11 ms·
Sir David Attenborough: Climate change 'our greatest threat'
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- dragthor 8y agoWatch out for the ozone hole!
- olefoo 8y agoDo you realize the scale of the work, negotiation and monitoring that went into making the ozone hole not be a problem? It took decades and we still have people trying to cheat the agreement and produce CFCs. CO2 and greenhouse gases in general is a problem several orders of magnitude greater and we're already decades behind where we should be on slowing it down much less undoing it.
- zamalek 8y agoThe ozone hole is actually a huge success story, thanks to the collective effort of mankind we've undone the collective harm of mankind: it has started recovering.
- jabl 8y agoIndeed it is, but we were lucky in that it turned out to be possible to switch to non-CFC refrigerants at a, in the end, very low cost. And then we could continue with BAU. Climate change, otoh, demands massive changes in our energy systems, in what we eat, how (if?) we travel, etc. Technically, all doable, but politically, I'm very sceptical.
- AckSyn 8y agoI doubt the "what we eat" part but not the energy and transportation aspects of it. We could, in 20 years from the time the efforts were legislated in, phase out most petrol vehicles in exchange for electric and go to nuclear, solar, and hydroelectric for our power needs. It would work, too.
- WorldMaker 8y agoThe "what we eat" is tied into the energy and transportation aspects of it. Even ignoring the methane issues of industrially raised (beef) cattle, American agriculture / supermarket culture is hugely (over?) dependent on a world with dirt cheap energy and transportation. That isn't likely to change in the transition to electric vehicles and greener energy sources to the electric grid, but there is still a risk to existing grocery supply chains if the margins shift due to industrial transportation and energy costs.
- mccada 8y agoInstead of the usual doom and gloom, or abandoning all hope, are there any tangible ways a person can make a difference? Reducing consumption and consumerism, energy efficiency and habits changing surely help a little, but I'm interested in slightly longer term projects (say the next 10 years). It seems like we're on track for a huge crisis, but as group we're slow to react.
- craftyguy 8y agoThere are, but it requires sustained international cooperation at a level rarely (if ever) seen. The arbitrary flip-flopping of US policy regarding climate change mitigation isn't helping. The closest we have come to such a feat would be outlawing of some ozone depleting chemicals 2 decades ago. It's highly unlikely we will be able to accomplish this. Any sustained international response will undoubtedly be reactionary instead of proactive.
- ForHackernews 8y agoWe're already well past the point of "proactive" responses. Everything since 400 ppm is firmly in the realm of reactionary attempts to contain and cope with the damage.
- golemiprague 8y agoUS is not the problem, it is all those developing countries, the US is doing better than most other countries and in practice there is no "flipflopping". There is a balance between economy and measurements that need to be taken and it is not entirely clear that making people poorer for a small immediate gain is always the right policy. See what happen now in France regarding diesel prices. Rich countries take better care of the environment, sometimes it is better to invest in making the country rich rather than a tax on diesel fuel.
- ForHackernews 8y agoI vouched for the above [dead] comment so people can see what we're up against here. > sometimes it is better to invest in making the country rich rather than a tax on diesel fuel. There are many people who sincerely believe it's better to get rich even if their grandchildren (and the children of others around the world) will ultimately suffer to pay for their cheap diesel. How much could I pay you to kill the white rhino, golemiprague?
- black6 8y agoWhy is it always FUD associated with climate change? Are there no good eventualities? Longer growing seasons and more arable land come to mind as possibilities. Is it because you cannot get funding for your research/nonprofit/NGO if there is a rosy outlook for the future?
- mdpopescu 8y agoYes, "the world is ending, give us money" is a good scam that the scientists have only figured out in the last few decades. (Christians have exploited it for much longer.)
- dunnevens 8y agoSometimes, there are no good eventualities. Maybe Canada and parts of Siberia might see some benefits. Generally speaking, the rest of us won't. Sure, maybe you'll get an extra month to grow your tomatoes, but that will be balanced out by an increase in storms, mass fires, extinctions and sea rise. But, I guess you can ignore all that. The scientists are just trying to scare you so they can get a few extra thousand in funding. That's the real problem here.
- mccada 8y agoEven in places where a warmer climate might seem to give some positives, for example where I live in interior Canada, with warmer and longer growing seasons in a typically cold climate, it is hard to overstate some consequences of such a change. One thing that is already happening is the massive increase in wildfires during the summer months, and the unpredictable weather and storms. Another example would be the mountain pine beetle, because of warmer winters it is starting to decimate North American forests. Everything is interconnected in the environment, and small changes can have large effects. Climate change is going to be a net negative for almost all humankind and life on the planet, even for those places where you think on the surface it might have a positive effect.
- i_phish_cats 8y agoClimate change is definitely not the greatest threat to me. I'm much more worried about getting into a car accident and my prostate's health.
- EGreg 8y agoWell he means in the global population sense. I am sure that major famines aren’t the greatest threat to you at the moment either.
