7 ms·
In 20 years the changes are huge. Seeing the data in this perspective is really scary, I don't understand how can there be countries ignoring this.
by kimikelku 8y ago
In 20 years the changes are huge.
Seeing the data in this perspective is really scary, I don't understand how can there be countries ignoring this.
- SiempreViernes 8y agoIn fairness, part of the sudden increase comes from the choice of a reference period ending in 1980, if you had chosen the preceding century the red would show up earlier and more gradually.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- roryisok 8y agoI think about this every day. It's terrifying. Especially in that it will get hotter going forward. We can only hope that visualisations like this and increasing heatwaves and wildfires will stir world governments into faster, more drastic action. We might still be able to reverse the trend, by cutting CO2 back to pre-1990 levels or further, by finding ways to extract actively extract carbon, and if necessary, by deflecting more solar radiation. I don't want to think about what will happen if we fail.
- rectang 8y agoAn incredibly small number of incredibly wealthy individuals buy the compliance of our government through the legalized bribery of political contributions. The near-term interests of those individuals are not aligned with the long-term interests of the rest of humankind.
- colordrops 8y agoIt's pretty clear to many that this is the problem. What can we do about it?
- rectang 8y agoWe need to build the moral and intellectual case for diminishing inequality until its momentum is irresistible. Perhaps there's an analogue in the abolitionist movement of the nineteenth century? Showing the connection between global warming and unlimited political donations post-Citizens-United is part of that.
- colordrops 8y agoI wonder if there's some way clearly and simply visualize the connection between global warming and actions of elite power brokers. This would be easy to share and quickly grasp on social media.
- clarkevans 8y agoWe have concentrated economic and political power. I think we need to be distributing power and I think Cooperatives are a practical way to accomplish this.
- colordrops 8y agoHow do you go about dissolving the leverage of current power brokers and distributing it? They aren't going to give up their power so easily.
- Udik 8y ago> An incredibly small number of incredibly wealthy individuals buy the compliance of our government... Conspiracy theory.
- rectang 8y agoDo you accept the reality of global warming? If not, we have nothing to talk about. Flat earthers and Galileans are irreconcilable. But if you accept global warming, what other explanation can you present for the continued inaction of our government?
- graeme 8y agoNot OP, but I think people in general are predisposed to: 1. Not believe in things they can’t see 2. Especially when it is convenient not to. The reasoning goes “if global warming were true, we’d have to change a lot of things. I don’t want to change things. It can’t be true”. There’s also a tendency to believe that slow moving things can’t possibly cause big changes. The reasoning goes: “The earth has always seemed basically similar, so why would it change” This reasonong doesn’t happen at a conscious level, it’s more of an impulse that guides what beliefs people let in, and don’t. What rationalizations they use, etc. If it were a conspiracy of elites, you’d see mass support for things like carbon taxes. Instead, they’re unpopular. Now, you could argue that some rich elites have used propaganda campaigns to convince people global warming is false. I think this is correct, but I also think these propaganda campaigns were aided by what people want to believe. As for governments: they can’t undertake politically unpopular actions. They’ll get voted out.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- rectang 8y agoSo, we're in agreement about the two most important points. 1. Global warming is real. (Duh.) 2. Political contributions from the fabulously wealthy are buying government inaction. Now, it may be that, like many on HN, you value inequality and adamantly support the "free speech" rights of the fabulously wealthy few to dominate the U.S. political system through unlimited political contributions. But global warming becomes harder and harder to deny with each passing year. Maybe it will take the loss of the entire Florida peninsula, but eventually all but the most hardcore will have to face reality. Even if you're not reachable, eventually enough others will be reachable.
- awvcs 8y ago> I don't understand how can there be countries ignoring this. Any preventable scenario requires people ignoring it to happen. Which I guess in itself isn't very helpful. It is just that people tend to assume that dysfunction isn't normal when it is usually the opposite. That anything functional often requires long deliberate and concerted efforts. There are for instance still plenty of people dying in traffic.
- matt4077 8y agoDysfunction largely isn't normal. The universe of things that are going well is far greater than that of issues that threaten us. It's just that we really don't pay attention to the earth not being destroyed by a meteor today.
- awvcs 8y agoI don't think "going well" is the same as not being dysfunctional. That someone can e.g. have decent life as a upper middle class American doesn't take away from the fact that the systems themselves are dysfunctional. There are millions and millions of people who lack de facto good access to health care, education, housing, transportation and other things that should be a basic in a modern society. In most of the rest of the world it might be even worse. Especially if you also consider the size of countries like India and China. Most countries have only had peace for less than a century. New technologies end up abusing, if not killing, hundreds of thousands of people. The global economy seem to experience one large crash every decade. A lot of things are getting better, but I certainly wouldn't say the are getting more functional. I would even say that a lot of development is more unsustainable today than ever. When a million people don't die in traffic every year I will get more hopeful about humanities ability to handle existential threats. Until then let's hope for a something smaller event first (I don't really know the distribution of something like a meteor).
- njarboe 8y agoIt is really a shame that nuclear power was demonized so early in its technological development by the same people and groups that are now advocating drastic reductions in fossil fuel consumption. It's not like global warming was not understood in 1980. If society had another 40 years of nuclear tech advancement under its belt, I'm sure China and India would be installing massive nuclear power infrastructure instead of a coal burning power plant a week (and India is just getting started).
- ghouse 8y agoI believe your information regarding China and India installing a coal power plant each week is out of date. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-power-capacity-idUSKBN1880P4 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-power-capacity-idUS... and https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/5/15/15634538/china-coal-cleaner https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/5/15/1563453...
- matt4077 8y agoIt's even worse that, long after nuclear power has lost on economic terms, the tech community still can't get over their infatuation with it. Yes, people sometimes had irrational fears. Yes, probabilities are unfortunately difficult to intuitively grasp. But it's not safety that doomed nuclear power, quite obviously: countries such as Russia and (to a lesser degree) China care little about environmental concerns. Nuclear power is simply too expensive. It's also surprising that the incredible improvements wind, and especially solar power have seen over the last decade or so are largely not the result of far-sighted technologists, but of the universally-despised political class: subsidising solar power production in Germany, as one example, must be among the most efficient government programs in history.
- roryisok 8y agoThe only country actively ignoring this is the US, as the only (only!) country in the world not signed up to the Paris climate accords. However, that's not to say the citizens, industries and local governments are aligned with this insane stance
- adrianN 8y agoThe other countries are signed up for the Paris accords, but just don't do anything. Global CO2 production is still climbing.
- danielvf 8y agoFYI, the US has made the largest reduction in amount of CO2 emissions of any country in the world. Per capital CO2 usage in the US has gone down 19-20%, starting while W Bush was president.
- roryisok 8y agoI did not know that and I'm glad to hear it
- mempko 8y agoI'm sure the great recession had some impact on that reduction. I wonder if anyone did a study.
- danielvf 8y agoI'm pretty sure it had an initial effect. But the biggest reduction was the big shift from coal power plants to plentiful, cheap natural gas from shale wells.