27 ms·

Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

499 points by tempestn 10y ago

nielsbot 10y ago
I am terrified. Should I be?
- std_throwaway 10y ago
  No, that would lead to paralysis. Learn to live in a world where climate change is happening and adjust accordingly. There is no way going back now. The party is coming to an end. We must go forward. You don't have to solve this problem in one day by yourself. You probably cannot really "solve" it at all. It's time to let go of things we cannot save and hold on to those which grow valuable in the future.
  - ChuckMcM 10y ago
    I really resonate with this comment. The best way to 'deal' with climate change on an individual level is to always vote for folks who are trying to rein it in, to live your life with a minimal carbon footprint, and to create plans for larger, more intense weather events.
    - SamReidHughes 10y ago
      Even the high end of predictions aren't expecting an increase in intense weather events bigger than what you might get if you were a bit unlucky over the next century.
      - pg314 10y ago
        Any citations for that? Why would insurance companies like Munich Re be studying and preparing for climate change then [1]? [1] https://www.munichre.com/en/group/focus/climate-change/index.html https://www.munichre.com/en/group/focus/climate-change/index...
        SamReidHughes 10y ago
        Apparently they've been doing it for "more than 40 years." I'm guessing it's part of the general business of being an insurance company.
        PeterisP 10y ago
        A large reinsurer has to evaluate trends in weather and the associated risks of e.g. storm damage, as for them every percentage point is meaningful. However, you can treat them as an information source about risk - if there would be a significant increase in likelihood of extreme weather, then you'd see it reflected in the insurance rates, and if not - well, they have done the homework and are betting literal billions that the worry is just an exaggeration for now. If the insurance rates aren't doubling, then the risks haven't doubled for sure.
      - akiselev 10y ago
        Love that spin. The low end of predictions is that the most stable of ecosystems will regularly experience the extreme weather previously reserved for "once-in-a-century" events in the most volatile regions. On the "high-end" is a drastic change in the Earth's shape due to gravity with a meter+ of sea level rise around the equator, runaway exponential heating feedback loops triggered in Siberia and like half the ocean floor, and the depletion of almost all potable fresh water currently supplying a population of over 7 billion. But yeah, if "unlucky over the next century" means the sun will go supernova, we're f-ing peachy!
        SamReidHughes 10y ago
        Wrong. The low end is that extreme weather events get less frequent [1]. The high end is that they get more frequent -- but the amount is such that you're not going to get hit with more extreme weather over the next century than what you would get if you were a bit unlucky. Your second paragraph isn't talking about weather events at all. [1] https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-10-1.html https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-10-...
        pg314 10y ago
        As far as I can tell the link you provide argues exactly the opposite of what you're saying: > In a warmer future climate, there will be an increased risk of more intense, more frequent and longer-lasting heat waves. > In a warmer future climate, most Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models project increased summer dryness and winter wetness in most parts of the northern middle and high latitudes. Summer dryness indicates a greater risk of drought. Along with the risk of drying, there is an increased chance of intense precipitation and flooding due to the greater water-holding capacity of a warmer atmosphere. > In concert with the results for increased extremes of intense precipitation, even if the wind strength of storms in a future climate did not change, there would be an increase in extreme rainfall intensity. > There is evidence from modelling studies that future tropical cyclones could become more severe, with greater wind speeds and more intense precipitation. Studies suggest that such changes may already be underway; there are indications that the average number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes per year has increased over the past 30 years. Some modelling studies have projected a decrease in the number of tropical cyclones globally due to the increased stability of the tropical troposphere in a warmer climate, characterised by fewer weak storms and greater numbers of intense storms. A number of modelling studies have also projected a general tendency for more intense but fewer storms outside the tropics, with a tendency towards more extreme wind events and higher ocean waves in several regions in association with those deepened cyclones. How do you get from that to your statement: 'The low end is that extreme weather events get less frequent'? You are also simply repeating your assertion 'but the amount is such that you're not going to get hit with more extreme weather over the next century than what you would get if you were a bit unlucky', citing no evidence.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- taneq 10y ago
  Buy shares in houseboat companies. Short sell coastal property.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - pg314 10y ago
    You are likely to loose your shirt short-selling coastal property. For short-selling to be profitable, what you are short-selling should decrease in value, and do so rather quickly. The reason is that in the mean time you are required to reimburse the person you're borrowing the asset from for the revenue he would have had, had he held on to it. In the case of property that is the rental revenue. Time works against you when short-selling. Home prices in flood-prone areas are still rising (albeit slower than elsewhere) in the US [1]. At some point they will go down, but time your short-selling wrong, and you will loose money. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/24/science/global-warming-coastal-real-estate.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/24/science/global-warming-co...
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- tajen 10y ago
  I often wonder what we'll die of. Direct consequence of global warming like flooding, tornado, or heat wave? A worldwide epidemic? Will wealth be relevant in saving us from mass famines? A more indirect way such as massive riots caused by, say, the global disorganization of wealth? A global methane event, bursting out of the oceans, and burning the whole atmosphere? Or simply Trump deciding that global warming can only be dodged by erasing half of human activities, killing 4bn people with some atomic bomb, "for the survival of the rest"? I also wonder what will remain of our cities. Will scavenger humans haunt them for the next thousand years? How fast will they decay?
  - throwaway29292 10y ago
    Probably not direct consequences, more indirect ones like riots. And if things get that bad, then maybe erasing half or 75% human activities WOULD be the only way, don't need a Trump to declare that.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
      Probably not any of that at all. We will probably die of all the same old boring causes: heart disease, cancer, dementia and Alzheimer's.
  - gd1 10y ago
    If you think global warming has any proven connection to tornadoes, you're most likely to die from being a dribbling fucking retard.
  - stale2002 10y ago
    Please read up on the scientific consensus. No respectable scientist believes that a meter or 2 of sea level rise over the next 200 years is going to literally cause the world to end. Read the science. Go with the facts. Not the fake consequences that no scientist believes is going to happen.
    - scarmig 10y ago
      Yes. No one believes the world is going to end. The scientific consensus is trillions of dollars in annual damages globally along with plausibly millions of lives lost. No big deal.
- stale2002 10y ago
  .
  - scarmig 10y ago
    I really don't get how you're blithely writing off 2 meters of sea level rise. Do you have any clue just how much value that'd destroy? Why do you value the lives of Bengalis living in low elevation areas so much less than your right to drive a gas guzzler cheaply?
taneq 10y ago
I don't like the way they fudge the graph axes to make it look more dramatic. It's a significant rise all on its own, why make it look suspect by messing with the presentation?
- tempestn 10y ago
  I wouldn't call this fudging. It's just easier to see the effect when the Y axis starts at the low point of the line, rather than at 0. Especially when you consider that the atmosphere always contains a baseline level of C02, and we wouldn't want it otherwise; it protects us from a significant chunk of the UV spectrum. This choice could actually be seen as less arbitrary than starting at zero.
- function_seven 10y ago
  Same with tempestn, 0 isn’t the natural Y-intercept. Just like temperature graphs don’t start at -273°C, nor do barometric pressure graphs start at 0. I don’t know what the “right” baseline is, but 0 isn’t it.
std_throwaway 10y ago
I don't like sensationalism as it clouds the mind with short-lived buzzes. Instead of always trying to alarm people of the big invisible terror lurking in the dark, we should educate people on how to handle the situation. What are the scenarios? What can we do ourselves for those scenarios (not to prevent, but to prepare)? Which cities and countries will be lost at what point in time? How do we protect ourselves? Be constructive, be creative.
- tempestn 10y ago
  I agree with you, but I don't think it's wrong that there's a general feeling that we're working on this problem, and we're getting better. Look at all these solar panels and electric vehicles we're reading about. We know there's still C02 being pumped out, but at least we're starting to get a handle on it. This shows that actually we're not. We've got a positive second derivative here. The current path leads pretty quickly to likely disaster. If you really believe that, maybe you're willing to accept more pain (economic, etc.) to make a significant difference than you otherwise would. Personally, I live in BC, which is about to have a provincial election. I've been struggling with my choice, because while I generally align more with the NDP (left-wing party) on ideals, a number of their platform pieces seem misguided or vote-buying at best. The Liberal party (which is really a conservative party in all but name) doesn't really align with my values, but they do seem more competent, and less likely to make poor fiscal policy. However, one key difference between their platforms is on expansion of natural gas extraction, and environmental issues in general. Reading this article got me thinking that climate change is a big enough issue that it should probably trump other concerns.
  - deckiedan 10y ago
    Please, please write to your local party reps in all those parties explaining your dilemma! This will probably have as much or more value in terms of policy change as a vote. Parties lump so many disparate issues together, they need to hear what individual issues are actually important to the rest of us.
  - RandyRanderson 10y ago
ghouse 10y ago
It is less expensive (for society) to prevent the release of previously sequestered CO2 than it is to deal with the consequences of introducing the CO2 into the carbon cycle. Though since the costs of releasing sequestered CO2 are socialized, but the benefits are privatized, the US (at the federal level) continues to choose inaction.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  So does, unfortunately, the rest of the world. With the recent anti-nuclear craze, the EU is sadly not stellar in this regard either. And all of this forgets about Africa, which continues to improve the living condition of its people and thus grow in energy demand. If there isn't green infrastructure ready to be used there, they'll go for the easiest thing, which means fossil fuels. And so do many individuals. I mean, I can ask anyone about the climate, and they'll all tell me that "climate change bad; clean air good". But when I say something about emission tax, the most polite response I get is "what's wrong with you, mate?"...
  - kilotaras 10y ago
