19 ms·

Global warming is the single scariest existential threat our species has ever faced, and we aren't doing nearly enough to tackle it. Our future descendants wil

• hi5eyes 7y ago
  we were doomed and fucked by the 80s been reading into deep adaptation lately, kinda cool kinda pointless
  • graeme 7y ago
    Half of co2 emissions have happened since then. Emissions are at the highest they've ever been. We, presently, are deciding to do this and continue it.
    • hi5eyes 7y ago
      there are locked in cycles that are going to cause 2 degrees and more in warming regardless of if we stop emissions completely right this second. it only goes up every year nbd
      • radicalbyte 7y ago
        We're clearly going to have to so something to cool the planet down, but the transition to renewable energy is just so effective that you'd want to do it purely from the financial and health benefits.
• LinuxBender 7y ago
  I've seen a few sites that suggest much of this is based on our orbit [1]. If that is true, then the oceans may be about to dump ludicrous amounts of Co2. Hopefully we can find a way to turn that into fuel. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=milankovitch+cycles https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=milankovitch+cy...
  • entropea 7y ago
    Wouldn't orbital changes & things like solar output already be accounted for in any serious climate modeling and history?
  • gbrown 7y ago
    While the relationship between orbit and climate is well documented, I'm unaware of any credible science to suggest that "much of this" (taken to mean the current observed warming) is due to this factor.
  • theothermkn 7y ago
    Wow. Three non sequiturs in three sentences. There are sites that suggest any number of things. Unspecified "sites" have little bearing on the actual facts. I'm not sure that Milankovitch Cycles imply the dumping of CO2. > Hopefully we can find a way to turn that into fuel. This is the silliest and most thermodynamically backward thing I've read in a year. CO2 is burnt carbon. It's burnt. Burnt stuff ain't fuel; it's burnt.
    • futureastronaut 7y ago
      Are you familiar with photosynthesis?
      • masterjack 7y ago
        Yes but photosynthesis doesn’t generate energy but the opposite: it takes in energy from the sun in order to reverse the reaction
• hjek 7y ago
  https://invidio.us/watch?v=WgFc4Zhvjtg&hl=en-US&local=true&autoplay=0&subtitles=%2C%2C https://invidio.us/watch?v=WgFc4Zhvjtg&hl=en-US&local=true&a...
• mrmonkeyman 7y ago
  Or.... not.
• justaguyhere 7y ago
  Our future descendants will heap scorn and curses on our generation Assuming there is a future generation :P
• sunshinelackof 7y ago
  > voting exclusively on how credible a politician is on tackling global warming This is really the only important thing that we can do. Except maybe not flying in an airplane, there is little the average person can do in their daily life to inhibit climate change. Whether due to preventive policies or due to resource shortages our lives will change in the near future. Expecting individuals to shame themselves when the society at large encourages the opposite is counter-productive. It is not to say that anyone is wrong to choose to live more frugally. More importantly, we need to recognize that any hope we have must come from the top down. We have more research and more solutions than we've ever had for any problem, but we don't have someone to pull the trigger.
  • nextos 7y ago
    I agree. Your individual actions won't have much impact, except the aggregate effect on politics. Politics is so short sighted that unless there's huge pressure from the masses nothing will be done, or just too little too late. Even if the Science backing up Climate Change wasn't solid, which I think it is, what's the alternative? Take a gamble? The Roman Civilization probably collapsed because, among other things, the climate optimum they experienced at their peak changed drastically and crops became less efficient. A joke compared to what we might be expecting in a few decades with such an overpopulated and hyper-efficient world, which is really fragile to climatic disruption.
    • TomVDB 7y ago
      I had never heard about the theory that climate change might have played a role of the Roman Civilization collapse. Here's an interesting article about it: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-climate-change-and-disease-helped-fall-rome-180967591/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-climate-ch... The key factor, apparently, was "... an enormous spasm of volcanic activity in the 530s and 540s CE, unlike anything else in the past few thousand years. This violent sequence of eruptions triggered what is now called the ‘Late Antique Little Ice Age,’ when much colder temperatures endured for at least 150 years." (New theories should always be taken with a grain of salt, but I found it interesting either way.)
