32 ms·
Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change
- d33 8y agoWhite on black? Seriously? Thanks to Firefox for reading mode.
- Jare 8y agoYou may want to keep scrolling and check the whole (and it's huge) post.
- czechdeveloper 8y agoFunny, I do opposite. I have reading mode set to white on black.
- CalRobert 8y agoI was delighted they had white on black, and saddened that it disappeared quickly. Fortunately "light text on dark BG" is a helpful Firefox plugin for this.
- pier25 8y agoIt hurts my eyes
- jorisw 8y agoSeems appropriate for a piece on the end of the world.
- erikrothoff 8y agoWhy isn't there a billion dollar reward to any person or company that comes up with a cost-effective way to capture carbon from the air and convert back to solid carbon? I'd love to understand the physics (or chemistry? maybe economy?) that prevents this from materialising.
- jamesblonde 8y agoWe have a solution - reduce carbon/methane emissions. Why bet the bank on a technology that hasn't been invented yet? If you said to somebody with 100 billion dollars: capture as much carbon as you can. What would they do? I would just plant trees for that money. Sure, we need basic research on carbon sequestration, but we need fundamental breakthroughs to make it happen. Time, we don't have.
- nmeofthestate 8y ago>We have a solution - reduce carbon/methane emissions. Why bet the bank on a technology that hasn't been invented yet? Unfortunately we haven't invented the technology to implement your broad brush "solution" either. In fact, I'm skeptical about the claim Climate Change could have been solved generations ago, given that we still haven't developed the means to do it yet. Edit: okay, perhaps nuclear could provide us with the masses of power generation we need, but that's been ruled out.
- majewsky 8y ago> In fact, I'm skeptical about the claim Climate Change could have been solved generations ago, given that we still haven't developed the means to do it yet. Path dependence. We have not developed the means to solve climate change from where we are now.
- erikrothoff 8y agoWhy bet the bank on us humans collectively being able to reduce all our emissions? There are problems will all approaches, a quick Google search pokes some holes in why planting trees is not a good idea: https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/2639/how-many-trees-would-i-have-to-plant-to-solve-global-warming https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/2639/how-ma... So the billion dollar reward would be quite small sum in the grand scheme of things. And for example with a carbon tax, where collectors could offset emitters, it might also become a quite lucrative business.
- ForHackernews 8y ago
- jamesblonde 8y agoGreat read. It's always interesting to see how individuals (John Sununu, Rush Limbaugh) have the capacity to change the arc of history - against prevailing wisdom and agreed facts. Sure, they had massive support from the oil industry, but Europe also has an oil industry and it didn't change Europe's stance on climate change. For a real-time update on climate change, just look at the canary in the cold-mine - Arctic Sea Ice. I have a look daily in summer to see if we will again break the record minimum and when the summer will be ice-free there - it will happen within a decade or two at the most. For Arctic sea ice voyeurs, check this out: https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/ https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/
- yostrovs 8y agoUS emissions of CO2 have fallen much faster than Europe's. Europe likes to talk a lot but not to compromise. So while they could be fracking and displacing dirty energy sources, they instead use oil and coal where the US uses natural gas.
- StavrosK 8y agoDo you have any sources on that? "Falling much faster" by itself doesn't say much when EU might already be emitting ten times less than the US, for all I know.
- growlist 8y agoCan't vouch for the comparison you are questioning, but did find this: 'Germany emitted more greenhouse gasses in 2016 than in the previous year, but is still seen as a positive model for the rest of the world.' https://euobserver.com/environment/137298 https://euobserver.com/environment/137298 Best thing we could have to reduce co2 would be a massive global recession I'd say, unless that is things got so bad that we had to revert to cutting down trees to survive.
- jamesblonde 8y agoOf all countries to pick on, Germany are the one doing the most to change to a carbon-free economy. Read up on the Energiewende -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiewende_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiewende_in_Germany It is govt policy to reduce Co2 emissions by 80–95% by 2050. Germany is at the top in on-shore wind, off-shore wind, and solar. If they had kept nuclear power, they could be doing even better. I am sure closing the nuclear power plants will cause increases in Co2, but they are really trying to do their bit.