    I have some hope that Africa can do what they did with telecommunications. Skip fossils to renewables.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      I hope that too.
- akvadrako 10y ago
  Do you have an analysis to back up your point? You might be right, but it isn't obvious. 1. It's clear that preventing the release of significant amount of CO2 will be very costly. Even with massive lobbying costs, just keeping the emissions at current levels will be a great accomplishment. 2. Because the relationship between CO2 and warming is logarithmic, the more we release, the less good lowering emissions will do. 3. $1 now is worth more than $1 (+ inflation) 50 years from now
lpolovets 10y ago
Are Canada's CO2 stats material to global warming, or are they being over-dramatized because this is a Canadian publication? The graph in the article shows that Canada has 5x the per capita CO2 extraction of China, but on the other hand China has 40x as many people. (For context, I think global warming is very real and addressing it should be a top priority, but I also believe that sensationalist articles often do more harm than good.)
- tempestn 10y ago
  Even though Canada's total contribution may be small compared to one of the greatest-polluting countries on the planet, our contribution is still significant. Yes it's highlighted because it's a Canadian publication, but it's still something we need to take more seriously. Personally I see this article as more of a wake-up call than sensationalist.
- hannob 10y ago
  > Are Canada's CO2 stats material to global warming, or are they being over-dramatized because this is a Canadian publication? Canada has an extremely important role in the future of CO2 emissions, because it has some of the largest left resources of oil on the planet with its tar sands. And it's a particularly nasty one with an emission footprint far higher than "conventional" oil. Whether or not Canada will leave a substantial part of that untapped is quite significant.
  - RandyRanderson 10y ago
    TO add to this I believe at ~60$/barrel the oil sands become economically feasible. So we're not a big factor today but as soon as the easy fracking fields start to dry up and the oil costs rises a bit we're going to be right back in the game!
    - narrowrail 10y ago
      Suncor, one of the largest players in tar sands oil said in one of their earnings call transcripts that their cost was $30/barrel. I can dig it up if you need a citation, but it was right around the time the WTI dropped below $30.
diafygi 10y ago
Howdy! I work in cleantech, and I guess it's that time again for a what-are-we-going-to-do-about-it post :) To start, here's my favorite climate change joke: "They say we won't act until it's too late... Luckily, it's too late!" ==So what can you do about it?== The biggest thing this article doesn't say that is most relevant to the HN audience is that you can work at a new energy technology company! Our industries are out of the R&D stage and are currently focused on scale and growth[1], and we need as many smart people as we can get. There are lots of companies hiring software engineers. ==How do I find a job fighting climate change?== I'd recommend browsing the exhibitor and speaker lists from the most recent conference in each sector (linked below). Check out the companies that interest you and see if they are hiring. * Energy Storage[2][3] * Solar[4][5] * Wind[6] * Nuclear[7] * Electric Utilities[8][9] * Electric vehicles[10] Also, if you're in the SF bay area, I'd recommend subscribing to my Bay Area Energy Events Calendar[11]. Just start showing up to events and you'll probably find a job really quickly. [1]: https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/22/energy-is-the-new-new-internet/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/22/energy-is-the-new-new-inte... [2]: http://www.esnaexpo.com/ http://www.esnaexpo.com/ [3]: https://www.greentechmedia.com/events/live/u.s.-energy-storage-summit-2016 https://www.greentechmedia.com/events/live/u.s.-energy-stora... [4]: https://www.intersolar.us/ https://www.intersolar.us/ [5]: http://www.solarpowerinternational.com/ http://www.solarpowerinternational.com/ [6]: http://www.windpowerexpo.org/ http://www.windpowerexpo.org/ [7]: https://www.nei.org/Conferences https://www.nei.org/Conferences [8]: http://www.distributech.com/index.html http://www.distributech.com/index.html [9]: https://www.greentechmedia.com/events/live/grid-edge-world-forum-2016 https://www.greentechmedia.com/events/live/grid-edge-world-f... [10]: http://tec.ieee.org/ http://tec.ieee.org/ [11]: https://bayareaenergyevents.com/ https://bayareaenergyevents.com/
- manglav 10y ago
  Thank you for all these resources! I'm extremely interested in cleantech, my bachelor's was in Chemical Engineering, currently a software engineer. Can I email you some of my questions about the field in general?
- aoeu345 10y ago
  Hi, I don't see anything in your list about carbon sequestration. Can you point me to any companies investing in advanced robotics to assist in silicate mineral crushing & spreading, as it's the only sensible, achievable sequestration technique? Thanks. For readers interested in carbon sequestration, please check out the following paper: "Enhanced chemical weathering as a geoengineering strategy to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxid e, supply nutrients, and mitigate ocean acidification"[1] [1]: http://www.greensand.nl/content/user/1/files/rog20004.pdf http://www.greensand.nl/content/user/1/files/rog20004.pdf
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
_Codemonkeyism 10y ago
Hurray for the clean-coal man!
- sgt101 10y ago
  Remember, this all happened before his watch.
  - Tepix 10y ago
    But he's not exactly helping.
sundvor 10y ago
That's scary. I guess we all ought to go vegetarian, and protest those coal power plants.
- enibundo 10y ago
  I'm already doing this. Waiting for everyone else to turn vegetarian before YOU turn is not a good way of handling this... You are right, more and more people should eat more vegies, and we should be more concious and ecological. Luckily I live in Europe where some people (of the governement) care about this.
- yjgyhj 10y ago
  Being vegetarian is easy and healthy. I recommend it. If nothing else, buy a nice cookbook and make it a habit to cook nice non-meat food one night a week. Make it a date with your partner!
  - hyperbovine 10y ago
    It's worth reiterating that there's a whole continuum between eating meat and eating no meat called "eating less meat". Always amazes me how people overlook this when writing off reduced meat consumption as not for them. Vegetarian Cooking for Everyone by Deborah Madison is a great way to start down this path.
    - sundvor 10y ago
      I was going to say, I might look at simply reducing consumption. If everyone cut 1/3rd of their meat out, that'd have a huge impact.
    - CalRobert 10y ago
      Thanks for pointing that out. I'm not a vegetarian, but when I order a veggie burger I'm often asked if I am. I eat meat once a week or so, and would have a hard time passing on some of the cultural norms around meat (Thanksgiving turkey, etc.) but eating 90% less meat means 90% lower meat-related emissions. Of course, if your reason for being vegetarian is animal welfare and ethics, then this rings hollow ("I commit 90% fewer murders!")
rodionos 10y ago
>extraction of fossil fuel CO2 What is the definition here. Specifically, on Canada, does it measure the amount of CO2 contained in the produced oil, gas, coal fuels which is then physically extracted where it's consumed, i.e. in the US?
PKop 10y ago
Can someone explain: - since CO2 has a logarithmic effect on warming - the catastrophic climate prediction models have not proven effective at predicting climate - we should expect moderate increases in warming, which can be beneficial (livable climate, crops etc) - the unquestionable benefits of hydro carbon energy to bring people out of poverty and into modern prosperity (food, healthcare, modern technology) ..what's all the sensationalism about? Shouldn't we be happy that the alarmists were wrong and the threat has been overblown? An alternative viewpoint: https://youtu.be/500MmY5rB1w https://youtu.be/500MmY5rB1w https://youtu.be/EaNPBZ6BZZ8 https://youtu.be/EaNPBZ6BZZ8 https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/10/the-diminishing-influence-of-increasing-carbon-dioxide-on-temperature/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/10/the-diminishing-influ...
- alex_young 10y ago
  Citations needed
- isolli 10y ago
  The problem is non-linearity. Moderate increases in temperatures can have catastrophic effects. While warming can be moderate at the planetary level, changes can be dramatic locally. Droughts and failing crops lead to massive migration (which we're already witnessing). Changing climate has brought tropical diseases to temperate climates.
- Rexxar 10y ago
  - since CO2 has a logarithmic effect on warming Where does this affirmation come from ?
  - sanxiyn 10y ago
    Eh, this is actually well known. "The existing concentrations of a particular gas dictate the effect that additional molecules of that gas can have. For gases such as the halocarbons, where the naturally occurring concentrations are zero or very small, their forcing is close to linear in concentration for present-day concentrations. Gases such as methane and nitrous oxide are present in such quantities that significant absorption is already occurring and it is found that their forcing is approximately proportional to the square root of their concentration. (snip) For carbon dioxide, as has already been mentioned, parts of the spectrum are already so opaque that additional molecules of carbon dioxide are even less effective, the forcing is found to be logarithmic in concentration." From page 49 of http://ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_02.pdf http://ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_02...
dorgo 10y ago
Maybe we start reducing CO2 level in the athmosphere (not only reduce CO2 output) ? Any plans for that (besides plant more trees)?
- Arnt 10y ago
  Hopes, more like. Capturing it from rich sources such as a big plant's chimney and storing it are still major problems, capturing it from the atmosphere is an obvious next step if/when those two are solved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage is a good place to start reading.
- DanWaterworth 10y ago
  AFAIK, planting more trees by itself doesn't really help in the long term, because trees eventually decompose releasing the carbon they captured.
  - pveierland 10y ago
    My understanding is that if you create a new forest, the amount of carbon needed to create it is taken from the atmosphere. Even if trees in the forest die and decompose, the forest will on average consist of carbon which previously was part of the atmosphere, in effect removing carbon from the atmosphere.
    - taejo 10y ago
      Yes. Planting a forest is a one-off, though. The only way to capture more carbon with the same land is to cut down all the trees, bury them deep enough so that they don't decompose, and start again.
      - DanWaterworth 10y ago
        There's also biochar
scrps 10y ago
I generally get funny looks and the feeling that people are imagining me with a toothbrush mustache and a comb-over when I suggest this: Wouldn't population control to an extent help slow the rate of emissions? Caps on births or higher taxes on family sizes, etc. I know political/moral/ethical issues would make it impractical but I don't think any potential solution is worth ignoring.
- givan 10y ago
  When debugging performance problems you always search for the biggest bottlenecks not the minor ones, so what are the biggest contributors to CO2? I don't think the problem is the number of people living on earth but how modern society is making people live, for example some big contributors are high meat consumption (cattle methane) inefficient transportation (big suvs with just the driver inside sitting in traffic jams) consumerism that drive all those factories to produce mostly useless products that break easily to be soon replaced etc. We need to change or habits not our numbers, this is the source of the problem.
  - codebolt 10y ago
    Agreed, we should tackle the biggest sources first. And meat production in particular is one of the biggest contributors. Scale back the subsidies for these types of farms and replace them instead with taxes. Consumers will change their habits once they are faced with the "real" cost of meat.
    - webjunkie 10y ago
