[HN Gopher] Greenhouse gas emissions hit 'all-time high,' approa...
___________________________________________________________________
Greenhouse gas emissions hit 'all-time high,' approaching point of
no return
Author : Brajeshwar
Score : 27 points
Date : 2023-06-24 17:42 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (studyfinds.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (studyfinds.org)
| BenFranklin100 wrote:
| When the environmental left starts taking nuclear energy and
| carbon taxes more seriously, I'll start taking these warnings
| more seriously. As of now, the impression I am left with is that
| the people making these dire warnings think climate change is
| less dangerous than new generation nuclear power plants, which
| aren't particularly dangerous all things considered.
| credit_guy wrote:
| I think you are mistaken. Follow the money. The Biden
| administration allocated a lot of money for nuclear energy.
| Much more than the Trump administration or the Bush
| administration. Could they do more? Of course, one can always
| do more, for example, they could restart the Yucca mountain
| nuclear waste repository, which was shut down not because of
| scientific or technological reasons, but simply because it was
| defunded by politicians. But still, the Biden administration
| did more for nuclear than probably the last 5 administrations
| combined.
| hotpotamus wrote:
| How about if they start bombing pipelines and refineries? Would
| that help you to take them seriously?
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| It's not the "environmental left" that's holding back carbon
| taxes.
|
| In fact, most of the world has embraced carbon taxes, including
| China, California, Washington, Canada, EU and so on.
|
| The USA is a bit of an outlier here, and it's not because the
| environmental left are in control there.
| BenFranklin100 wrote:
| https://washingtonmonthly.com/2021/04/26/the-weird-but-
| hopef...
|
| https://time.com/5447748/washington-state-carbon-tax-
| climate...
|
| https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/09/carbon-tax-
| climate...
|
| EDIT: To provide context on why the Left finds carbon taxes
| dubious, it's that carbon taxes are very likely regressive.
| That is, they are though to hit poorer people harder:
|
| https://www.nber.org/digest/jan10/how-regressive-price-
| carbo...
|
| I agree, but I think this is an example of the perfect being
| the enemy of the good. We can craft companion policies that
| lessen the regressive nature of carbon taxes, while still
| maintaining the benefits of carbon taxes.
|
| Also, please address my main point about the environmental
| Left's rabid opposition to nuclear power over the last 40
| years.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| None of those links support your claim.
|
| > "This aversion to taxes in the U.S. is high and should
| not be underestimated,"
|
| Yeah, the environmental left really hate taxes.
|
| > AOC tweeted in 2019 that "carbon tax or cap-and-trade ...
| could be _part_ of a solution [but] they are inadequate as
| the whole answer
|
| Not thinking something is the sole answer is not the same
| as not supporting it. If it was then I (and AOC) don't
| support any climate policy because we support at least 2.
|
| Several of them talk about carbon taxes being voted down by
| the general population, so unless you think the
| "environmental left" have a majority support that doesn't
| matter.
|
| I'm also sick of the yellow vest protest being
| mispreresented:
|
| > The movement was initially motivated by rising crude oil
| and fuel prices, a high cost of living, and economic
| inequality. The movement argued that a disproportionate
| burden of taxation in France was falling on the working and
| middle classes,[71][72][73] especially in rural and peri-
| urban areas.[32][74] The protesters called for lower fuel
| taxes, a reintroduction of the solidarity tax on wealth, a
| minimum wage increase,[39] among other things.
|
| People seem really keen to skip over all the inequality
| bits that fed into it, taking the sole lesson that "you
| can't tax carbon" which is only really true in the US.
| France is part of the EU's carbon trading scheme. It
| already taxes carbon.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| Can you highlight polls or some other data source showing
| that the "environmental Left" is rabidly opposed to nuclear
| power? The best current poll reporting I can find don't
| distinguish beyond major political party:
| https://www.pewresearch.org/short-
| reads/2022/03/23/americans...
|
| You're also mentioning their opposition over the last 40
| years, yet not comparing it to the latest and greatest
| nuclear power plants. Presumably many people are unaware of
| advances in nuclear power technology.
|
| Edit to add: Thirdly, if the rabid environmental Left is
| opposed to nuclear power, I'd expect them to also be
| opposed to most of consumerism for other reasons (such as
| the environmental impacts of resource extraction). If they
| believe _necessary_ power can be had from non-nuclear, non-
| carbon-intensive power plants (such as wind or solar), then
| to support nuclear power would be basically supporting the
| continuation of a consumerism that they generally see as
| bad for the environment.
|
| To only take greenhouse gas emissions seriously when rabid
| environmental Leftists completely change their worldview
| seems counter-productive. You have to take it on its own
| evidentiary basis.
| [deleted]
| brian-armstrong wrote:
| Calling it a point of no return suggests that, once passed, we
| are free to go on sinning
| Ekaros wrote:
| If we can't win isn't it better to have as much fun as we can
| when we still can?
| raffraffraff wrote:
| Nah. It's still a case of "exactly how bad do you really want
| it to be?"
| willcipriano wrote:
| How dare you, it's already too late!
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20230307215203/https://twitter.c...
| latexr wrote:
| Every reply on that thread either misunderstood the claim or
| is arguing in bad faith.
|
| The quote doesn't mean "everyone will be dead in five years
| unless we stop using fossil fuels before then", it means
| "unless we stop using fossil fuels in next five years,
| everyone will die _at a later point_ as a consequence of the
| irreparable damage".
|
| Do you understand the difference?
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| It might be.
|
| They didn't say we'd all be dead in 5 years, just that we'd
| possibly pass a tipping point. I guess we'll find out.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| Every year we emit more, and yet somehow we don't see the total
| fall. It's as if we're not doing enough. But we are talking about
| it. What more does physics want than heartfelt commitments to do
| nothing now?!
| raffraffraff wrote:
| Maybe take a few frivolous flights somewhere. Because I'm sure
| the money you give the airlines will go straight into investing
| in decarbonising air travel or something.
| latexr wrote:
| > Earth is approaching a "point of no return," with catastrophic
| outcomes such as widespread flooding, heatwaves, and famines
| looming.
|
| _Humans_ are approaching the point of no return. As George
| Carlin put it, "the planet isn't going anywhere, we are. (...)
| The planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas".
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-24 23:02 UTC)