4 ms·

I don’t think the insect apocalypse is getting its attention stolen by climate change. I just don’t think enough people care. I mean, look at France. They are

I don’t think the insect apocalypse is getting its attention stolen by climate change. I just don’t think enough people care. I mean, look at France. They are having violent riots because the gas prices were increased to fight climate change. I know that it’s easy for me, a relatively wealthy Scandinavian, to not worry about gas prices, but even if these people are struggling to make ends meet, they are right now, actively fighting to kill the future of their children. How the hell we going to change anything when the status of the world is like this?

sfvisser 8y ago
I think the people in France are acting very rational here. The artifical increase in gas prices directly hits their state of being right now and that of their kids. There is no uncertainty about that. Global warning may or may not make life shitty in some future scenario. Why do they, who are already poor, need to pay the price right now? I think most people rather want to be not poor in a world with global warning than poor in one without. I think I would.
- smhost 8y ago
  agreed. 100 companies are responsible for 70% of global emissions, and you're punishing the people? come on, that's not right.
  - gerhardi 8y ago
    Do you think that those companies would exist in their current form without the consumers (/the actual population) buying stuff made by those companies?
    - pojzon 8y ago
      Average joe is not educated enough/has to worry about everyday living, to actually pay attention to those companies practices. Its on the goverment to regulate them in such a way that would allow our spicies to thrive in the future. Unfortunetely fast gain motion sparked by capitalism is also in the vains of people responsible for legiatlation. Humans have too many self-destruct mechanisms embedded in them to accomplish anything in the long run as a civilisation. We either have to change drastically or face extinction. Untill the people who CAN make a difference start to care - there is not a lot masses can do. Grouping in modern age to the size that can influence those people at power is very hard.
      - dgzl 8y ago
        Essentially, we're the problem because we've asked the market to build us the problem?
- elorant 8y ago
  Your dichotomy is false. In a world with global warming there would be no humans. It's an extinction level event and few of us seem to understand it.
  - lkdjjdjjjdskjd 8y ago
    No humans? Few humans, but why no humans? Because everything would be under water?
    - elorant 8y ago
      Because there are vast quantities of methane under the permafrost and if they escape to the atmosphere the temperature will rise by a lot.
      - EGreg 8y ago
        By how much? Any serious analyses online about this? What would a runaway greenhouse effect realistically look like? Venus?
        elorant 8y ago
        You can find a lot of information in threads that have been discussed here: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=permafrost&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?query=permafrost&sort=byPopularity&p...
        lkdjjdjjjdskjd 8y ago
        Sorry, not browsing through hundreds of articles about all sorts of things being found in permafrost. Any direct links to your particular doomsday scenario? Doesn't Methane burn? Maybe another energy source for the future...
        elorant 8y ago
- campercoder 8y ago
  Those people protesting a rise in their fuel costs should first be jailed for about 5 years. After that they can choose: * receive a special card which will allow them to continue to purchase fuel at 4x the normal rate. Or: * be deported to go life in subsaharan Africa. There should be NO SYMPATHY for such an attitude at this point in human existence. Time to wake up and smell some covfefe.
- philipps 8y ago
  “Global warming may or may not make life shitty in some future scenario.” I think you’re trying to rationalize the position of the protesters, but this is a dangerous rationalization. Arguing that it “may or may not” lead to catastrophic consequences leaves the door open for doubt. I understand if poor people or nations are frustrated, and I agree that the rich have a responsibility to show leadership, but there should be no doubt that climate change will most negatively affect the poor.
  - sfvisser 8y ago
    There is always reason to doubt predictions about the future. Maybe we are coming up with the ultimate renewable energy source in terms of both externalities and economics, maybe we are rich enough to take preventive measures against the negative effects, maybe we geo-engineer or way out it, maybe the current climate models are completely bogus. I don’t know. You don’t know.
TazeTSchnitzel 8y ago
I think people being upset about rising fossil fuel taxes are not unreasonable. It hurts them in their immediate day to day lives. The government could try methods of fighting climate change that hurt them less.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  Everyone's day to day life needs to change if we are to resolve this. That almost certainly means making undesirable things ever more expensive. I don't know the detail of the French measures, but I could understand people being upset if the taxes are on the citizen but sparing industrial polluters. Or if there aren't adequate alternatives, such as promoting electric vehicles.