      Slap extra taxes on meat and forbid any advertising for meat or meat-containing products. Boom.
      - jsmthrowaway 10y ago
        > forbid any advertising for meat or meat-containing products Who needs that pesky First Amendment when there's dietary habits to tackle, right?
partycoder 10y ago
It has been said that methane from decaying organic matter such as the bottom of reservoirs and melting methane permafrost are significant contributors to atmospheric presence of greenhouse gases.
- lutusp 10y ago
  That's true, but unlike atmospheric CO2, atmospheric methane is relatively short-lived. Not to diminish the effect of methane, which while short-lived, is a very potent greenhouse gas. And not to diminish the various feedback effects in the global circulation system that are likely to create a self-sustaining pattern that will long outlast the originating atmospheric gases.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
amarant 10y ago
We have to expand nuclear power. Many don't like it but at this point we have no other choice. Let solar drive the phasing out of nuclear reactors instead of coal power plants! Sadly in my country (Sweden) nuclear is not only taboo but it's illegal to perform research of the subject.. Laws passed by a severely misinformed "green" movement...
- yodsanklai 10y ago
  Totally agree. But is this an issue in Sweden? I thought most of your electricity was from renewable energy already.
  - yjgyhj 10y ago
    It's 45% nuclear and 45% hydro [0] according to Dagens Nyheter, an old and reliable news paper. [0] - http://www.dn.se/ekonomi/vattenkraft-och-karnkraft-ger-sverige-el/ http://www.dn.se/ekonomi/vattenkraft-och-karnkraft-ger-sveri...
    - ptaipale 10y ago
      Or Wikipedia, which has similar numbers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Sweden Note that this is the production. Consumption is a bit different because Nordic countries share the electricity market and the grids are connected. Consumption could use hydroelectric from Norway or wind from Denmark or nuclear from Finland, or from Russia via Finland. For a picture of the market just now, look: http://www.statnett.no/en/market-and-operations/data-from-the-power-system/nordic-power-flow/ http://www.statnett.no/en/market-and-operations/data-from-th...
- tobltobs 10y ago
  Is the radioactive waste problem solved?
  - taberiand 10y ago
    It's much less of a problem than the CO2 problem
Const-me 10y ago
Russians fail to manage their swamps and forests. They burn regularly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Russian_wildfires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Russian_wildfires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_wildfires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_wildfires I bet that contributed a lot to the 2010-s CO2.
- projectorlochsa 10y ago
  Deforestation of Argentinian and Brazilian agriculture tops that any day. Phytoplankton loss does that too.
  - clydethefrog 10y ago
    Plus the burning of forests in Indonesia to make room for farming palmoil. We're all in this together.
  - Const-me 10y ago
    There’re important differences. When you just burn a forest, you release carbon that was in the atmosphere a few years or decades ago. Those trees would die eventually, and most of the carbon would go to the atmosphere anyway. When you dry a swamp and burn a peat bog, you release carbon that was in the atmosphere centuries ago. Under normal circumstances, that carbon would stay underground for millennia.
- tomp 10y ago
  Burning renewables (wood) is fundamentally different than burning fossil fuels.
  - Const-me 10y ago
    Most of the territory affected by those fires was peat bogs. Those are modern analog of those carboniferous-period forests. While some people consider peat as renewable, the renew rate is very slow. Until burned, there was a lot of carbon stored for quite some time.
- 10y ago
XJOKOLAT 10y ago
Everything's just fine.
andy_ppp 10y ago
Are we doomed and what would a world where greenhouse gases were going down look like? Would we still be able to fly internationally for example?
- mavhc 10y ago
  One return flight from Los Angeles to Europe creates as much CO2 as the rest of your life for a year, if you live reasonably eco friendly (still drive to work, but have solar panels for example) Best to skype
  - CalRobert 10y ago
    Or move to Europe, of course.
    - Neliquat 10y ago
      By boat. Sailboat.
mavhc 10y ago
We've already felt the first major problem (to the west) of global warming, mass migration. Most recent wars have had environmental issues as part of the cause. Syria's mismanagement of the water table, Rwanda's water shortages. Most conflicts seem to occur near the equator, and in deserts. Our political system won't cope when a billion people start migrating
- spangry 10y ago
  Sadly, I think you're right. When you get down to it, wars are usually just one group trying take another group's stuff. The common precursor to large-scale war appears to be 'resource scarcity'. I'm almost beginning to think the 'billions of people migrating' scenario is the more optimistic one.
frevd 10y ago
Nobody seems to mention cars, they run on burning fossils and they are a large factor due to the amount of cars in use (ever increasing worldwide). Forcing the industry to replace the exhaust by whatever thing which does not consume fossils to create energy (directly or indirectly e.g. by electrical power that needs to be generated by burning coal) is what might contribute a lot to a better atmosphere (at least in the cities), and could even be good for the economy (as opposed to cost). Renewable energy production without burning fossils should be invested in. The only candidate for now to cover the consumption is nuclear (solar or wind power requires too much space and looks bad, so here you go with your efforts).
- ajdlinux 10y ago
  Apart from every article you see on Tesla Motors and Elon Musk...
  - frevd 10y ago
    Yes, but there is the major problem that charging electrical car batteries today still requires burning of fossils to create the energy in the first place. Beside, that's controversial, Musk has got both electrical cars and space rockets. Germany afaik wants to have predominantly electrical cars driving around in the next decade. Forcing a ban on exhaust cars might create some incentive on producing renewable energies due to the demand, so companies can invest in that. Of course, banning exhaust cars should go hand in hand with banning coal power plants (by way of regulating CO2 limits by law/tax, so that it is expensive to create CO2). Then the demand has to be covered by solar+wind and mainly nuclear energy (the latter not being very popular and the former too space-needy), way to go for clever businesses to come up with solutions (one of them might even be to develop ways to convert created CO2 to solids).
retrac98 10y ago
How does animal agriculture affect this? Are there any authorities on the subject on HN? Everything I've heard suggests the greenhouse gas emissions in support of animal agriculture far outstrip those of pretty much anything else, but nobody seems to really talk about it. Pre-empting a couple of replies here - I already don't eat meat, and yes I've seen "Cowspiracy". :)
- morganwilde 10y ago
  As far as I know, this issue is not comparable to our carbon economy, I.e. Natural gas extraction, coal mining, oil, etc. Key difference is that agriculture is a closed cycle, animals produce a lot of green house gas, but it's gas that's already a part of our ecosystem. When we did stuff from the ground we add new carbon to the ecosystem, and this feat is what's destabilizing the environment. I heard this argument from an interview Elon Musk did about agriculture after someone posted a tweet at him about the documentary "Cowspiracy".
  - retrac98 10y ago
    > Key difference is that agriculture is a closed cycle, animals produce a lot of green house gas, but it's gas that's already a part of our ecosystem. How is it a closed cycle? They require a lot of food and water to be grown, all of which has its own greenhouse gas cost to produce, and then they fart methane while they're alive and require more fuel to process/transport. All the while the world demand for meat is increasing pretty quickly, right?
  - tgjsrkghruksd 10y ago
    But we do dig stuff from the ground for agriculture. Massive amounts of forestland are cleared, plowed, and massive amounts of inorganic NPK inputs are added. This releases enormous amounts of previously entrapped CO2 to the atmosphere.
  - ctolsen 10y ago
    It is comparable, and thinking about agriculture as a closed system is not even close to correct. We're mowing down natural carbon sinks to an insane degree to grow crops to feed animals, one of the major reasons of deforestation and land use change in South America, for instance. And not only that, we grow slow-acting carbon and turn it into fast-acting methane. I strongly doubt Musk would have such a simplistic view of agricultural emissions, they're a big concern for a reason.
delegate 10y ago
The message I"m getting is not that I have to prepare for something or change energy sources, it's that "our lifestyle is killing the planet much faster than we thought". CO2 levels is just one of a myriad of indicators that are off the scale now. By lifestyle I mean supermarkets and restaurants and iPhones and planes ... all the stuff that we're so proud of as a society. Winning, getting ahead, being number one, outcompeting, etc. All those ego-centric values that are the basis of our socio-economic systems - focused on disconnecting the `self` from `other` - are wrong on a fundamental level. Ultimately it is the lack of spirituality in people that's killing the planet. Religions, Inc are a major part of the problem, not a solution. By 'spirituality' I mean the deep realisation of the larger context in bio-space and bio-time that I as a creature exist in: My body is just a cell of a larger organism - Earth - and my life is a drop in the river of life that's been flowing for billions of years - the constant unfolding and re-merging of the DNA molecule. `I` am the privileged observer of this Process and my ultimate mission is to leave it in better shape than I found it. Well, most of us are failing at it.
- specialist 10y ago
  "Ultimately it is the lack of spirituality in people that's killing the planet." Bad accounting is killing our planet. Neglecting important parts of the balance sheet creates perverse incentives.
  - mikelyons 10y ago
    If everyone was seeking enlightenment, there would be no incentives. Incentives are entirely constructions of the ego. Also, most of the posters seem ignorant to the fact that science and rationality are equally as dogmatic as the most fundamentalist religion. All beliefs are false, there is no argument against that.
    - specialist 10y ago
      No contest. I can't argue spirituality, enlightenment. "If you meet Buddha on the road, kill him." While I personally believe we'd all be better off reconnecting with awe, wonder, our place in the universe... When's the last time you watched the Milky Way? Heard the birds singing without the roar of airliners? ...Those beliefs aren't actionable.
yodsanklai 10y ago
On the issue of global warming, I highly recommend this talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w6ruZ_5nPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w6ruZ_5nPE
known 10y ago
I just started using http://ecosia.org/ http://ecosia.org/
beloch 10y ago