- agumonkey 8y agoWho is into low tech and (near) zero waste ? How much would you be happy to lose in today's practices ? (I'm curious about what people need/want)
- cup-of-tea 8y agoPeople want more than they already have.
- agumonkey 8y agountil they can't, are we that blind ?
- nmeofthestate 8y agoNo solution to climate change involves persuading everyone to choose to live in energy poverty. Get that out of the way and look for workable solutions. Without a workable solution there will be no solution.
- agumonkey 8y agoirk. energy poverty ? there's a middle point between energy waste+opulence and poverty.
- nmeofthestate 8y agoThis isn't actually true (although there are billions who do, understandably) - a lot of people would be fine with continuing with their level of energy usage. The problem is how to produce that much energy without releasing CO2.
- cup-of-tea 8y agoWho said anything about energy usage. People don't care about their energy usage, they only care about what they get from it. Every time we make something more efficient we don't save energy, people just take more.
- GreeniFi 8y agoWhoever posted that, thank you. It’s sort of devastating to read the oil industry engaged in psy-ops over such an important issue. I was saddened to read about the success of Duane Levine’s misinformation strategy and the effect it had. I’m not a pessimist, I believe the future remains to be written. No-one knows the future and therefore we must look at different scenarios and then choose indicators to assess which scenario we are in. Right now the scenario we are in is “someone invent something to suck the carbon out”, because already without the carbon vacuum, we have locked in quite a high level of climate change. What astounds me is Peter von Thiel, cynical enough to recognize the likelihood of climate chaos sufficiently to have bought his out in New Zealand, yet also to back Trump. I can only conclude he may be a sociopath.
- yesyesno 8y agoOuch. I read this and I am completely confused about what to do with the rest of the time I have left. Should I even bother with my current career in tech, or would it be better to quit it and do something that could have even a slight impact now? These articles are great, but preaching to the choir. What should any of us do? I'm seriously and sincerely asking. Are there any suggestions, from a personal stand point i.e. excluding a completely new economic model and government structure? Is it to drive less and cut out meat? (done) Buy less stuff? Support the right organizations and political candidates? What if one is doing all of those things already, now what? Just sit here and watch our homes go up in flames as the entire place becomes a desert? Some actionable things would be great to have.
- Reason077 8y agoDon’t give up on tech. It’s technology that offers the best hope of solving these problems. Consider applying your skills to the renewable energy sector, companies working on transport electrification, and other “clean tech” sectors. These are exciting growth industries and you’ll be making a difference.
- catawbasam 8y agoYup. Also energy monitoring and efficiency. Lots of cheap improvements are still available, especially in areas with old building stock.
- ForHackernews 8y agoIf you want the honest but depressing answer: it's probably too late. Don't have kids unless you want them to have a worse life than you've had. On the plus side, the worst consequences from climate change will occur after we're dead. Just enjoy the rest of your life and try not to think about it too much. After all, that's what everyone else has been doing.
- digitalsushi 8y agoEven if the math ends up that we are indeed doomed, this type of behavior is not aligned with the human spirit. If we get lung cancer from smoking, we can learn from it, defy it, and /stop smoking/. Or we can become the vice incarnate, and die with the smug satisfaction that we were right because we gave no hope. I want to spend the rest of my life on a planet struggling to survive, not partying to death.
- netgusto 8y agoWhy is this entry already on page 2 of HN? Seems a bit fast given the popularity and the fact that it was posted 2 hours ago (also, compared to those that are present on p1) -- edit: we're now on page 3 just 30 minutes after my comment.
- jamesblonde 8y agoWow. People in power really dont want us to discuss this topic.
- shusson 8y agowondering the same thing, people flagging it?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- netgusto 8y agoWow sinking so fast. Slot 47 RN, on its way to page 3.
- lazysheepherd 8y agoI am on the watch and in last 5 minutes this submission got 6 new votes but have fallen 8 places! Before we attempt to solve climate crisis, first we should solve BIGOTRY CRISIS. I have seen this happening before too. Why does HN allows anonymous flagging? I bet anything if it were unanimous we would able to frame bigots who only flag because of their stupid personal world view. Has there been any efforts to make flagging more transparent-perhaps where I can contribute or should we raise a new issue on that?
