3 ms·

This right here is why nothing will happen and we're hosed. > It takes time to make big shifts like this. We have 11 years to cut global CO2 emissions by 50%,

This right here is why nothing will happen and we're hosed. > It takes time to make big shifts like this. We have 11 years to cut global CO2 emissions by 50%, and even that may not be enough. > Maybe it's not possible to tackle this without great pain to a lot of people. That might have been possible if we'd started in earnest 30 years ago. Now, we have a choice between serious lifestyle discomfort in the short term or famine and death in the long term. I expect we'll opt for our grandchildren's generation to starve.

derp_dee_derp 7y ago
> Now, we have a choice between serious lifestyle discomfort in the short term or famine and death in the long term. I expect we'll opt for our grandchildren's generation to starve It's statements like this, which are completely absurd, which are hindering our progress of making meaningful change. Please stop using armegeddon like language to describe climate change. It doesn't help if you sound like a crazed cultist.
- crispinb 7y ago
  > It's statements like this, which are completely absurd, which are hindering our progress of making meaningful change. Only the degree of certainty of the statement is exaggerated. The content is well within any reasonable scenario-planning approach. Near-term catastrophe may not be the most likely outcome, but on all accounts it is likely enough to be the most genuinely alarming threat we've yet faced. You may not like the tone, but surely you can muster the courage to set aside your personal taste with regard to something so important?
  - derp_dee_derp 7y ago
    > You may not like the tone, but surely you can muster the courage to set aside your personal taste with regard to something so important? You sound exactly like a Jehovah's witness or a Mormon missionary.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - dang 7y ago
      Yikes, this and your previous comment are bannable offences on HN. Would you mind reviewing the site guidelines, and sticking to the spirit of this site when posting here? We're hoping for a bit better than internet median: thoughtful, substantive comments, basically. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- sachdevap 7y ago
  I heavily disagree with your rather mild assessment of climate change. As an example, I suggest you look at the drought in India in 2019 [0], its effects on South Africa [1], and its role in the Syrian crisis. [2] [0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/12/indian-villages-lie-empty-as-drought-forces-thousands-to-flee https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/12/indian-village... [1] https://www.finglobal.com/2019/05/09/climate-change-in-south-africa/ https://www.finglobal.com/2019/05/09/climate-change-in-south... [2] https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/03/150302-syria-war-climate-change-drought/ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/03/150302-syri...
- jwr 7y ago
  We tiptoed around these issues for years, using names like "global warming" and "climate change". It's time we started using the right names: we are in a crisis and we have an impending catastrophe.
nostromo 7y ago
CO2 has already dropped by nearly 20% in the US over the past decade naturally, as renewables becoming cheaper and buildings, appliances, and manufacturing becomes more efficient. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=38133 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=38133 This is a secular trend that I imagine will continue regardless of what politicians do. Unfortunately none of the US/EU cuts will matter in the end with the track China is on. https://blogs-images.forbes.com/rrapier/files/2018/07/Countries-CO2.jpg https://blogs-images.forbes.com/rrapier/files/2018/07/Countr...
- tzs 7y ago
  Your second chart shows China appears to be leveling off, at a total level that is a little less that twice the total US emissions. Since they have more than 4x the US population, that means they have quite a bit lower per capita emission, which is a more useful metric than total emissions when assessing how well a country is addressing the issue, since the atmosphere doesn't care about arbitrary political boundaries.
  - jandrewrogers 7y ago
    China also produces much less per capita for that emission. A better metric is productive output per unit of emissions. The metric that matters isn't the per capita emissions but the amount of value generated relative to emissions.
    - tzs 7y ago
      Productive output by what measure? Probably the most immediately obvious choice would be GDP, but upon closer examination I don't think that works. By that measure, using a given amount of emissions running a factory that builds expensive, fossil fuel burning luxury boats for rich playboys is better than using that same emissions to provide winter heat for public schools. Another problem with using a measure of productive output is that it screws developing counties. As I said earlier, the atmosphere does not care about arbitrary political boundaries. There is some global maximum emissions per year that we can allow if we want to keep climate change from getting out of hand. If we make each country's share of that global pool proportional to their productive output, we are in effect saying that the rich countries get to continue to take advantage of cheap high emission things (like coal), and the poor counties have to forego that for clean but more expensive things, because there is a pretty good correlation between the wealth of a country and its productivity. Since the rich countries are, to a large extent, rich because they exploited those cheap but dirty resources before we knew how harmful that was, it seems to make more moral sense for the rich countries to have to clean up first and/or subsidize the costs to poor countries of going clean. Probably what would be better would be to figure out the total worldwide emissions allowed per year, allocate that among countries on an equal per capita basis, and allow countries to trade their shares.

