10 ms·
I honestly believe the US isn't going to have enough political capital or will to do anything about climate change in next 15-20 years. What we will have to do
by ComradeTaco 10y ago
I honestly believe the US isn't going to have enough political capital or will to do anything about climate change in next 15-20 years.
What we will have to do regardless is deal with rising storm surges and sea levels. Pretty much every major city will need a significant storm barriers. We should consider land buy back on easily flooded harbor barriers, and perhaps even abandonment of smaller coastal communities.
Unfortunately, the everglades are sunk, and Florida will become increasingly unlivable, as salt water infiltrates almost all groundwater supplies.
- jshawl 10y agoThe US President (as of today) thinks climate change is a hoax - https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385?lang=en https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/26589529219124838...
- Retric 10y agoDon't assume he is being honest when he says anything. Lying is practically the guys calling card. That said, he is unlikely to push climate change one way or another globally. With how cheap wand and solar has gotten coal is on the way out and would take significant subsides to become competitive.
- merpnderp 10y agoDo you have any evidence it is solar and wind and not natural gas that have been undercutting coal?
- mulletbum 10y agoThere is some stuff out there. Check out this article http://bfy.tw/9azA http://bfy.tw/9azA
- KirinDave 10y agoThis is an odd request. Everything is undercutting coal. Coal has always been a rather expensive and dangerous technology, it's just that it's plentiful and in the land rights of Western powers. Other forms of energy have been undercutting it since thermal steam rigs started working in North African farms. Probably longer when you consider the history of wind power. If Natural Gas wasn't so arduous to obtain, a carbon liberator, and damaging to the water table to obtain, I suspect we'd be more excited about it.
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoIf Methane Hydrates work out, then natural gas will be less arduous to obtain - port cities will have pipes coming up from the seafloor into the harbor, delivering it to their millions of residents.
- KirinDave 10y agoIt's true, but it'd be nice if we were using oceanic floor pressure to sequester carbon rather than liberate more, even if on the long balance it's carbon neutral. We really need to work out practices where we actively remove carbon from the air.
- drinkjuice 10y agoWe don't need to DO anything to achieve Doomsday, we need to fail to do enough, in time to prevent the point of no return. I'd say we're right on track.
- melling 10y agoAnd we currently aren't doing enough. Last year's Paris agreement is not sufficient: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/23/ratifiying-the-paris-agreement-will-be-a-major-step-but-must-be-the-first-of-many https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/23/ratifiyi...
- manarth 10y agohe is unlikely to push climate change one way or another He has appointed a number of climate-change deniers to the cabinet [1], including positions such as the EPA Administrator. I wouldn't be surprised to see action against mitigating climate change, such as removing protections, or reducing funding for agencies involved in environmental protection. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/15/trump-cabinet-climate-change-deniers https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/15/trump-ca...
- mcintyre1994 10y agoHas he gone back on his plan to end the Paris treaty? If not that seems like a big push one way or the other - though of course he might go back on it.
- okreallywtf 10y agoIts literally day 1, give him 24 hours and we'll see.
- manarth 10y agoNot even 24 hours. For too long, we’ve been held back by burdensome regulations on our energy industry. President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule. Lifting these restrictions will greatly help American workers, increasing wages by more than $30 billion over the next 7 years. https://www.whitehouse.gov/america-first-energy https://www.whitehouse.gov/america-first-energy
- eddiecalzone 10y agoYou'd think, but he's decided to take the weekend off (not kidding). This, after it came out that he wanted tanks and rocket launchers at the inauguration. Our Dear Leader had to be told that it would look bad, and that the weight of the tanks would turn the streets to rubble.
- 10y ago
- jrobn 10y agoI'm sure he would change is tune if some of his huge and tremendous business assets started drowning in ocean surges.
- hawski 10y agoThat would be too late. EDIT: But even after two cadencies it would probably not be close to it.
- sean2 10y agoIt's already happened: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-climate-change-golf-course-223436 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-climate-c...
- jrobn 10y agoSomehow I'm not surprised at all. This man....
- krapp 10y agoWhether or not Trump is sincere, it is a commonly held belief among the American right that climate change is a fraud or a hoax perpetrated by "leftists" or, as Trump seems to claim, the Chinese. To me, the problem is less that Trump claims to believe climate change is a Chinese hoax, and more that such insane claims are what got him elected, because they seem refreshingly honest to so many Americans.
- MisterBastahrd 10y agoYes, but the problem with him is that he's a mentally unsophisticated sociopath who is being led by the nose by anyone who will say nice things about him. This is a guy who will subsidize coal over wind and solar because "I don't wanna lose jobs."
- ychompinator 10y agoCoal use is still increasing globally.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> That said, he is unlikely to push climate change one way or another globally. He's likely to push climate change one way -- that is, in the direction of reinforcing the current trend. He's may be unlikely to push substantive policy responses to climate change, but that's a different issue.
- darkmouth 10y agoI am not a fan of how people try to downplay the situation and 'play fair' but giving someone the benefit of doubt who openly denies climate change and has appointed key members in the cabinet who have a lot of reasons to deny climate change even if they know its true. The Secretary of State is the former CEO of Exxon. There is no wisdom in trying to be neutral. There is no smartness and tolerance in trying to protect and tolerate things that are by themselves intolerant and harmful.
- notyourwork 10y agoHe has an opportunity to go down in history as the president who saved the planet. He has not shown to lean this direction but I find it interesting that someone who wants worldly recognition would ignore a glaring opportunity.