- netgusto 8y agoWhen will we release our trillionth tonne of CO2 in the athmosphere? http://trillionthtonne.org/ http://trillionthtonne.org/
- dzuc 8y agoWhy was this removed from the front page?
- netgusto 8y agoYes it looks as someone sunk it real hard? Or maybe has it been flagged?
- throwaway5752 8y agoThere is a vocal minority of people don't believe the overwhelming scientific consensus about global warming, and they downvote, flag, and argue in these posts aggressively. Consequently, the topic gets the reputation of being "divisive". It's playbook how to make an important topic taboo, and an extraordinary success for the people that don't believe the overwhelming scientific consensus about the impact of modern human activity on the climate (or believe it, but profit from the status quo).
- androidgirl 8y agoThis is just a silly idea and doesn't fix all the problems, except heat. Could we position a sheet, or a carpet of asteroids in a Lagrange point around the Earth, or as a sort of reverse Dyson sphere? I heard that such a thing could be used to cool down Venus. That doesn't address the ocean acidification, or mass extinctions, etc. Certain high-light plants would also likely perish without intervention. Also, solar energy on Earth would be stifled.
- lazysheepherd 8y agoProblem I see is not climate change really. Real problem is not that we have problems, but the fact that we create problems. Unless human society transform into a more reactive structure, we will generate new problems or stand short in reacting naturally generated ones. And one of those problems will see the end of us if not climate change. It is much like playing Russian roulette in the risk of extinction. We just may avert the climate change but some next problem will be our bullet.
- amorphous 8y agoHow can a dev get into clean-tech today? What are the current problems a software engineer could solve? Please, someone with the knowledge give us a path. I wish there was an HN on clean-tech with emphasis on IT
- cgopalan 8y agoI am trying to build exactly this. Check out http://kindandgreennews.com http://kindandgreennews.com Its been live for about 2 months and I am looking to build up the community. Currently you have to notify me by email to give you a login, but I am planning to add the "sign up" feature within a month. Animal welfare/rights is most important to me, but I realize that its all connected and can be brought about mostly by investing in clean tech, clean meat, and fighting climate change.
- blackstache 8y agoBret Victor has an exploration of this question[0] (2015) that I have found helpful. [0]: http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/ http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/
- mattygh 8y agoI agree, would love to find HN for cleantech. I went through this search recently - companies at the nexus of software and cleantech in the bay area, here was my shortlist so you can see what kinds of things these companies are working on: AutoGrid, Bidgely, Ohm Connect, Tesla, Utility API, Omnidian, Stem, Advanced Microgrid Solutions If you're thinking of starting something yourself, energy seems to be an especially idiosyncratic industry that I think doesn't lend itself easily to outside in solutions, it really pays to work in it for a couple years to soak up the knowledge. You'll find tons of opportunities once you're on the inside. A few of the better opportunities that come to mind from my point of view: 1. Software & analytics based EE and DR (Bidgely, Autogrid, Ohmconnect, First Fuel) 2. Grid analytics, especially around citing and incorporating renewables, controlling batteries to maximize value to the grid and owner (AMS, Stem, Tesla) 3. Customer acquisition for cleantech products - small scale (helping sell devices to homes) and large scale (helping developing projects) All of these things have significant software and analytics bent and will be key parts of the solution
- lacker 8y agoI feel like this article underestimates the difficulty of stopping climate change. Would China have remained poor, if in the 1980's a better anti-climate-change treaty had been signed? Would the world have discovered better clean technology? There is a tendency to assume that treaties just solve the problem. I suspect that a different treaty would have failed, just like current negotiations are failing, because of the immense cost of slowing climate change.
- Aloha 8y agoI feel much the same. I think the concerns about climate change are wildly overstated for the developed world. There are some more concerns when subsistence farming is the primary way of living, but humans (and humanity) adapt, and we adapt with great alacrity.
- throwaway5752 8y ago"concerns about climate change are wildly overstated for the developed world" Can I ask you why you think that is the case? Why would industrialized farming and the food supply chain that feeds the developed world do better?