- nikofeyn 8y agoepisode 7, our blue planet, in the planet earth ii series is some of the hardest television i have watched. i actually couldn't finish the episode. maybe this is hyperbole to others that have watched it, but it's unbelievable the effect that humans have had on earth and on our fellow flora and fauna.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- mark-r 8y agoI think the insect apocalypse has the potential to rival climate change as our greatest threat. At least climate change has a known cause.
- wilburTheDog 8y agoWell, one can lead to the other. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/heatwaves-may-dramatically-reduce-insect-fertility-180970819/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/heatwaves-may-dram...
- WorldMaker 8y agoIn all sorts of surprising ways. For instance, research shows that soybean plants produce less defensive chemicals in higher CO2 atmospheres, which is a short term boon to certain leaf-eating insects, presumably at the expense of long-term sustainability of the plant, future generations of the leaf-eating insects after the plant's crash, competitor insects, etc. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080324173612.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080324173612.h...
- petermcneeley 8y agoContrast this with the fact that paris has had the worst riots in half a century due to a new carbon tax. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/france-anti-tax-protests-leave-gas-stations-running-dry-n942871 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/france-anti-tax-protests-...
- vkou 8y agoThe protest is due to a high cost of living, of which gas taxes are just a small portion. They are, however, a portion that is very convenient to shed crocodile tears over. Nobody notices when your employer's profit per employee increased by $5,000 year-over-year, without any increase in your take-home, or blames the government when their landlord raised rent again, but increase the cost of gas by 10 cents/litre, and everyone loses their minds.
- NeedMoreTea 8y agoYet they aren't paying noticeably more for fuel than others in Europe. The proportion of pump price paid as tax has fallen under Macron. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/03/are-the-french-hit-especially-hard-by-fuel-taxes-protests https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/03/are-the-french...
- petermcneeley 8y agoI am going by the article linked: "Macron says the increased fuel taxes are part of his effort to combat climate change, wanting to persuade French drivers to exchange diesel-fueled cars for less polluting models."
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- war1025 8y agoGiven the lifestyle choices I've seen people make who are also very publicly worried about climate change, it seems as much as anything to be virtue / social status signaling. You worry about climate change if all your other basic needs are met and you want to signal that to your friends and neighbors.
- wilburTheDog 8y agoA few things to consider on the topic. It is estimated that there is, on average, a ten year lag between the time CO2 is emitted and the time its maximum effect is felt in the climate. Some estimate the lag can be even longer. So we haven't yet seen the worst of the ~36GtCO2/yr we've been releasing into the air for the last ten years or so.(1) Methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2.(2) And it is at the heart of one of the positive feedback loops we have started by warming the earth. The arctic permafrost contains a difficult to estimate but staggeringly large amount (in the Gigatons) of methane, both in the form of methane hydrates (frozen methane) and stored carboniferous materials which, when no longer frozen, are quickly turned into methane by bacteria.(3) At this point existing warming of the planet has progressed to the point that there is no way to stop a massive arctic methane release.(4) And, in fact, if you look at the recent satellite data(5) you will see that the methane levels at most layers of the atmosphere are higher than the satellite instruments are capable of measuring. And reducing our emissions may make things worse. The Aerosol Masking Effect (aka global dimming) is what scientists are calling the fact that sulfur and other pollutants in the air can reflect sunlight away from the earth and cool the planet.(6) If we stopped all CO2 emissions today the global temperature would rapidly rise as the aerosols fell from the atmosphere. There's a lot more, but I'm feeling too much anxiety about this to go on. 1. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/3/031001 http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/3/031... 2. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-bad-of-a-greenhouse-gas-is-methane/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-bad-of-a-gree... 3. https://envisionation.co.uk/index.php/nick-breeze/203-subsea-permafrost-on-east-siberian-arctic-shelf-now-in-accelerated-decline https://envisionation.co.uk/index.php/nick-breeze/203-subsea... 4. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2785/unexpected-future-boost-of-methane-possible-from-arctic-permafrost/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2785/unexpected-future-boost-o... 5. https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/atmosphere/soundings/iasi/m1/rp/mrm_t1_D3.html https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/atmosphere/soundings/iasi... 6. https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/03/our-aerosol-emissions-are-blocking-a-third-of-the-climate-warming/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/03/our-aerosol-emission...
- stillsut 8y agoThe problem is coordination of a Public solution where the will to act lacks a political majority or super majority. The opportunity is the most progressive eighth of the first world really wants to address it. Then the solution is a Private sector one - for this high net worth eighth of the population to invest the vast majority of their savings portfolio into green energy sector. But this would be even more effective if we made investments outflows less possible, so we should create a hedge fund that would require around one decade of a commitment period. This will supercharge R&D into this sector leading to better solutions, maybe one a political majority will support. It does seem risky to tie your personal finances to the progress of green energy, but since the climate threat is already the greatest risk of all, it seems a worthy swap. And since it seems like green energy is a "no-brainer" / inevitability, then the investment is almost a sure thing to pay off in the long run. So in the end you'll not only help the planet but help yourself.