One problem with the section on Canada is that they look at CO2 extraction. Canada looks like a big contributor here because it's a net exporter of fossil fuels. However, focusing on supply hasn't worked at any point to date and isn't likely to work at any point in the future. As long as people are buying fossil fuels, extractors are going to produce them and find (less efficient/more dangerous) ways to get them to market if infrastructure like pipelines are blocked. The only efforts that have ever successfully curbed fossil fuel production temporarily were OPEC's self-imposed caps, which were entirely motivated towards maintaining high oil prices and not reducing CO_2 emissions. It seems logical to address the demand instead, but this is hard too. EV's are a promising technology, but have next to no impact at present. A few of the richer people in the richest nations on Earth can afford them, but that's it. We need to find ways to curb fossil fuel consumption by typical drivers in places like Mumbai and Shanghai. The problem is, battery technology just isn't getting cheap enough fast enough. If we could produce a sub $5000 compact EV today, it would still take several decades for them to replace the majority of cars currently in use. EV's also need to be able to compete in agriculture, where vehicles need to be capable of endurance well beyond road cars. If we want to get CO_2 levels under control quickly we're basically going to have to tax gasoline to the point where people are forced to drive less and pay more for everything that uses fossil fuels in their production, including food. We might even need a mileage tax that scales with income so that the rich are forced to drive less too. Unfortunately, this basically means asking politicians around the world to fall on their swords and take one for the planet. If we can't address supply or demand, all we can really hope for is to develop the technology to get us out of this bind. Either a magical battery/capacitor technology, scalable carbon sinks, or some kind of geoengineering project like a space-sunshade to partially block the sun. It's risky to wait for tech to be developed, and perhaps even riskier to engage in geoengineering projects that may have unintended side-effects. I like the sunshade idea[1] because it's easily reversible, but it's still risky and nobody is seriously working on the idea as far as I know. However, it seems as though putting payload into orbit might become radically cheaper before EV's have a global impact. This option may be more attractive in a decade or so, and may be a more important use of commercial spaceflight capability than starting a colony on Mars. A lot of people are against any form of geoengineering because they believe it will give people hope for an easy solution without the need to curb our use of fossil fuels. The problem is, people are already hoping that easy solutions, like EV's, will enable them to carry on as usual without serious sacrifice. Given the global lack of will to sacrifice quality of life for the good of the environment, we need to have other options available. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade
harwoodleon 10y ago
This is very simple, but something most of the HN people won't be able to do. STOP FLYING! Passenger numbers have gone up in a step change with CO2 count over the last 50 years, contrails compound the effect. The sad thing is - you will all look at this message and think. Why should I have to change? Why me, surely someone else must fix this? Don't wait for governments, don't wait for industry. Make individual choices that affect the output now and we will see a reduction (eventually). The psychology in this tells us not to lose hope, but to look to technology to solve the issues. But we must act responsibly in the meantime.
- FooBarWidget 10y ago
  What's the alternative? As an EU company, if I need to do business in the US then I can't say "let's schedule a meeting in a year while I go on a boat cruise". Virtual meetings only work to an extent -- they lack a human interaction touch. I suppose I can take a train if I go on holiday somewhere in the EU, but insane prices for international trains as well as other shenanigans are not making it an attractive choice.
  - harwoodleon 10y ago
    I told you, you are symptomatic of the short-termist attitude that persists - we must carry on whatever the cost. The alternative is that you make do, because this is a serious situation, far more serious than a business deal. Ironically, your future income and the income and quality of your children's lives will be directly affected by your actions today. But, people just put it away in their minds, file it under "well, can't possibly do that" and forget about it. If the worst that can happen is some scary figures pop out of the news now and again, what's the point in changing? We will all look back in ten years and say, we had a chance to do something, but we didn't.
    - BearGoesChirp 10y ago
      You make the sacrifices, you go out of business and are replaced by someone who doesn't who will continue flying. If anything you have only made the situation worse for you. It is a prisoner dilemma of the grandest scale that has origins predating multi-cellular organisms.
d_theorist 10y ago
I don't understand why more isn't done to implement large-scale carbon capture and storage technologies. There are quite well-understood and proven technologies to do this, but they don't seem to be on anybody's agenda. Trying to bring down CO2 concentration by convincing people to give up cars, food and planes is obviously a losing strategy. If we're serious about preventing climate change we're going to have to actively remove carbon from the atmosphere. But nobody seems interested.
- mikelyons 10y ago
  Aren't trees the ultimate carbon-capture devices? They are solar powered, turn co2 into building materials, and require very little maintenance.
  - d_theorist 10y ago
    Not really. There's something called the "Forest Carbon Cycle". Forests do not statically capture carbon long term. They are constantly taking carbon in but also releasing it through the death of trees and through the soil. Trees can temporarily capture carbon, but ultimately it will be released again unless they are burned. They also take up a lot of space. [EDIT] I should probably clarify that I have nothing against trees, and they definitely can help with sequestration, and they have lots nice properties. I was mainly reacting against "the ultimate carbon-capture devices", which they really are not.
    - likelynew 10y ago
      > Unless they are burned Won't burning the tress will change the stored carbon in the tree to carbon dioxide?
      - DennisP 10y ago
        He's probably referring to biochar. Turning biomass into charcoal, grinding it into powder, and working it into soil is known to sequester carbon for at least a thousand years.
p0nce 10y ago
By now it would be good manner for the richest people to invest massively in carbon sequestration.
qwtel 10y ago
> Limiting the global mean temperature rise to below 2°C with a probability of 66% would require an energy transition of exceptional scope, depth and speed. It seems that sovereigns don't quite think like individuals: If this was a personal decision, I'd just put my hopes in boarding a plain that has a 66% chance of making it to its destination (or at least that's what the pilot, in an effort to look respectable, is telling me). But since I got the ticket on sale, I've convinced myself that it's "rational" to take the gamble. There's other tickets on sale, but they'd cost 30 - 50% of my total net worth. Clearly, I think to myself, it's better to die in a plain crash than to live in a smaller house.
- spangry 10y ago
  Although it's fashionable to denigrate 'economists' nowadays, I see this as a consequence of sovereigns not thinking like economists. At the macro level, it's a classic collective action problem - the tragedy of the commons [0]. There are many well-known and efficient solutions. So I guess the real problem is a lack of political will. The US and China are mostly to blame for the lack of global action. Yes this is probably 'unfair', but it still happens to be the case. Everyone comes to the bargaining table when those two are there. Heck, they could easily enforce a bilateral agreement on the rest of the world if they really wanted to. And at the national level, there's so much well-intentioned yet nonetheless sub-optimal, or frankly stupid, policy responses to this issue. Targeted technology subsidies, target abatement schemes, 'renewable energy targets' (i.e. picked winner targets, or 'cap and trade' without the trade) etc. It makes me want to scream. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
- PeterisP 10y ago
  First, like in Prisoner's dilemma, if some sovereigns take drastic action, they pay the price but don't achieve the goal anyway unless almost all others are cooperating. Second, the interests are not aligned - those who'd need to take the largest investment are those who'd suffer the least from consequences; and those who need the goal the most can't change that much.
cmarschner 10y ago
NASA scientists wrote the first article on effects of CO2 on the climate in 1981 [1]. We are in year 36 after this, and people like the president of the United States are still denying that it exists. [1] https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pd...
- harwoodleon 10y ago
  The truth is it took us 80 years to get into this mess, it will probably take 80 years to get us out of it. Hopefully technology can provide a path.
6d6b73 10y ago
The real problem is not with type of tech we're using to power our devices, but with how many of these devices we have, and how efficiently we're using them. From the they we're born we are molded into customers who will want m0re stuff. The other problem with our worlds is that our economies are ponzi schemes that can't grow forever. To keep our economies viable we need to increase our production by few % every year. While 1-4% does not seem too much, in reality for economies at current scales this is enormous amount of stuff that needs to be produced just to support our current employment rates. To support that increase we need more energy, and since that energy comes at a higher and higher cost (environmentally, economically and energetically) we need to add more generation capabilities every year. This broken system needs to be changed, not because it's unfair, wasteful, and plain stupid but simply because it's physically impossible to grow at a 3% rate forever.
alistproducer2 10y ago
IMO a large part of the failure to deal with this problem has to do with political cowardice on the part of the left. Sometimes if you're just honest with people as opposed to constantly trying to sugar coat, lie, or guilt trip people things go better. It's truly baffling to me that dim-witted local politicians can constantly convince local populations into tax increases and blowing up of local coffers to build sports teams new stadiums when they already have functional ones. On the other hand you're telling me it's impossible to sell a tax that is going to be used to literally save the world?
- cmrdporcupine 10y ago
  In the west there is almost no "left" left. A classical socialist or radical left response to this crisis would be entirely different: "we need a planned economy." The modern simpering liberal "left" just moans about carbon offsets and sign a few non-binding international agreements, and continue things as usual.
- jbattle 10y ago
  Take a look at this survey Yale did: http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us-2016/ http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/yco... The found that even though large %'s of americans believe the climate is changing, a relatively small number (nationwide) think it will actually affect them personally. Aside from CA/FL/TX and a few other scattered points, people think they will escape the coming changes unscathed
- chasing 10y ago
  > IMO a large part of the failure to deal with this problem has to do with political cowardice on the part of the left. The LEFT? http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/the-politics-of-climate/ http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/the-politics-of-climat...
randomerr 10y ago
For their pretty graphic it looks like Asia is the biggest offender. So why doesn't the UN slap sanctions on them until they comply with international standards.
artur_makly 10y ago
This perversion all started when we went from Hunter/Gathers -> Agrarian Farmers -> "Luxury Trap" - Yuval Noah Harari on the Rise of Homo Deus -- link updated [1]https://youtu.be/9M7OaGXXtQs?t=3h6m29s https://youtu.be/9M7OaGXXtQs?t=3h6m29s
SamPhillips 10y ago
Elected officials follow public opinion, and large-scale protest is an effective way to demonstrate and shape opinion. Join other technologists at the Climate March in 2 weeks (April 29). https://techsector.peoplesclimate.org/ https://techsector.peoplesclimate.org/ Something needs to change, we're on the wrong track, and now is the time for you to take action (plus, meet nice people!).
doofus3 10y ago
Stop eating animals and buying new shit every day and this problem will go away.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
polotics 10y ago
Wow thanks for the Mulvaney quote. Not spending money on climate change maybe, you just wait for what climate disruption will cost.
freeto 10y ago
Cows produce way more warming gases than our petrol headed cars. Eat less meat!!!
freeto 10y ago
Cows/methane produce more global warming gasses than our petrol headed cars. Eat less meat!!!

