4 ms·

This should make #1 on HN. Oh, sure, there are many doubts as to how and when this will actually be implemented, but still, it's a great step forward. We are fi

by jwr 10y ago

This should make #1 on HN. Oh, sure, there are many doubts as to how and when this will actually be implemented, but still, it's a great step forward. We are finally starting to do something about the fact, that our grandchildren will not have a planet to live on, and even our children might be affected.

Shivetya 10y ago
depends, they get to set the goals and they don't get penalized if they don't. its not a treaty. if the numbers get set to per capita then they will be bullshit numbers and we effectively have zero progress.
semi-extrinsic 10y ago
Not to dismiss the seriousness of climate change, but "our grandchildren won't have a planet to live on" is a completely unfounded assertion with no roots in reality. Humans are vastly good at adapting.
- earlyriser 10y ago
  Also, humans have a good history of taking too much to time to do the right thing (slaves, women rights, gay rights). Added to that, there are gigantic economic forces slowing down the change this time. I'm sure human will thrive at least for the next centuries, but the current mass extinction is a sad thing.
  - kodfodrasz 10y ago
    You couldn't stand mentioning the woman's rights and gay rights as rights stuff... How are you sure those are the right thing? I think your ideology should not be mixed into scientific topics, as climate change. I don't brag about my religion in the topic, nor should you.
    - infinite8s 10y ago
      Women and homosexuals arent human enough to be accorded rights given to every heterosexual male?
      - kodfodrasz 10y ago
        This article is about climate change. Stay on topic, please. You can downvote me, but still you should keep your agenda to topics where it belongs to. You cite your agenda and ideology everywhere, and bully (here: downvote) those who don't start clapping and hailing outright. https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/71486888.jpg https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/71486888.jpg STAY ON TOPIC AND DON'T CITE YOUR AGENDA EVERYWHERE, AS IT IS BORING AND OFFTOPIC. ps: your statement can be reversed, as equality is reflexive, thus equal rights for woman mean man should have equal rights as woman. Should a man be able to be pro-choice and choose to kill the unborn child who a woman is bearing and wants to raise? Because it's reverse can happen. Is this the right thing? Only totalitarian ideologies and religions claim to have the receiepe of the right thing, but climate change is a scientific topic, not one of the prior, so please refrain from such claims.
- f_allwein 10y ago
  We are currently over using the earth's resources by a factor of 1.5. If everyone on earth lived like people in the US do, we'd already need five planets [1]. I wish I could share your optimism, but it seems like nothing much is done to change this. The Paris agreement is at least a step in the right direction. Let's hope more will follow. [1] http://m.phys.org/news/2009-11-mankind-earth-resources-alarming.html http://m.phys.org/news/2009-11-mankind-earth-resources-alarm...
  - semi-extrinsic 10y ago
    Well, we may or may not be overusing the planet's resources; people have been saying that since Malthus in 1798, when the world population was less than 1 billion. The fact remains that global food production per capita has been consistently growing since 1960, at a rate of about 0.5% per year. However, this is entirely unrelated to climate change caused by CO2 emissions, which is what the Paris agreement covers. Unfortunately, the article you cite attempts to conflate the two, and freely admits that most of their "ecological footprint" is down to CO2 emissions. This is quite literally comparing apples and oranges, and dressing it up in fancy language to make it pass peer review.
- anexprogrammer 10y ago
  I imagine the Easter Islanders were similarly convinced as they felled the last tree. We're using resources at an unprecedented and thoroughly unsustainable rate, and we're not slowing. So unless we have a few spare planets lined up...
  - semi-extrinsic 10y ago
    The Easter Islanders were not hit just by consequences of deforestation, but simultaneously by invasive rat species and overpopulation, while being one of the most remote islands in the world. Plenty of other island nations have seen similar mass deforestation, like Iceland, Sicily and New Zealand, without disastrous consequences. I'm not saying we should all party on and waste all we can, but this nonsense of "we need five planets" etc. is just that, nonsense. It muddies up the debate, especially when it's based on an arbitrarily weighted sum of different ecological impacts to compute a "total footprint".
    - anexprogrammer 10y ago
      I've seen that theory, and it seems to be just that, rather than the consensus. Regardless environmental destruction and overpopulation are now global so either analogy still applies. As for number of planets anything >1 is a problem, but it seems a reasonable means of helping the public visualise the issue, just as the media use busses or football fields for comparative measure.
- jwr 10y ago
  As you might have noticed, I didn't write "our grandchildren won't live", just that they "won't have a planet to live on". I'm sure they will adapt. It's just that they won't be able to experience the same green planet that we do.
awt 10y ago
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/avoid.html http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/avoid.html

by jwr 10y ago

Shivetya 10y ago

depends, they get to set the goals and they don't get penalized if they don't. its not a treaty. if the numbers get set to per capita then they will be bullshit numbers and we effectively have zero progress.