    • 7y ago
• akvadrako 7y ago
  Global warming is not an existential threat if you consider the studies that look at existential threats in general. It's not even in the top 10. Of the top of my head, asteroids, bio weapons, disease, the Sun, AI and authoritarianism are more serious. Especially AI - not being the dominate species anymore will be dangerous. But 10°C more? That just requires AC and migration.
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  • lexpar 7y ago
    I really hope you'll change your mind, specifically about that last sentence. Probably billions of the world's poorest people are likely to see their environment become unlivable. That's not a problem a little AC and migration will easily solve. Just look how poorly rich countries are reacting to the current levels of migration from less rich countries.
    • akvadrako 7y ago
      I'm not going to change my mind just because of mindless downvotes. If you want to show that global warming could cause the end of the human race, you have to give some plausible argument.
      • SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
        I think there's a difference in what people consider "bad" - millions or billions dying from disaster or their regions becoming uninhabitable isn't the extinction the human race, but for me it's at the threshold of "bad" that I'd like to do something about it. Am I worried about all the human race being eradicated? No, we're cockroaches. But I'd rather untold numbers don't have to suffer.
        • randallsquared 7y ago
          When this thread started it was about existential threats. Few people would argue that ten degrees celsius isn't likely to be a huge disaster.
• Reedx 7y ago
  They'll probably do a collective face slap that we failed to invest in Nuclear technology (see the difference in Gen IV vs old tech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor). We had a solution for clean energy, but let fear override reason.
  • csours 7y ago
    I'm not doubting you, this is just an honest repetition of what I've heard before. I thought that nuclear was also a GHG contributor because of the fossil fuels used in mining and refining it. Is this not the case? Like there is some cradle to grave GHG coefficient for different sources of power...
    • graeme 7y ago
      There's no law of nature that says mining equipment has to run on carbon. It could be done with electric equipment powered by nuclear. Nuclear produces less presently and holds the key to producing none at all.
    • talaketu 7y ago
      Nuclear power is very carbon-efficient (tonnes CO2 emmitted / GWh produced) due to the large quantity of energy produced over the generator lifecycle. It's on par with wind power, and better than solar, according to World Nuclear Org. | Lignite | 1054 | | Coal | 888 | | Oil | 733 | | Natural Gas | 499 | | SolarPV | 85 | | Biomass | 45 | | Nuclear | 29 | | Hydroelectric | 26 | | Wind | 26 | [1] http://www.world-nuclear.org/our-association/publications/online-reports/lifecycle-ghg-emissions-of-electricity-generation.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/our-association/publications/on...
      • deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
• nothrabannosir 7y ago
  A carbon tax, with pay-out for carbon sequestration, will put the very machine that currently drives us towards extinction straight in reverse. Here are the most impactful things you can do as an individual in a democracy: 1. Convince as many people as you can of voting for anyone who supports carbon tax. 2. Vote for anyone who supports a carbon tax. 3. There is no 3. We need to internalise this negative externality into the very fabric of every transaction we make. By the time you can see a product you have no idea how much carbon was produced to make it. Don't just walk back from the abyss. Drive back in the same car that got us here. (by all means of course reduce your footprint, but don't forget nr 1 & 2. they must be front and centre.)
  • edejong 7y ago
    A carbon tax is probably the worst thing you can do. First of all, it will seriously destabilise a large economy where democracy still plays an influential role. This will place more economic power at the hands of non-democratic nations, allowing them to produce more CO_2 at will. Secondly, the taxed CO_2 will just circulate back to the government, to be spend again. On what? Due to the strong relationship of the dollar with oil, each dollar spend by the government will involve burning oil and producing CO_2. Third, how will you check the CO_2 emissions of your products? How do you prevent fraud? How do you make sure the system is not gamed by shifting the CO_2 burden to other countries? No, if you want to make a dent, vote for those who want to invest heavily in renewables R&D (solar, hydro, wind, thermal).