sfvisser 8y ago

I think the people in France are acting very rational here. The artifical increase in gas prices directly hits their state of being right now and that of their kids. There is no uncertainty about that. Global warning may or may not make life shitty in some future scenario. Why do they, who are already poor, need to pay the price right now? I think most people rather want to be not poor in a world with global warning than poor in one without. I think I would.

smhost 8y ago
agreed. 100 companies are responsible for 70% of global emissions, and you're punishing the people? come on, that's not right.
- gerhardi 8y ago
  Do you think that those companies would exist in their current form without the consumers (/the actual population) buying stuff made by those companies?
  - pojzon 8y ago
    Average joe is not educated enough/has to worry about everyday living, to actually pay attention to those companies practices. Its on the goverment to regulate them in such a way that would allow our spicies to thrive in the future. Unfortunetely fast gain motion sparked by capitalism is also in the vains of people responsible for legiatlation. Humans have too many self-destruct mechanisms embedded in them to accomplish anything in the long run as a civilisation. We either have to change drastically or face extinction. Untill the people who CAN make a difference start to care - there is not a lot masses can do. Grouping in modern age to the size that can influence those people at power is very hard.
    - dgzl 8y ago
      Essentially, we're the problem because we've asked the market to build us the problem?
elorant 8y ago
Your dichotomy is false. In a world with global warming there would be no humans. It's an extinction level event and few of us seem to understand it.
- lkdjjdjjjdskjd 8y ago
  No humans? Few humans, but why no humans? Because everything would be under water?
  - elorant 8y ago
    Because there are vast quantities of methane under the permafrost and if they escape to the atmosphere the temperature will rise by a lot.
    - EGreg 8y ago
      By how much? Any serious analyses online about this? What would a runaway greenhouse effect realistically look like? Venus?
      - elorant 8y ago
        You can find a lot of information in threads that have been discussed here: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=permafrost&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?query=permafrost&sort=byPopularity&p...
        lkdjjdjjjdskjd 8y ago
        Sorry, not browsing through hundreds of articles about all sorts of things being found in permafrost. Any direct links to your particular doomsday scenario? Doesn't Methane burn? Maybe another energy source for the future...
        elorant 8y ago
campercoder 8y ago
Those people protesting a rise in their fuel costs should first be jailed for about 5 years. After that they can choose: * receive a special card which will allow them to continue to purchase fuel at 4x the normal rate. Or: * be deported to go life in subsaharan Africa. There should be NO SYMPATHY for such an attitude at this point in human existence. Time to wake up and smell some covfefe.
philipps 8y ago
“Global warming may or may not make life shitty in some future scenario.” I think you’re trying to rationalize the position of the protesters, but this is a dangerous rationalization. Arguing that it “may or may not” lead to catastrophic consequences leaves the door open for doubt. I understand if poor people or nations are frustrated, and I agree that the rich have a responsibility to show leadership, but there should be no doubt that climate change will most negatively affect the poor.
- sfvisser 8y ago
  There is always reason to doubt predictions about the future. Maybe we are coming up with the ultimate renewable energy source in terms of both externalities and economics, maybe we are rich enough to take preventive measures against the negative effects, maybe we geo-engineer or way out it, maybe the current climate models are completely bogus. I don’t know. You don’t know.

TazeTSchnitzel 8y ago

I think people being upset about rising fossil fuel taxes are not unreasonable. It hurts them in their immediate day to day lives. The government could try methods of fighting climate change that hurt them less.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Everyone's day to day life needs to change if we are to resolve this. That almost certainly means making undesirable things ever more expensive. I don't know the detail of the French measures, but I could understand people being upset if the taxes are on the citizen but sparing industrial polluters. Or if there aren't adequate alternatives, such as promoting electric vehicles.