in your jurisdiction looks like) will do it if we
| started taxing carbon.
| nopenopenopeno wrote:
| A public sector that requires a profit is not a public
| sector. To your point, we probably need democracy first, but
| the idea that money can't be found without siphoning it from
| the essential workforce that drives to work (or drives for
| work) and increasingly lives pay check to pay check is just
| nonsense.
| BobbyJo wrote:
| > idea that money can't be found without siphoning it from
| the growing essential workforce that drives to work (or
| drives for work) and lives pay check to pay check is just
| nonsense.
|
| I have to disagree. Rich people have money, working class
| people have productivity. Money doesn't create things, it
| just moves them around. Everything done by the government
| necessarily displaces productive resources from workers. If
| we take x% of the workforce and have them building reactors
| instead of Y, there will be less of Y to go around, and the
| rich will employ money to make sure their portion of Y is
| unaffected.
| vkou wrote:
| Crown corporations exist as a counterpoint to your claim.
| They are often not strictly required to be profitable, but
| are expected to be.
| ativzzz wrote:
| Langdon Winner [1] argues that nuclear power is authoritarian
| in nature due to factors like requiring long-term, centralized
| planning to realize and is infeasible in democratic
| governments. He argues that solar power is more democratized
| and is more fitting to a democracy.
|
| [1] https://www.cc.gatech.edu/~beki/cs4001/Winner.pdf
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| anonymousisme wrote:
| I know this will likely get modded down, but how is this report
| any more credible than all the others (for other places) that say
| exactly the same thing? How credible are any of these reports, if
| they all conflict with one another?
|
| Citation: https://youtu.be/YUV8U3yBJ6U
| greycol wrote:
| As an example lets pretend a majority of reports say a vehicle
| is moving forward and going to hit someone but the reports
| differ on the speed. Someone puts out a video with the vehicle
| moving backwards and an object in the video falling upwards.
| The correct response is you don't say "ha! all the reports are
| wrong, no one will be hit" because of the video. Even when a
| report says the vehicle is moving slightly to the left when
| moving forward is contradicted by a report saying the vehicle
| is moving to the right while going forward does not mean you
| dismiss both reports and assume that the vehicle is moving
| backwards or stopped.
|
| If you don't want to expend the effort to evaluate the reports
| within the context of the greater body of work yourself that's
| fine (and absolutely sane) what's not a great idea is then
| going on to ignore the majority of experts on the subject
| saying this is happening and it is a problem.
|
| Also your citation is poor. It's from someone who doesn't even
| understand partial pressures of gas (as evidinced by his claims
| CO2 participates out of the air in Antartica! He even sticks to
| that claim after having multiple people (including climate
| change skeptics) try to explain this basic principle to him)
| and a quick google search shows actual analysis on many of his
| other claims and debunks them.
| [deleted]
| tsoukase wrote:
| Raising -30C is "easier" than raising +30C
| treespace8 wrote:
| I didn't see any measurements in the article.
|
| What is the warming rate? Why wasn't it included?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-14 23:02 UTC)