- stale2002 8y agoThe simple answer is because modern day society has a lot of money, and decades in the future we are going to have even MORE money. Compound interest is a hell of a drug, and GDP growth. is showing no signs of slowing. What I mean by this is that we as a society arent fully exploiting our land even CLOSE to as much as it could be. Our food production system operates in the normal economic model of marginal costs. We could produce way more food if we wanted, it would just cost more. And in the future, if global warming has reduced our food production capacity, we wouldn't run out of food. The only thing that would do is force us to use these more expensive methods of food production. And we have more than enough money now, and definitely in the future, to pay for it. Food is a small percentage of everyone's paychecks. Costs going up by 20% doesn't mean much.
- darepublic 8y agoCan anyone supply a tldr?
- mpr6 8y agoA group of scientist and environmental lobbyists worked hard so that by the late 70's everyone knew about the problem of rising CO2 emissions and the impending doom of a changing global climate. The issue required action and limitations on the use and burning of natural resources. That messed with the status quo too much so the people with the power at the time said fuck it. The 'it' being young people, their kids, and their kid's kids.
- rement 8y agoI find it really interesting that this has been published along with all the news/media about how hot it is in Europe/Asia and in the end of the hottest month of the year for the United States.
- mikestew 8y agoIt's weird, reading that article reminds me about all of that talk in the 80s. It was a real, undebated (for the most part as far as my bubble went) thing, the question was, "what are we going to do about it?" Ideas were put forth, etc. And then it's like we talked ourselves out of it. Then someone found an old copy of Time magazine at a yard sale, and said, "aha! See, they can't make up their minds!" No, "their minds" were kind of made up, don't let a crap article from a weekly news magazine sway you. I haven't finished the article; I'll do that tonight, because I'm kind of curious in NYT's take on why we changed our minds.
- rwallace 8y agoOkay, the article claims there was a lost opportunity to do something about the problem in the eighties, but reading the actual text, the presented historical facts (which are very interesting and very well presented!), I'm not seeing it. What I'm seeing is that the world was not ready to face the problem back then. And it seems to me the reason why not is economic. At the end of the day, people care more about the roof over their heads than they do about global problems. In the eighties, we didn't have much by way of good substitutes for fossil fuel. So the message people heard was that they would have to accept economic hardship for the sake of the environment. That was not what people wanted to hear. The lesson to learn from this is that we need to address the economic issues alongside the environmental ones. The message needs to not be that you must accept unemployment and poverty. The message needs to be that the task of transitioning the world to renewable energy is doable but enormous - and has the potential to create millions upon millions of jobs, as well as breaking the resource curse that decoupled the interests of the rulers from those of the people. That successfully turning our hands to the new energy industries will bring more prosperity than holding onto the old ones.
- ianai 8y agoI think nothing will be politically viable until people, and large amounts of them, are hurt by encroaching waters or inhospitable land.
- rwallace 8y agoMaybe. But hundreds of millions of people have already been hurt by disappearing jobs and falling real wages. To say nothing about that is to let the narrative of sacrifice stand. I think it would be worth focusing on the potential to create jobs.
- ianai 8y agoIt’s absolutely worth it. I just can’t imagine anything quieting the deniers down other than something very clear and undeniable.
- cmurf 8y agoSix weeks after Hansen’s testimony, Exxon’s manager of science and strategy development, Duane LeVine, prepared an internal strategy paper urging the company to “emphasize the uncertainty in scientific conclusions.” This shortly became the default position of the entire sector. LeVine, it so happened, served as chairman of the global petroleum industry’s Working Group on Global Climate Change, created the same year, which adopted Exxon’s position as its own. This is lying, spreading lies, with malicious intent. There was no scientific uncertainty. A proper public policy would be to wipe out the Exxon, and all petrol companies, shareholders. Claw back all profits from all shareholders proportionally going back 40 years, all profits on those profits, and unwind the companies over the next 20 years strictly to public benefit. And if that is still not enough to pay for fixing what has been damaged, the corporate veil should be pierced and make every shareholder of these companies personally liable. And I'm one of those shareholders - I've owned BP directly and indirectly through funds. And it is also quite damning for an unlimited 1st amendment concept that proposes telling lies is a right. Unlimited opinions however unpopular should be protected, but spreading proven falsehoods should not be protected. It should be used as evidence the speaker is culpable, in part, of the ensuing damage. Criminal? Perhaps. Civil? Absolutely.