499 points by tempestn 10y ago

nielsbot 10y ago

I am terrified. Should I be?

std_throwaway 10y ago
No, that would lead to paralysis. Learn to live in a world where climate change is happening and adjust accordingly. There is no way going back now. The party is coming to an end. We must go forward. You don't have to solve this problem in one day by yourself. You probably cannot really "solve" it at all. It's time to let go of things we cannot save and hold on to those which grow valuable in the future.
- ChuckMcM 10y ago
  I really resonate with this comment. The best way to 'deal' with climate change on an individual level is to always vote for folks who are trying to rein it in, to live your life with a minimal carbon footprint, and to create plans for larger, more intense weather events.
  - SamReidHughes 10y ago
    Even the high end of predictions aren't expecting an increase in intense weather events bigger than what you might get if you were a bit unlucky over the next century.
    - pg314 10y ago
      Any citations for that? Why would insurance companies like Munich Re be studying and preparing for climate change then [1]? [1] https://www.munichre.com/en/group/focus/climate-change/index.html https://www.munichre.com/en/group/focus/climate-change/index...
      - SamReidHughes 10y ago
        Apparently they've been doing it for "more than 40 years." I'm guessing it's part of the general business of being an insurance company.
      - PeterisP 10y ago
        A large reinsurer has to evaluate trends in weather and the associated risks of e.g. storm damage, as for them every percentage point is meaningful. However, you can treat them as an information source about risk - if there would be a significant increase in likelihood of extreme weather, then you'd see it reflected in the insurance rates, and if not - well, they have done the homework and are betting literal billions that the worry is just an exaggeration for now. If the insurance rates aren't doubling, then the risks haven't doubled for sure.
    - akiselev 10y ago
      Love that spin. The low end of predictions is that the most stable of ecosystems will regularly experience the extreme weather previously reserved for "once-in-a-century" events in the most volatile regions. On the "high-end" is a drastic change in the Earth's shape due to gravity with a meter+ of sea level rise around the equator, runaway exponential heating feedback loops triggered in Siberia and like half the ocean floor, and the depletion of almost all potable fresh water currently supplying a population of over 7 billion. But yeah, if "unlucky over the next century" means the sun will go supernova, we're f-ing peachy!
      - SamReidHughes 10y ago
        Wrong. The low end is that extreme weather events get less frequent [1]. The high end is that they get more frequent -- but the amount is such that you're not going to get hit with more extreme weather over the next century than what you would get if you were a bit unlucky. Your second paragraph isn't talking about weather events at all. [1] https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-10-1.html https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-10-...
        pg314 10y ago
        As far as I can tell the link you provide argues exactly the opposite of what you're saying: > In a warmer future climate, there will be an increased risk of more intense, more frequent and longer-lasting heat waves. > In a warmer future climate, most Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models project increased summer dryness and winter wetness in most parts of the northern middle and high latitudes. Summer dryness indicates a greater risk of drought. Along with the risk of drying, there is an increased chance of intense precipitation and flooding due to the greater water-holding capacity of a warmer atmosphere. > In concert with the results for increased extremes of intense precipitation, even if the wind strength of storms in a future climate did not change, there would be an increase in extreme rainfall intensity. > There is evidence from modelling studies that future tropical cyclones could become more severe, with greater wind speeds and more intense precipitation. Studies suggest that such changes may already be underway; there are indications that the average number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes per year has increased over the past 30 years. Some modelling studies have projected a decrease in the number of tropical cyclones globally due to the increased stability of the tropical troposphere in a warmer climate, characterised by fewer weak storms and greater numbers of intense storms. A number of modelling studies have also projected a general tendency for more intense but fewer storms outside the tropics, with a tendency towards more extreme wind events and higher ocean waves in several regions in association with those deepened cyclones. How do you get from that to your statement: 'The low end is that extreme weather events get less frequent'? You are also simply repeating your assertion 'but the amount is such that you're not going to get hit with more extreme weather over the next century than what you would get if you were a bit unlucky', citing no evidence.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
taneq 10y ago
Buy shares in houseboat companies. Short sell coastal property.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- pg314 10y ago
  You are likely to loose your shirt short-selling coastal property. For short-selling to be profitable, what you are short-selling should decrease in value, and do so rather quickly. The reason is that in the mean time you are required to reimburse the person you're borrowing the asset from for the revenue he would have had, had he held on to it. In the case of property that is the rental revenue. Time works against you when short-selling. Home prices in flood-prone areas are still rising (albeit slower than elsewhere) in the US [1]. At some point they will go down, but time your short-selling wrong, and you will loose money. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/24/science/global-warming-coastal-real-estate.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/24/science/global-warming-co...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
tajen 10y ago
I often wonder what we'll die of. Direct consequence of global warming like flooding, tornado, or heat wave? A worldwide epidemic? Will wealth be relevant in saving us from mass famines? A more indirect way such as massive riots caused by, say, the global disorganization of wealth? A global methane event, bursting out of the oceans, and burning the whole atmosphere? Or simply Trump deciding that global warming can only be dodged by erasing half of human activities, killing 4bn people with some atomic bomb, "for the survival of the rest"? I also wonder what will remain of our cities. Will scavenger humans haunt them for the next thousand years? How fast will they decay?
- throwaway29292 10y ago
  Probably not direct consequences, more indirect ones like riots. And if things get that bad, then maybe erasing half or 75% human activities WOULD be the only way, don't need a Trump to declare that.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
    Probably not any of that at all. We will probably die of all the same old boring causes: heart disease, cancer, dementia and Alzheimer's.
- gd1 10y ago
  If you think global warming has any proven connection to tornadoes, you're most likely to die from being a dribbling fucking retard.
- stale2002 10y ago
  Please read up on the scientific consensus. No respectable scientist believes that a meter or 2 of sea level rise over the next 200 years is going to literally cause the world to end. Read the science. Go with the facts. Not the fake consequences that no scientist believes is going to happen.
  - scarmig 10y ago
    Yes. No one believes the world is going to end. The scientific consensus is trillions of dollars in annual damages globally along with plausibly millions of lives lost. No big deal.
stale2002 10y ago
.
- scarmig 10y ago
  I really don't get how you're blithely writing off 2 meters of sea level rise. Do you have any clue just how much value that'd destroy? Why do you value the lives of Bengalis living in low elevation areas so much less than your right to drive a gas guzzler cheaply?

taneq 10y ago

I don't like the way they fudge the graph axes to make it look more dramatic. It's a significant rise all on its own, why make it look suspect by messing with the presentation?

tempestn 10y ago
I wouldn't call this fudging. It's just easier to see the effect when the Y axis starts at the low point of the line, rather than at 0. Especially when you consider that the atmosphere always contains a baseline level of C02, and we wouldn't want it otherwise; it protects us from a significant chunk of the UV spectrum. This choice could actually be seen as less arbitrary than starting at zero.
function_seven 10y ago
Same with tempestn, 0 isn’t the natural Y-intercept. Just like temperature graphs don’t start at -273°C, nor do barometric pressure graphs start at 0. I don’t know what the “right” baseline is, but 0 isn’t it.

std_throwaway 10y ago

I don't like sensationalism as it clouds the mind with short-lived buzzes. Instead of always trying to alarm people of the big invisible terror lurking in the dark, we should educate people on how to handle the situation. What are the scenarios? What can we do ourselves for those scenarios (not to prevent, but to prepare)? Which cities and countries will be lost at what point in time? How do we protect ourselves? Be constructive, be creative.

tempestn 10y ago
I agree with you, but I don't think it's wrong that there's a general feeling that we're working on this problem, and we're getting better. Look at all these solar panels and electric vehicles we're reading about. We know there's still C02 being pumped out, but at least we're starting to get a handle on it. This shows that actually we're not. We've got a positive second derivative here. The current path leads pretty quickly to likely disaster. If you really believe that, maybe you're willing to accept more pain (economic, etc.) to make a significant difference than you otherwise would. Personally, I live in BC, which is about to have a provincial election. I've been struggling with my choice, because while I generally align more with the NDP (left-wing party) on ideals, a number of their platform pieces seem misguided or vote-buying at best. The Liberal party (which is really a conservative party in all but name) doesn't really align with my values, but they do seem more competent, and less likely to make poor fiscal policy. However, one key difference between their platforms is on expansion of natural gas extraction, and environmental issues in general. Reading this article got me thinking that climate change is a big enough issue that it should probably trump other concerns.
- deckiedan 10y ago
  Please, please write to your local party reps in all those parties explaining your dilemma! This will probably have as much or more value in terms of policy change as a vote. Parties lump so many disparate issues together, they need to hear what individual issues are actually important to the rest of us.
- RandyRanderson 10y ago

ghouse 10y ago

It is less expensive (for society) to prevent the release of previously sequestered CO2 than it is to deal with the consequences of introducing the CO2 into the carbon cycle. Though since the costs of releasing sequestered CO2 are socialized, but the benefits are privatized, the US (at the federal level) continues to choose inaction.