• dougmwne 7y ago
  I advocate letting go of the personal shaming and guilting. That's just not a scalable solution. Here are much better things you can do with that emotional energy and carbon offset purchasing power instead: -Vote for politicians that will regulate carbon -Lobby your elected officials to regulate carbon -Give to NGOs that lobby to regulate carbon -Reward companies that sell products that reduce your carbon footprint and add value to your life. -Pivot your career to work with green NGOs, on the staff or campaigns of green-friendly politicians, or companies creating greed products. Do a few of these things and you can litter all you like.
• john_moscow 7y ago
  Except a single factory in China emits more CO2 than all the readers of this HN thread combined. So all you are going to do by minimizing your own carbon footprint is make your own life miserable and free up the resources for someone who doesn't give a damn. And I am sorry to say that, but I don't think that a global framework enforcing the same environmental restrictions on every country in the world, regardless of its economic state, is realistic. Sorry. That said, humanity has adapted to live in variety of environments, from African tropics to Canadian permafrost, centuries before the technological revolution. So once the global warming effects start noticeably affecting regular people, there will be a wave on businesses built around mitigating those effects, dealing with the causes and perhaps trying to reverse some of them. But before this becomes a pressing matter for pretty much everyone, I don't think there is much we can do.
  • jordanbeiber 7y ago
    What is it spewing out co2 for, and for whom? Never mind the toxic waste from chemicals dumped in rivers. Turn every thing you own upside down and find the scripture "Made in China". Any clues?
  • perfunctory 7y ago
    > Except a single factory in China emits more CO2 than all the readers of this HN thread combined This is just not true. World's richest 10% produce half of global carbon emissions [0] I would guess a fair share of HN readers are in the top 10% [0] https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/mb-extreme-carbon-inequality-021215-en.pdf https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/mb-ex...
    • john_moscow 7y ago
      Still China outputs more than 2x the U.S. volume: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
      • perfunctory 7y ago
• Mikeb85 7y ago
  We're not doing anything to tackle it. Nearly every country is still increasing emissions. And nothing individuals do will be enough. The top causes of CO2 emissions are industrial power generation, production of concrete, resource extraction, deforestation/burning forests and transportation. Fact is, the world's population is still increasing, developing countries will still develop, developed countries won't reduce emissions, there's no stopping it. Even in the US, the DNC struck down the 'Green New Deal'. Either we're all doomed, or it's not an existential threat.
  • madengr 7y ago
    The problem is the Green New Deal politicians also want to ban guns and socialize healthcare and college education. If they would stick to climate, maybe they would do better. I like my guns and EV; don’t know why they have to be antipodal in politics.
• perfunctory 7y ago
  > As citizens, I encourage everyone to reducing their carbon footprint as much as possible (yes, that means that your life gets comfortable) and voting exclusively on how credible a politician is on tackling global warming. I would just like to add. Absolutely vote. But please don't use it as an excuse to do nothing yourself. While you are waiting for politicians to act, start acting now. In case you are wondering what you can do yourself - here is a short list - Stop flying to conferences. Go to a local meetup. It's fun. And cheaper. If you really need to get out of town, take a train. Let's hope one day Prometheus will give us carbon-neutral jet fuel https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19842240 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19842240 - Shift your investments from fossil to green. If you can't find enough worthy greens, shift it to anything else. Some say it won't impact your returns http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/the-mythical-peril-of-divesting-from-fossil-fuels/ http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/the-mythical-per... Move your deposits and savings to a more sustainable bank. https://fairfinanceguide.org https://fairfinanceguide.org - Work less. Work part time, and part of that part time remotely. http://cepr.net/documents/publications/climate-change-workshare-2013-02.pdf http://cepr.net/documents/publications/climate-change-worksh... A firm lets its employees work four days a week while being paid for five. Everyone is happy, lower electricity bills, fewer cars on the road https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/world/asia/four-day-workweek-new-zealand.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/world/asia/four-day-workw... - Reduce your meat consumption as much as you can. They say these new vega burgers are not too bad. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/30/dining/climate-change-food-eating-habits.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/30/dining/climat... Thank you.