semi-extrinsic 10y ago

Not to dismiss the seriousness of climate change, but "our grandchildren won't have a planet to live on" is a completely unfounded assertion with no roots in reality. Humans are vastly good at adapting.

earlyriser 10y ago
Also, humans have a good history of taking too much to time to do the right thing (slaves, women rights, gay rights). Added to that, there are gigantic economic forces slowing down the change this time. I'm sure human will thrive at least for the next centuries, but the current mass extinction is a sad thing.
- kodfodrasz 10y ago
  You couldn't stand mentioning the woman's rights and gay rights as rights stuff... How are you sure those are the right thing? I think your ideology should not be mixed into scientific topics, as climate change. I don't brag about my religion in the topic, nor should you.
  - infinite8s 10y ago
    Women and homosexuals arent human enough to be accorded rights given to every heterosexual male?
    - kodfodrasz 10y ago
      This article is about climate change. Stay on topic, please. You can downvote me, but still you should keep your agenda to topics where it belongs to. You cite your agenda and ideology everywhere, and bully (here: downvote) those who don't start clapping and hailing outright. https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/71486888.jpg https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/71486888.jpg STAY ON TOPIC AND DON'T CITE YOUR AGENDA EVERYWHERE, AS IT IS BORING AND OFFTOPIC. ps: your statement can be reversed, as equality is reflexive, thus equal rights for woman mean man should have equal rights as woman. Should a man be able to be pro-choice and choose to kill the unborn child who a woman is bearing and wants to raise? Because it's reverse can happen. Is this the right thing? Only totalitarian ideologies and religions claim to have the receiepe of the right thing, but climate change is a scientific topic, not one of the prior, so please refrain from such claims.
f_allwein 10y ago
We are currently over using the earth's resources by a factor of 1.5. If everyone on earth lived like people in the US do, we'd already need five planets [1]. I wish I could share your optimism, but it seems like nothing much is done to change this. The Paris agreement is at least a step in the right direction. Let's hope more will follow. [1] http://m.phys.org/news/2009-11-mankind-earth-resources-alarming.html http://m.phys.org/news/2009-11-mankind-earth-resources-alarm...
- semi-extrinsic 10y ago
  Well, we may or may not be overusing the planet's resources; people have been saying that since Malthus in 1798, when the world population was less than 1 billion. The fact remains that global food production per capita has been consistently growing since 1960, at a rate of about 0.5% per year. However, this is entirely unrelated to climate change caused by CO2 emissions, which is what the Paris agreement covers. Unfortunately, the article you cite attempts to conflate the two, and freely admits that most of their "ecological footprint" is down to CO2 emissions. This is quite literally comparing apples and oranges, and dressing it up in fancy language to make it pass peer review.
anexprogrammer 10y ago
I imagine the Easter Islanders were similarly convinced as they felled the last tree. We're using resources at an unprecedented and thoroughly unsustainable rate, and we're not slowing. So unless we have a few spare planets lined up...
- semi-extrinsic 10y ago
  The Easter Islanders were not hit just by consequences of deforestation, but simultaneously by invasive rat species and overpopulation, while being one of the most remote islands in the world. Plenty of other island nations have seen similar mass deforestation, like Iceland, Sicily and New Zealand, without disastrous consequences. I'm not saying we should all party on and waste all we can, but this nonsense of "we need five planets" etc. is just that, nonsense. It muddies up the debate, especially when it's based on an arbitrarily weighted sum of different ecological impacts to compute a "total footprint".
  - anexprogrammer 10y ago
    I've seen that theory, and it seems to be just that, rather than the consensus. Regardless environmental destruction and overpopulation are now global so either analogy still applies. As for number of planets anything >1 is a problem, but it seems a reasonable means of helping the public visualise the issue, just as the media use busses or football fields for comparative measure.
jwr 10y ago
As you might have noticed, I didn't write "our grandchildren won't live", just that they "won't have a planet to live on". I'm sure they will adapt. It's just that they won't be able to experience the same green planet that we do.

awt 10y ago

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/avoid.html http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/avoid.html