TeMPOraL 10y ago
So does, unfortunately, the rest of the world. With the recent anti-nuclear craze, the EU is sadly not stellar in this regard either. And all of this forgets about Africa, which continues to improve the living condition of its people and thus grow in energy demand. If there isn't green infrastructure ready to be used there, they'll go for the easiest thing, which means fossil fuels. And so do many individuals. I mean, I can ask anyone about the climate, and they'll all tell me that "climate change bad; clean air good". But when I say something about emission tax, the most polite response I get is "what's wrong with you, mate?"...
- kilotaras 10y ago
  I have some hope that Africa can do what they did with telecommunications. Skip fossils to renewables.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    I hope that too.
akvadrako 10y ago
Do you have an analysis to back up your point? You might be right, but it isn't obvious. 1. It's clear that preventing the release of significant amount of CO2 will be very costly. Even with massive lobbying costs, just keeping the emissions at current levels will be a great accomplishment. 2. Because the relationship between CO2 and warming is logarithmic, the more we release, the less good lowering emissions will do. 3. $1 now is worth more than $1 (+ inflation) 50 years from now

lpolovets 10y ago

Are Canada's CO2 stats material to global warming, or are they being over-dramatized because this is a Canadian publication? The graph in the article shows that Canada has 5x the per capita CO2 extraction of China, but on the other hand China has 40x as many people. (For context, I think global warming is very real and addressing it should be a top priority, but I also believe that sensationalist articles often do more harm than good.)

tempestn 10y ago
Even though Canada's total contribution may be small compared to one of the greatest-polluting countries on the planet, our contribution is still significant. Yes it's highlighted because it's a Canadian publication, but it's still something we need to take more seriously. Personally I see this article as more of a wake-up call than sensationalist.
hannob 10y ago
> Are Canada's CO2 stats material to global warming, or are they being over-dramatized because this is a Canadian publication? Canada has an extremely important role in the future of CO2 emissions, because it has some of the largest left resources of oil on the planet with its tar sands. And it's a particularly nasty one with an emission footprint far higher than "conventional" oil. Whether or not Canada will leave a substantial part of that untapped is quite significant.
- RandyRanderson 10y ago
  TO add to this I believe at ~60$/barrel the oil sands become economically feasible. So we're not a big factor today but as soon as the easy fracking fields start to dry up and the oil costs rises a bit we're going to be right back in the game!
  - narrowrail 10y ago
    Suncor, one of the largest players in tar sands oil said in one of their earnings call transcripts that their cost was $30/barrel. I can dig it up if you need a citation, but it was right around the time the WTI dropped below $30.

diafygi 10y ago

Howdy! I work in cleantech, and I guess it's that time again for a what-are-we-going-to-do-about-it post :) To start, here's my favorite climate change joke: "They say we won't act until it's too late... Luckily, it's too late!" ==So what can you do about it?== The biggest thing this article doesn't say that is most relevant to the HN audience is that you can work at a new energy technology company! Our industries are out of the R&D stage and are currently focused on scale and growth[1], and we need as many smart people as we can get. There are lots of companies hiring software engineers. ==How do I find a job fighting climate change?== I'd recommend browsing the exhibitor and speaker lists from the most recent conference in each sector (linked below). Check out the companies that interest you and see if they are hiring. * Energy Storage[2][3] * Solar[4][5] * Wind[6] * Nuclear[7] * Electric Utilities[8][9] * Electric vehicles[10] Also, if you're in the SF bay area, I'd recommend subscribing to my Bay Area Energy Events Calendar[11]. Just start showing up to events and you'll probably find a job really quickly. [1]: https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/22/energy-is-the-new-new-internet/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/22/energy-is-the-new-new-inte... [2]: http://www.esnaexpo.com/ http://www.esnaexpo.com/ [3]: https://www.greentechmedia.com/events/live/u.s.-energy-storage-summit-2016 https://www.greentechmedia.com/events/live/u.s.-energy-stora... [4]: https://www.intersolar.us/ https://www.intersolar.us/ [5]: http://www.solarpowerinternational.com/ http://www.solarpowerinternational.com/ [6]: http://www.windpowerexpo.org/ http://www.windpowerexpo.org/ [7]: https://www.nei.org/Conferences https://www.nei.org/Conferences [8]: http://www.distributech.com/index.html http://www.distributech.com/index.html [9]: https://www.greentechmedia.com/events/live/grid-edge-world-forum-2016 https://www.greentechmedia.com/events/live/grid-edge-world-f... [10]: http://tec.ieee.org/ http://tec.ieee.org/ [11]: https://bayareaenergyevents.com/ https://bayareaenergyevents.com/

manglav 10y ago
Thank you for all these resources! I'm extremely interested in cleantech, my bachelor's was in Chemical Engineering, currently a software engineer. Can I email you some of my questions about the field in general?
aoeu345 10y ago
Hi, I don't see anything in your list about carbon sequestration. Can you point me to any companies investing in advanced robotics to assist in silicate mineral crushing & spreading, as it's the only sensible, achievable sequestration technique? Thanks. For readers interested in carbon sequestration, please check out the following paper: "Enhanced chemical weathering as a geoengineering strategy to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxid e, supply nutrients, and mitigate ocean acidification"[1] [1]: http://www.greensand.nl/content/user/1/files/rog20004.pdf http://www.greensand.nl/content/user/1/files/rog20004.pdf

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

_Codemonkeyism 10y ago

Hurray for the clean-coal man!

sgt101 10y ago
Remember, this all happened before his watch.
- Tepix 10y ago
  But he's not exactly helping.

sundvor 10y ago

That's scary. I guess we all ought to go vegetarian, and protest those coal power plants.

enibundo 10y ago
I'm already doing this. Waiting for everyone else to turn vegetarian before YOU turn is not a good way of handling this... You are right, more and more people should eat more vegies, and we should be more concious and ecological. Luckily I live in Europe where some people (of the governement) care about this.
yjgyhj 10y ago
Being vegetarian is easy and healthy. I recommend it. If nothing else, buy a nice cookbook and make it a habit to cook nice non-meat food one night a week. Make it a date with your partner!
- hyperbovine 10y ago
  It's worth reiterating that there's a whole continuum between eating meat and eating no meat called "eating less meat". Always amazes me how people overlook this when writing off reduced meat consumption as not for them. Vegetarian Cooking for Everyone by Deborah Madison is a great way to start down this path.
  - sundvor 10y ago
    I was going to say, I might look at simply reducing consumption. If everyone cut 1/3rd of their meat out, that'd have a huge impact.
  - CalRobert 10y ago
    Thanks for pointing that out. I'm not a vegetarian, but when I order a veggie burger I'm often asked if I am. I eat meat once a week or so, and would have a hard time passing on some of the cultural norms around meat (Thanksgiving turkey, etc.) but eating 90% less meat means 90% lower meat-related emissions. Of course, if your reason for being vegetarian is animal welfare and ethics, then this rings hollow ("I commit 90% fewer murders!")

rodionos 10y ago

>extraction of fossil fuel CO2 What is the definition here. Specifically, on Canada, does it measure the amount of CO2 contained in the produced oil, gas, coal fuels which is then physically extracted where it's consumed, i.e. in the US?

PKop 10y ago

Can someone explain: - since CO2 has a logarithmic effect on warming - the catastrophic climate prediction models have not proven effective at predicting climate - we should expect moderate increases in warming, which can be beneficial (livable climate, crops etc) - the unquestionable benefits of hydro carbon energy to bring people out of poverty and into modern prosperity (food, healthcare, modern technology) ..what's all the sensationalism about? Shouldn't we be happy that the alarmists were wrong and the threat has been overblown? An alternative viewpoint: https://youtu.be/500MmY5rB1w https://youtu.be/500MmY5rB1w https://youtu.be/EaNPBZ6BZZ8 https://youtu.be/EaNPBZ6BZZ8 https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/10/the-diminishing-influence-of-increasing-carbon-dioxide-on-temperature/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/10/the-diminishing-influ...

alex_young 10y ago
Citations needed
isolli 10y ago
The problem is non-linearity. Moderate increases in temperatures can have catastrophic effects. While warming can be moderate at the planetary level, changes can be dramatic locally. Droughts and failing crops lead to massive migration (which we're already witnessing). Changing climate has brought tropical diseases to temperate climates.
Rexxar 10y ago
- since CO2 has a logarithmic effect on warming Where does this affirmation come from ?
- sanxiyn 10y ago
  Eh, this is actually well known. "The existing concentrations of a particular gas dictate the effect that additional molecules of that gas can have. For gases such as the halocarbons, where the naturally occurring concentrations are zero or very small, their forcing is close to linear in concentration for present-day concentrations. Gases such as methane and nitrous oxide are present in such quantities that significant absorption is already occurring and it is found that their forcing is approximately proportional to the square root of their concentration. (snip) For carbon dioxide, as has already been mentioned, parts of the spectrum are already so opaque that additional molecules of carbon dioxide are even less effective, the forcing is found to be logarithmic in concentration." From page 49 of http://ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_02.pdf http://ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_02...

dorgo 10y ago

Maybe we start reducing CO2 level in the athmosphere (not only reduce CO2 output) ? Any plans for that (besides plant more trees)?

Arnt 10y ago
Hopes, more like. Capturing it from rich sources such as a big plant's chimney and storing it are still major problems, capturing it from the atmosphere is an obvious next step if/when those two are solved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage is a good place to start reading.
DanWaterworth 10y ago
AFAIK, planting more trees by itself doesn't really help in the long term, because trees eventually decompose releasing the carbon they captured.
- pveierland 10y ago
  My understanding is that if you create a new forest, the amount of carbon needed to create it is taken from the atmosphere. Even if trees in the forest die and decompose, the forest will on average consist of carbon which previously was part of the atmosphere, in effect removing carbon from the atmosphere.
  - taejo 10y ago
    Yes. Planting a forest is a one-off, though. The only way to capture more carbon with the same land is to cut down all the trees, bury them deep enough so that they don't decompose, and start again.
    - DanWaterworth 10y ago
      There's also biochar

scrps 10y ago

I generally get funny looks and the feeling that people are imagining me with a toothbrush mustache and a comb-over when I suggest this: Wouldn't population control to an extent help slow the rate of emissions? Caps on births or higher taxes on family sizes, etc. I know political/moral/ethical issues would make it impractical but I don't think any potential solution is worth ignoring.

givan 10y ago
When debugging performance problems you always search for the biggest bottlenecks not the minor ones, so what are the biggest contributors to CO2? I don't think the problem is the number of people living on earth but how modern society is making people live, for example some big contributors are high meat consumption (cattle methane) inefficient transportation (big suvs with just the driver inside sitting in traffic jams) consumerism that drive all those factories to produce mostly useless products that break easily to be soon replaced etc. We need to change or habits not our numbers, this is the source of the problem.
- codebolt 10y ago
  Agreed, we should tackle the biggest sources first. And meat production in particular is one of the biggest contributors. Scale back the subsidies for these types of farms and replace them instead with taxes. Consumers will change their habits once they are faced with the "real" cost of meat.
  - webjunkie 10y ago
    Slap extra taxes on meat and forbid any advertising for meat or meat-containing products. Boom.
    - jsmthrowaway 10y ago
      > forbid any advertising for meat or meat-containing products Who needs that pesky First Amendment when there's dietary habits to tackle, right?