derp_dee_derp 7y ago

> Now, we have a choice between serious lifestyle discomfort in the short term or famine and death in the long term. I expect we'll opt for our grandchildren's generation to starve It's statements like this, which are completely absurd, which are hindering our progress of making meaningful change. Please stop using armegeddon like language to describe climate change. It doesn't help if you sound like a crazed cultist.

crispinb 7y ago
> It's statements like this, which are completely absurd, which are hindering our progress of making meaningful change. Only the degree of certainty of the statement is exaggerated. The content is well within any reasonable scenario-planning approach. Near-term catastrophe may not be the most likely outcome, but on all accounts it is likely enough to be the most genuinely alarming threat we've yet faced. You may not like the tone, but surely you can muster the courage to set aside your personal taste with regard to something so important?
- derp_dee_derp 7y ago
  > You may not like the tone, but surely you can muster the courage to set aside your personal taste with regard to something so important? You sound exactly like a Jehovah's witness or a Mormon missionary.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - dang 7y ago
    Yikes, this and your previous comment are bannable offences on HN. Would you mind reviewing the site guidelines, and sticking to the spirit of this site when posting here? We're hoping for a bit better than internet median: thoughtful, substantive comments, basically. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
sachdevap 7y ago
I heavily disagree with your rather mild assessment of climate change. As an example, I suggest you look at the drought in India in 2019 [0], its effects on South Africa [1], and its role in the Syrian crisis. [2] [0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/12/indian-villages-lie-empty-as-drought-forces-thousands-to-flee https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/12/indian-village... [1] https://www.finglobal.com/2019/05/09/climate-change-in-south-africa/ https://www.finglobal.com/2019/05/09/climate-change-in-south... [2] https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/03/150302-syria-war-climate-change-drought/ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/03/150302-syri...
jwr 7y ago
We tiptoed around these issues for years, using names like "global warming" and "climate change". It's time we started using the right names: we are in a crisis and we have an impending catastrophe.

nostromo 7y ago

CO2 has already dropped by nearly 20% in the US over the past decade naturally, as renewables becoming cheaper and buildings, appliances, and manufacturing becomes more efficient. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=38133 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=38133 This is a secular trend that I imagine will continue regardless of what politicians do. Unfortunately none of the US/EU cuts will matter in the end with the track China is on. https://blogs-images.forbes.com/rrapier/files/2018/07/Countries-CO2.jpg https://blogs-images.forbes.com/rrapier/files/2018/07/Countr...

tzs 7y ago
Your second chart shows China appears to be leveling off, at a total level that is a little less that twice the total US emissions. Since they have more than 4x the US population, that means they have quite a bit lower per capita emission, which is a more useful metric than total emissions when assessing how well a country is addressing the issue, since the atmosphere doesn't care about arbitrary political boundaries.
- jandrewrogers 7y ago
  China also produces much less per capita for that emission. A better metric is productive output per unit of emissions. The metric that matters isn't the per capita emissions but the amount of value generated relative to emissions.
  - tzs 7y ago
    Productive output by what measure? Probably the most immediately obvious choice would be GDP, but upon closer examination I don't think that works. By that measure, using a given amount of emissions running a factory that builds expensive, fossil fuel burning luxury boats for rich playboys is better than using that same emissions to provide winter heat for public schools. Another problem with using a measure of productive output is that it screws developing counties. As I said earlier, the atmosphere does not care about arbitrary political boundaries. There is some global maximum emissions per year that we can allow if we want to keep climate change from getting out of hand. If we make each country's share of that global pool proportional to their productive output, we are in effect saying that the rich countries get to continue to take advantage of cheap high emission things (like coal), and the poor counties have to forego that for clean but more expensive things, because there is a pretty good correlation between the wealth of a country and its productivity. Since the rich countries are, to a large extent, rich because they exploited those cheap but dirty resources before we knew how harmful that was, it seems to make more moral sense for the rich countries to have to clean up first and/or subsidize the costs to poor countries of going clean. Probably what would be better would be to figure out the total worldwide emissions allowed per year, allocate that among countries on an equal per capita basis, and allow countries to trade their shares.