  • fooblitzky 7y ago
    Also - ride a bike. As well as being emissions-free, it encourages your city to build more bicycling infrastructure, which will make it more possible to get around without a car, and encourage others to ride too.
  • benn0 7y ago
    Great list. It seems odd that we always equate a reduction in our footprint with a reduction in lifestyle, where options like these would arguably be a lifestyle improvement (or at least neutral). I would also add - stop or reduce discretionary air travel. Similarly to local meetups, there are often so many undiscovered destinations/events that can be just as rewarding as an overseas trip, without the 20+ hours in transit that are required.
• pdonis 7y ago
  > Global warming is the single scariest existential threat our species has ever faced No, it isn't. It's not even close. We can adapt to climate change. The single scariest existential threat our species has ever faced is politicians and other public figures using FUD in order to convince we the people to give them more power. Which they will then use to screw things up even more.
• neilv 7y ago
  > voting exclusively on how credible a politician is on tackling global warming "Credible" is one difficult part of that, and the situation is also exploitable even if they are credible in that one regard. For example, a person or group could produce a candidate who is credibly stronger on global warming than the competition, while at the same time the secret goal being to sell out constituents' fiscal interests or rights in some other regards. (It's not far-fetched -- without getting into contemporary partisan examples, it's fair to say that this seems to already a strategy and tactic, on other single-issues, in some contests.)
• anm89 7y ago
  As someone who agrees with your suggestion as to how serious climate change is, I've come to think asking individuals to change their behavior to fix the problem is actually counter productive. People generally want to do the right thing and they want to matter whereas in my experience the average person is not a great systems thinker. So people are very receptive to calls to "be better" because it let's them fight for what they believe set in a framework where their actions matter at least to some degree. The problem is, these are problems of scale and systems, and once people think they are fulfilling some responsibility they aren't going to pursue other solutions, at least as aggressively. If we straight up told people: you are going to experience extreme pain within your life time due to climate change, and the only single thing you can do that matters is to put pressure on your government to attack these problems systematically, I think we'd get much better results.
  • graeme 7y ago
    I tend to agree. We've had 30+ years of exhortations for individual action against climate change. Yet global emissions are the highest they've ever been. Meanwhile, we haven't really tried an effective government policy. One that would replace other forms of taxation with a carbon tax. We've only tried individual solutions, dabbling around the edges, carbon offsets, cap and trade. Manifestly they haven't reduced emissions. People may indeed view individual action as a substitute for collective action. But we wouldn't ask people to increase government revenue by making donations.
    • AstralStorm 7y ago
      Not even the tax can do it, because polluters will migrate. You would have to combine the tax with more serious measures like duties based on either estimated or actual emissions level. Or outright bans. Additionally mandating certain important practices like garbage disposal, reduction and methane capture.
      • flukus 7y ago
        > Not even the tax can do it, because polluters will migrate. High tariffs on countries not following suit will take care of that. Try the carrot first but if they don't want to contribute then use the stick.
• torpfactory 7y ago
  There is much debate in this thread about which approach is best for combating global warming. It is plainly obvious that large scale policy efforts will need to happen at some point. This is the “top down” approach delivered by collective political action. But there also ought to be a bottoms up culture change which encourages humans to recognize and self-limit their own impact. The world is too populous that our own actions won’t impact others at the new scale humanity exists. We won’t have political action without some parts or hopefully all of the culture embracing limits on our behavior. I don’t think these two approaches are mutually exclusive. To address the parent comment here: Calling strangers bad people is very seldom a fruitful rhetorical approach, and I would advise against it. But individual action will end up being required someday; might as well start practicing today.
• iuguy 7y ago
  > Our future descendants will heap scorn and curses on our generation, and we deserve every bit of it. They won't. They'll be dead.
• perfunctory 7y ago
  > and voting exclusively on how credible a politician is on tackling global warming. Up until very recently I thought this was the most important thing to do. The more I watch XR videos though the more I am convinced that that's not the case. Voting doesn't matter. None of the important social changes in the last century or so were initiated by the parliament. Think about women suffrage, civil rights movement, anti war movement, gay rights. We need to get out and get our hands dirty with direct action. Or at least support people who do.