partycoder 10y ago

It has been said that methane from decaying organic matter such as the bottom of reservoirs and melting methane permafrost are significant contributors to atmospheric presence of greenhouse gases.

lutusp 10y ago
That's true, but unlike atmospheric CO2, atmospheric methane is relatively short-lived. Not to diminish the effect of methane, which while short-lived, is a very potent greenhouse gas. And not to diminish the various feedback effects in the global circulation system that are likely to create a self-sustaining pattern that will long outlast the originating atmospheric gases.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

amarant 10y ago

We have to expand nuclear power. Many don't like it but at this point we have no other choice. Let solar drive the phasing out of nuclear reactors instead of coal power plants! Sadly in my country (Sweden) nuclear is not only taboo but it's illegal to perform research of the subject.. Laws passed by a severely misinformed "green" movement...

yodsanklai 10y ago
Totally agree. But is this an issue in Sweden? I thought most of your electricity was from renewable energy already.
- yjgyhj 10y ago
  It's 45% nuclear and 45% hydro [0] according to Dagens Nyheter, an old and reliable news paper. [0] - http://www.dn.se/ekonomi/vattenkraft-och-karnkraft-ger-sverige-el/ http://www.dn.se/ekonomi/vattenkraft-och-karnkraft-ger-sveri...
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    Or Wikipedia, which has similar numbers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Sweden Note that this is the production. Consumption is a bit different because Nordic countries share the electricity market and the grids are connected. Consumption could use hydroelectric from Norway or wind from Denmark or nuclear from Finland, or from Russia via Finland. For a picture of the market just now, look: http://www.statnett.no/en/market-and-operations/data-from-the-power-system/nordic-power-flow/ http://www.statnett.no/en/market-and-operations/data-from-th...
tobltobs 10y ago
Is the radioactive waste problem solved?
- taberiand 10y ago
  It's much less of a problem than the CO2 problem

Const-me 10y ago

Russians fail to manage their swamps and forests. They burn regularly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Russian_wildfires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Russian_wildfires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_wildfires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_wildfires I bet that contributed a lot to the 2010-s CO2.

projectorlochsa 10y ago
Deforestation of Argentinian and Brazilian agriculture tops that any day. Phytoplankton loss does that too.
- clydethefrog 10y ago
  Plus the burning of forests in Indonesia to make room for farming palmoil. We're all in this together.
- Const-me 10y ago
  There’re important differences. When you just burn a forest, you release carbon that was in the atmosphere a few years or decades ago. Those trees would die eventually, and most of the carbon would go to the atmosphere anyway. When you dry a swamp and burn a peat bog, you release carbon that was in the atmosphere centuries ago. Under normal circumstances, that carbon would stay underground for millennia.
tomp 10y ago
Burning renewables (wood) is fundamentally different than burning fossil fuels.
- Const-me 10y ago
  Most of the territory affected by those fires was peat bogs. Those are modern analog of those carboniferous-period forests. While some people consider peat as renewable, the renew rate is very slow. Until burned, there was a lot of carbon stored for quite some time.
10y ago

XJOKOLAT 10y ago

Everything's just fine.

andy_ppp 10y ago

Are we doomed and what would a world where greenhouse gases were going down look like? Would we still be able to fly internationally for example?

mavhc 10y ago
One return flight from Los Angeles to Europe creates as much CO2 as the rest of your life for a year, if you live reasonably eco friendly (still drive to work, but have solar panels for example) Best to skype
- CalRobert 10y ago
  Or move to Europe, of course.
  - Neliquat 10y ago
    By boat. Sailboat.

mavhc 10y ago

We've already felt the first major problem (to the west) of global warming, mass migration. Most recent wars have had environmental issues as part of the cause. Syria's mismanagement of the water table, Rwanda's water shortages. Most conflicts seem to occur near the equator, and in deserts. Our political system won't cope when a billion people start migrating

spangry 10y ago
Sadly, I think you're right. When you get down to it, wars are usually just one group trying take another group's stuff. The common precursor to large-scale war appears to be 'resource scarcity'. I'm almost beginning to think the 'billions of people migrating' scenario is the more optimistic one.

frevd 10y ago

Nobody seems to mention cars, they run on burning fossils and they are a large factor due to the amount of cars in use (ever increasing worldwide). Forcing the industry to replace the exhaust by whatever thing which does not consume fossils to create energy (directly or indirectly e.g. by electrical power that needs to be generated by burning coal) is what might contribute a lot to a better atmosphere (at least in the cities), and could even be good for the economy (as opposed to cost). Renewable energy production without burning fossils should be invested in. The only candidate for now to cover the consumption is nuclear (solar or wind power requires too much space and looks bad, so here you go with your efforts).

ajdlinux 10y ago
Apart from every article you see on Tesla Motors and Elon Musk...
- frevd 10y ago
  Yes, but there is the major problem that charging electrical car batteries today still requires burning of fossils to create the energy in the first place. Beside, that's controversial, Musk has got both electrical cars and space rockets. Germany afaik wants to have predominantly electrical cars driving around in the next decade. Forcing a ban on exhaust cars might create some incentive on producing renewable energies due to the demand, so companies can invest in that. Of course, banning exhaust cars should go hand in hand with banning coal power plants (by way of regulating CO2 limits by law/tax, so that it is expensive to create CO2). Then the demand has to be covered by solar+wind and mainly nuclear energy (the latter not being very popular and the former too space-needy), way to go for clever businesses to come up with solutions (one of them might even be to develop ways to convert created CO2 to solids).

retrac98 10y ago

How does animal agriculture affect this? Are there any authorities on the subject on HN? Everything I've heard suggests the greenhouse gas emissions in support of animal agriculture far outstrip those of pretty much anything else, but nobody seems to really talk about it. Pre-empting a couple of replies here - I already don't eat meat, and yes I've seen "Cowspiracy". :)

morganwilde 10y ago
As far as I know, this issue is not comparable to our carbon economy, I.e. Natural gas extraction, coal mining, oil, etc. Key difference is that agriculture is a closed cycle, animals produce a lot of green house gas, but it's gas that's already a part of our ecosystem. When we did stuff from the ground we add new carbon to the ecosystem, and this feat is what's destabilizing the environment. I heard this argument from an interview Elon Musk did about agriculture after someone posted a tweet at him about the documentary "Cowspiracy".
- retrac98 10y ago
  > Key difference is that agriculture is a closed cycle, animals produce a lot of green house gas, but it's gas that's already a part of our ecosystem. How is it a closed cycle? They require a lot of food and water to be grown, all of which has its own greenhouse gas cost to produce, and then they fart methane while they're alive and require more fuel to process/transport. All the while the world demand for meat is increasing pretty quickly, right?
- tgjsrkghruksd 10y ago
  But we do dig stuff from the ground for agriculture. Massive amounts of forestland are cleared, plowed, and massive amounts of inorganic NPK inputs are added. This releases enormous amounts of previously entrapped CO2 to the atmosphere.
- ctolsen 10y ago
  It is comparable, and thinking about agriculture as a closed system is not even close to correct. We're mowing down natural carbon sinks to an insane degree to grow crops to feed animals, one of the major reasons of deforestation and land use change in South America, for instance. And not only that, we grow slow-acting carbon and turn it into fast-acting methane. I strongly doubt Musk would have such a simplistic view of agricultural emissions, they're a big concern for a reason.

delegate 10y ago

The message I"m getting is not that I have to prepare for something or change energy sources, it's that "our lifestyle is killing the planet much faster than we thought". CO2 levels is just one of a myriad of indicators that are off the scale now. By lifestyle I mean supermarkets and restaurants and iPhones and planes ... all the stuff that we're so proud of as a society. Winning, getting ahead, being number one, outcompeting, etc. All those ego-centric values that are the basis of our socio-economic systems - focused on disconnecting the `self` from `other` - are wrong on a fundamental level. Ultimately it is the lack of spirituality in people that's killing the planet. Religions, Inc are a major part of the problem, not a solution. By 'spirituality' I mean the deep realisation of the larger context in bio-space and bio-time that I as a creature exist in: My body is just a cell of a larger organism - Earth - and my life is a drop in the river of life that's been flowing for billions of years - the constant unfolding and re-merging of the DNA molecule. `I` am the privileged observer of this Process and my ultimate mission is to leave it in better shape than I found it. Well, most of us are failing at it.

specialist 10y ago
"Ultimately it is the lack of spirituality in people that's killing the planet." Bad accounting is killing our planet. Neglecting important parts of the balance sheet creates perverse incentives.
- mikelyons 10y ago
  If everyone was seeking enlightenment, there would be no incentives. Incentives are entirely constructions of the ego. Also, most of the posters seem ignorant to the fact that science and rationality are equally as dogmatic as the most fundamentalist religion. All beliefs are false, there is no argument against that.
  - specialist 10y ago
    No contest. I can't argue spirituality, enlightenment. "If you meet Buddha on the road, kill him." While I personally believe we'd all be better off reconnecting with awe, wonder, our place in the universe... When's the last time you watched the Milky Way? Heard the birds singing without the roar of airliners? ...Those beliefs aren't actionable.