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoNo money in it for him.
- notyourwork 10y agoAgreed but the guy seems to like recognition and as a "billionare" I would assume the only thing left is to cement your legacy. How better to do it than be recognized by the world as the US president who changed stance on global warming and made a difference. Perhaps I am still dreaming that he will do an about face and actually be a good president. Regardless of who is president we can still dream, can't we?
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoI'm afraid, not this time.
- rojobuffalo 10y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13445555 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13445555 All references to climate change have been deleted from the White House website...
- waterphone 10y agoEverything has been deleted from the White House website, this happens with every Presidential transition—the old site gets taken down and archived and the new team puts up their own site from scratch.
- masonic 10y ago(as of today) Are you stuck in November 2012?
- Retric 10y agoSea levels are expected to rise around 2 feet by 2050 which is not going to have the impact you are suggesting. The largest impact is going to make storm surges which can reach up to 40 feet significantly worse. But, generally causing storms which would have already been bad will be worse will not hit everywhere at the same time.
- merpnderp 10y agoSince 1870 sea level has risen <8 inches. To more than triple this amount of sea level rise in less than a quarter as many years would require a truly horrific change in climate.
- cygx 10y agoOnly if you assume a linear response.
- KirinDave 10y agoIt seems equally absurd to assume a profoundly sublinear response. Especially since the damage caused by flooding would cripple coastal communities.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Florin_Andrei 10y agoOnly if you assume nothing else has changed meanwhile (e.g. CO2 levels).
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoWidespread reef death, loss of the fisheries that depend on them, mass starvation?
- 10y ago
- marcosdumay 10y agoThe US was always reluctant on taking part of any GW negotiations, and never a leader of any one. Their political capital is clearly irrelevant. We'll get better results from improvements on alternative power than from political agreements anyway.
- abalashov 10y agoYes, but the degree of large-scale investment in alternative power is substantially affected by political agreements.
- phkahler 10y ago>> Unfortunately, the everglades are sunk, and Florida will become increasingly unlivable, Can we put up a wall to keep the alligators out during the flooding?
- hzhou321 10y agoIt is the Antarctica summer and there is no miracles that would reverse the physics for that crack now, so let's stop panic for every a few miles of the procession and let the near future reality sink in -- when enough people do that, we may have hope. The last decade is the most progressive political period in US yet all we did is the worst damage to the climate crisis (on the flip side, how much worse could it be?). So let's face it, the political show does not really matter. Nothing will change until we crash and nature will force the change upon us. This is nothing new in the history and in a few millennia every thing will be renew and we will be forgotten (and forgiven). The inevitability is built into the large number theory. As long as there are too many drivers on the wheel and too many cooks in the kitchen, the average will rule the society and the average will always be shallow and near sighted. So before the actual crisis hit nearly every one, the society is incapable of change direction. In the analogy, money would be the gasoline and we have too many feet on that pedal. The market absolutely destroys any kind of responsibility. Meanwhile, passengers, either enjoy the ride or embrace yourself.
- omegaworks 10y agoIn contrast to this advocacy of nihilism, hopelessness and apathy I offer a foil. Agitate. Get out in the streets and put your body on the line if you believe this is real. We are the worlds first experiment in self governace. We believe in government for the people, by the people. We can accomplish so much more by showing up and standing up for policy change. Exercise your right to assemble. Exercise your right to speak. Join. Donate. Walk. If you don't have a community of people around you willing to fight for this, make one. Host lecturers, host sign making jams, make art, make friends.
- hzhou321 10y agoBelieving that Get out in the streets and put your body on the line will do anything is questionable. I don't share that belief. Reality gets sink in, not by watching TV or listening to activists. So for me, try to open my eyes and sort out my logic is the action to make. When enough people understand the reality without internal contradiction, the right action will show up. So I am acting on my belief, advocating truth and logic here.
- vkou 10y agoWhy on Earth should I (someone convinced that climate change is happening), be forced to pay for after-the-fact land buy-back, when my neighbor (who believes that the Chinese are turning up thermometers around the world), refuses to pay for a 3% increase in gas tax?
- hzhou321 10y agoWhen you are thinking like that, you are yet to accept the reality. When you absolutely convinces yourself that you are doomed, your mind will not be thinking about should. Your mind will be thinking about what can you do -- or accept doom. The population still panics at every progression as if it is a surprise is an evidence that we by far are not realizing the reality. This is understandable -- our perception scale is simply too minuscule to the scale of the actual problem.
- vkou 10y agoI have largely accepted that we'll drive ourselves off that cliff. It's a big reason I won't have children.
- hzhou321 10y agoYet it seems you have also tucked in somewhere a belief that driving off the cliff is not that big of a deal (to your other internal beliefs). Could you try detail that cliff. If that cliff is simply a word with little detail, that will be far from the reality, isn't it? Only when we convince ourselves that we are really cornered with no acceptable alternatives, only then, we will figure out and try our really admirable effort (to fight).
- ythn 10y agoClimate change is a problem, and it seems to be the number one problem for atheists and the like, but I'm still skeptical that the forecast of gloom and doom will come to pass. Unfortunately, it's lose/lose for skeptics: If you turn out to be right and Florida becomes unlivable in the next 50 years, you turn the skeptics into scapegoats and curb stomp them into submission. However, if you turn out to be wrong you just get off scot-free and say "Well, I turned out to be wrong because of X factor that everyone overlooked, but I came to the best conclusion possible with the evidence I had at hand. The skeptics were still wrong to have rejected science."