yodsanklai 10y ago

On the issue of global warming, I highly recommend this talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w6ruZ_5nPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w6ruZ_5nPE

known 10y ago

I just started using http://ecosia.org/ http://ecosia.org/

beloch 10y ago

One problem with the section on Canada is that they look at CO2 extraction. Canada looks like a big contributor here because it's a net exporter of fossil fuels. However, focusing on supply hasn't worked at any point to date and isn't likely to work at any point in the future. As long as people are buying fossil fuels, extractors are going to produce them and find (less efficient/more dangerous) ways to get them to market if infrastructure like pipelines are blocked. The only efforts that have ever successfully curbed fossil fuel production temporarily were OPEC's self-imposed caps, which were entirely motivated towards maintaining high oil prices and not reducing CO_2 emissions. It seems logical to address the demand instead, but this is hard too. EV's are a promising technology, but have next to no impact at present. A few of the richer people in the richest nations on Earth can afford them, but that's it. We need to find ways to curb fossil fuel consumption by typical drivers in places like Mumbai and Shanghai. The problem is, battery technology just isn't getting cheap enough fast enough. If we could produce a sub $5000 compact EV today, it would still take several decades for them to replace the majority of cars currently in use. EV's also need to be able to compete in agriculture, where vehicles need to be capable of endurance well beyond road cars. If we want to get CO_2 levels under control quickly we're basically going to have to tax gasoline to the point where people are forced to drive less and pay more for everything that uses fossil fuels in their production, including food. We might even need a mileage tax that scales with income so that the rich are forced to drive less too. Unfortunately, this basically means asking politicians around the world to fall on their swords and take one for the planet. If we can't address supply or demand, all we can really hope for is to develop the technology to get us out of this bind. Either a magical battery/capacitor technology, scalable carbon sinks, or some kind of geoengineering project like a space-sunshade to partially block the sun. It's risky to wait for tech to be developed, and perhaps even riskier to engage in geoengineering projects that may have unintended side-effects. I like the sunshade idea[1] because it's easily reversible, but it's still risky and nobody is seriously working on the idea as far as I know. However, it seems as though putting payload into orbit might become radically cheaper before EV's have a global impact. This option may be more attractive in a decade or so, and may be a more important use of commercial spaceflight capability than starting a colony on Mars. A lot of people are against any form of geoengineering because they believe it will give people hope for an easy solution without the need to curb our use of fossil fuels. The problem is, people are already hoping that easy solutions, like EV's, will enable them to carry on as usual without serious sacrifice. Given the global lack of will to sacrifice quality of life for the good of the environment, we need to have other options available. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade

harwoodleon 10y ago

This is very simple, but something most of the HN people won't be able to do. STOP FLYING! Passenger numbers have gone up in a step change with CO2 count over the last 50 years, contrails compound the effect. The sad thing is - you will all look at this message and think. Why should I have to change? Why me, surely someone else must fix this? Don't wait for governments, don't wait for industry. Make individual choices that affect the output now and we will see a reduction (eventually). The psychology in this tells us not to lose hope, but to look to technology to solve the issues. But we must act responsibly in the meantime.

FooBarWidget 10y ago
What's the alternative? As an EU company, if I need to do business in the US then I can't say "let's schedule a meeting in a year while I go on a boat cruise". Virtual meetings only work to an extent -- they lack a human interaction touch. I suppose I can take a train if I go on holiday somewhere in the EU, but insane prices for international trains as well as other shenanigans are not making it an attractive choice.
- harwoodleon 10y ago
  I told you, you are symptomatic of the short-termist attitude that persists - we must carry on whatever the cost. The alternative is that you make do, because this is a serious situation, far more serious than a business deal. Ironically, your future income and the income and quality of your children's lives will be directly affected by your actions today. But, people just put it away in their minds, file it under "well, can't possibly do that" and forget about it. If the worst that can happen is some scary figures pop out of the news now and again, what's the point in changing? We will all look back in ten years and say, we had a chance to do something, but we didn't.
  - BearGoesChirp 10y ago
    You make the sacrifices, you go out of business and are replaced by someone who doesn't who will continue flying. If anything you have only made the situation worse for you. It is a prisoner dilemma of the grandest scale that has origins predating multi-cellular organisms.

d_theorist 10y ago

I don't understand why more isn't done to implement large-scale carbon capture and storage technologies. There are quite well-understood and proven technologies to do this, but they don't seem to be on anybody's agenda. Trying to bring down CO2 concentration by convincing people to give up cars, food and planes is obviously a losing strategy. If we're serious about preventing climate change we're going to have to actively remove carbon from the atmosphere. But nobody seems interested.

mikelyons 10y ago
Aren't trees the ultimate carbon-capture devices? They are solar powered, turn co2 into building materials, and require very little maintenance.
- d_theorist 10y ago
  Not really. There's something called the "Forest Carbon Cycle". Forests do not statically capture carbon long term. They are constantly taking carbon in but also releasing it through the death of trees and through the soil. Trees can temporarily capture carbon, but ultimately it will be released again unless they are burned. They also take up a lot of space. [EDIT] I should probably clarify that I have nothing against trees, and they definitely can help with sequestration, and they have lots nice properties. I was mainly reacting against "the ultimate carbon-capture devices", which they really are not.
  - likelynew 10y ago
    > Unless they are burned Won't burning the tress will change the stored carbon in the tree to carbon dioxide?
    - DennisP 10y ago
      He's probably referring to biochar. Turning biomass into charcoal, grinding it into powder, and working it into soil is known to sequester carbon for at least a thousand years.

p0nce 10y ago

By now it would be good manner for the richest people to invest massively in carbon sequestration.

qwtel 10y ago

> Limiting the global mean temperature rise to below 2°C with a probability of 66% would require an energy transition of exceptional scope, depth and speed. It seems that sovereigns don't quite think like individuals: If this was a personal decision, I'd just put my hopes in boarding a plain that has a 66% chance of making it to its destination (or at least that's what the pilot, in an effort to look respectable, is telling me). But since I got the ticket on sale, I've convinced myself that it's "rational" to take the gamble. There's other tickets on sale, but they'd cost 30 - 50% of my total net worth. Clearly, I think to myself, it's better to die in a plain crash than to live in a smaller house.

spangry 10y ago
Although it's fashionable to denigrate 'economists' nowadays, I see this as a consequence of sovereigns not thinking like economists. At the macro level, it's a classic collective action problem - the tragedy of the commons [0]. There are many well-known and efficient solutions. So I guess the real problem is a lack of political will. The US and China are mostly to blame for the lack of global action. Yes this is probably 'unfair', but it still happens to be the case. Everyone comes to the bargaining table when those two are there. Heck, they could easily enforce a bilateral agreement on the rest of the world if they really wanted to. And at the national level, there's so much well-intentioned yet nonetheless sub-optimal, or frankly stupid, policy responses to this issue. Targeted technology subsidies, target abatement schemes, 'renewable energy targets' (i.e. picked winner targets, or 'cap and trade' without the trade) etc. It makes me want to scream. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
PeterisP 10y ago
First, like in Prisoner's dilemma, if some sovereigns take drastic action, they pay the price but don't achieve the goal anyway unless almost all others are cooperating. Second, the interests are not aligned - those who'd need to take the largest investment are those who'd suffer the least from consequences; and those who need the goal the most can't change that much.

cmarschner 10y ago

NASA scientists wrote the first article on effects of CO2 on the climate in 1981 [1]. We are in year 36 after this, and people like the president of the United States are still denying that it exists. [1] https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pd...

harwoodleon 10y ago
The truth is it took us 80 years to get into this mess, it will probably take 80 years to get us out of it. Hopefully technology can provide a path.

6d6b73 10y ago

The real problem is not with type of tech we're using to power our devices, but with how many of these devices we have, and how efficiently we're using them. From the they we're born we are molded into customers who will want m0re stuff. The other problem with our worlds is that our economies are ponzi schemes that can't grow forever. To keep our economies viable we need to increase our production by few % every year. While 1-4% does not seem too much, in reality for economies at current scales this is enormous amount of stuff that needs to be produced just to support our current employment rates. To support that increase we need more energy, and since that energy comes at a higher and higher cost (environmentally, economically and energetically) we need to add more generation capabilities every year. This broken system needs to be changed, not because it's unfair, wasteful, and plain stupid but simply because it's physically impossible to grow at a 3% rate forever.

alistproducer2 10y ago

IMO a large part of the failure to deal with this problem has to do with political cowardice on the part of the left. Sometimes if you're just honest with people as opposed to constantly trying to sugar coat, lie, or guilt trip people things go better. It's truly baffling to me that dim-witted local politicians can constantly convince local populations into tax increases and blowing up of local coffers to build sports teams new stadiums when they already have functional ones. On the other hand you're telling me it's impossible to sell a tax that is going to be used to literally save the world?

cmrdporcupine 10y ago
In the west there is almost no "left" left. A classical socialist or radical left response to this crisis would be entirely different: "we need a planned economy." The modern simpering liberal "left" just moans about carbon offsets and sign a few non-binding international agreements, and continue things as usual.
jbattle 10y ago
Take a look at this survey Yale did: http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us-2016/ http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/yco... The found that even though large %'s of americans believe the climate is changing, a relatively small number (nationwide) think it will actually affect them personally. Aside from CA/FL/TX and a few other scattered points, people think they will escape the coming changes unscathed
chasing 10y ago
> IMO a large part of the failure to deal with this problem has to do with political cowardice on the part of the left. The LEFT? http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/the-politics-of-climate/ http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/the-politics-of-climat...

randomerr 10y ago

For their pretty graphic it looks like Asia is the biggest offender. So why doesn't the UN slap sanctions on them until they comply with international standards.

artur_makly 10y ago

This perversion all started when we went from Hunter/Gathers -> Agrarian Farmers -> "Luxury Trap" - Yuval Noah Harari on the Rise of Homo Deus -- link updated [1]https://youtu.be/9M7OaGXXtQs?t=3h6m29s https://youtu.be/9M7OaGXXtQs?t=3h6m29s

SamPhillips 10y ago

Elected officials follow public opinion, and large-scale protest is an effective way to demonstrate and shape opinion. Join other technologists at the Climate March in 2 weeks (April 29). https://techsector.peoplesclimate.org/ https://techsector.peoplesclimate.org/ Something needs to change, we're on the wrong track, and now is the time for you to take action (plus, meet nice people!).

doofus3 10y ago

Stop eating animals and buying new shit every day and this problem will go away.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

polotics 10y ago

Wow thanks for the Mulvaney quote. Not spending money on climate change maybe, you just wait for what climate disruption will cost.

freeto 10y ago

Cows produce way more warming gases than our petrol headed cars. Eat less meat!!!

freeto 10y ago

Cows/methane produce more global warming gasses than our petrol headed cars. Eat less meat!!!