11 ms·
Climate Change Will Cost Us Even More Than We Think
- pstuart 7y agoIt's going to happen faster than we've been told. I expect in 10 years global panic will set in.
- all2 7y agoCan you support this opinion?
- pstuart 7y agoNope. I'd love to be proven wrong.
- radford-neal 7y agoI'm baffled. You "expect" something that you say you have no reason to expect, and you hope this expectation is wrong. Is this some new meaning of "expect" that I'm not familiar with? Or do you follow a psychological strategy of expecting bad things so that you'll always be pleasantly surprised?
- WillPostForFood 7y agoIt is a human phenomenon, that has religious and secular expressions. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/psychology-reveals-the-comforts-of-the-apocalypse/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/psychology... ...some apocalyptic believers find the idea that the end is nigh to be validating. Individuals with a history of traumatic experiences, for example, may be fatalistic. For these people, finding a group of like-minded fatalists is reassuring. There may also be comfort in being able to attribute doom to some larger cosmic order—such as an ancient Mayan prophecy. This kind of mythology removes any sense of individual responsibility.
- rriepe 7y agoKinda sounds like you're calling AGW a doomsday cult.
- WillPostForFood 7y agoNo, but there are doomsday cultish acolytes of AGW.
- pstuart 7y agoThank you for your diagnosis, but I can explain. Reports coming out now are indicating that shit's getting real faster than was modeled. Models are educated guesses at realty; are the models guaranteed 100% accurate? No, and I'm (just) guessing that the inaccuracies are in the conservative realm. I do not find it validating, I find it terrifying. I worry for my kids future. Anybody who isn't worried about what's happening now is a fool.
- tito 7y agoGreenland's massive ice melt wasn't supposed to happen until 2070. It seems even the scientific predictions can be too conservative. The changing climate isn't a linear system, it's more like a step function. Once the ice melts it's much harder to get back. https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottsnowden/2019/08/16/greenlands-massive-ice-melt-wasnt-supposed-to-happen-until-2070/#73bd18274894 https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottsnowden/2019/08/16/greenla...
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- all2 7y agoIt is interesting to note that just about 1000 years ago the Vikings were growing barley in Greenland [0]. > “Now we can see that the Vikings could grow corn, and this was very important for their nourishment and survival,” Barley seems to do ok in late Spring conditions in the NE United States [1]. I'm not certain you could grow barley or corn in Tundra conditions. I bring this up when people mention warming global conditions because the planet has, in the past, been much warmer than it is now. [0] https://sciencenordic.com/agriculture-archaeology-denmark/vikings-grew-barley-in-greenland/1447746 https://sciencenordic.com/agriculture-archaeology-denmark/vi... [1] https://plants.usda.gov/plantguide/pdf/ccpg_horde.pdf https://plants.usda.gov/plantguide/pdf/ccpg_horde.pdf
- Sharlin 7y agoIt was a well-known and understood roughly 300-year localized warmer period[1] in Western Europe and the North Atlantic. The planet has been globally warmer than what it is now but that was long before H. sapiens and has nothing to do with the Vikings or barley. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
- phkahler 7y agoIt's part of a natural cycle. We were never going to stop it anyway. The real means to stop it will not be talked about until the serious changes start happening and the entire world is in panic.
- throwaway5752 7y agoWell, extremes are what will cause most pain. Reality is running ahead of and worse than models, and the models seem to underestimate extrema https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08745-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08745-6
- tejtm 7y agothere are many arguments, some unfortunately rabid ... this one feels well put together. https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist...
- sambull 7y agoMainly because that means there is finite growth in the economy, and we've built a ponzi scheme of sorts at this point. It's a hard pill to swallow, that we can't just grow forever.
- maxerickson 7y agoThe thing is, we can grow until we can't anymore. Preemptively choosing to struggle with what we had yesterday is not a good response to the idea that there is a limit. A good short term thing would be to more clearly understand the real costs of the things we do today. What is the long term environmental impact and so on.
- lumberjack 7y agoIf you adhere by the definition of wealth that pg lays out in his famous essay, then it is not true that there is finite growth. The more accurate statement would be that there is a limit to the amount of consumption and consumerism that we are allowed to indulge ourselves in. In our present economy that might more or less be what everyone thinks growth is. But we could have other kinds of economic growth that do not impose a cost on our environment.
- opportune 7y agoWe still have a long way to go to become more efficient, which is a way to continue growth without increasing our burden on the planet. Of course the issue there is that efficiency gains can only go so far, and you run into diminishing returns rather quickly. Also, economic growth does not necessarily rely on increased production of physical goods. If people stopped paying for physical toys in lieu of software, for instance, the economy very well could grow while the physical footprint of the average person decreased (all else remaining the same). If people preferred experiential entertainment such as movies, escape rooms, etc more than e.g. boating, that could also result in economic growth while physical consumption of goods decreases. But, while we can continue to grow economically without increasing physical consumption (all else being equal), the elephant in the room is that a very large portion of the world does not live a life even remotely similar to that of a wealthy, developed country resident wrt physical resource consumption. So even if we in rich countries maintained our resource usage, global demand for physical resources will continue to grow rapidly as other parts of the world develop. So are we willing to consign huge swathes of the globe to eternal poverty, or will we actively decrease our resource consumption?
- sunseb 7y agohttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/EEwH4nTUcAE-Q7e.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EEwH4nTUcAE-Q7e.jpg
- danso 7y agoStrange. You seem to have posted a doctored image. The fact that your "1977" image uses modern typography should have been an obvious giveaway to you before you posted it. https://apnews.com/afs:Content:5755221200 https://apnews.com/afs:Content:5755221200 > AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. The Time cover labeled in social posts as coming from 1977 is actually a cover from 2007, with the image altered to change the title from “The Global Warming Survival Guide” to “How to Survive the Coming Ice Age,” Time magazine archives show.
- sunseb 7y agoThanks! I didn't know what! What about the 1979 image?
- adjkant 7y agoIs there any reason you're relying on others to do a basic google for you? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-co...
- anatoly 7y agohttps://climatecrocks.com/2013/06/07/the-1970s-ice-age-myth-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley/ https://climatecrocks.com/2013/06/07/the-1970s-ice-age-myth-...
- mikestew 7y agoThis is going to come off as impolite, which is not my intent. But I don’t how else to effectively drive the point home: one doesn’t post drivel and then it’s up to everyone else to disprove your convenient narrative. Ain’t nobody got time for that, take responsibility for what you post.
- 7y ago
- stale2002 7y agoThis is not what the IPCC believes. The effects how over the course of decades. The world is not going to end in 10 years.
- jokoon 7y agoI think it will happen sooner than that. Once you have a 3 days heatwave, it's bad. If they occur during summer and the next summer, and if they last for 1 week or more, several times per summer, people will not talk about it, but feel it and understand that global warming is settling in and will not go away. The problem is that the temperature increase can be sudden and difficult to anticipate. A heatwave can also kill a lot of people (the elderly, the young, people will fragile health, and also people who don't prepare or don't listen to warnings). You're right that in 10 years there are strong chances for a global panic, but if crops yields are bad it can also have fast consequences. It just hope the wakeup calls will make people react swiftly and as soon as possible. I'd rather have a big heatwave that gives enough political capital to act and do things, than a slow and creeping climate change where nothing is done and it becomes too late.
- nojvek 7y agoI hope Californians are at least feeling it. Those wild fires every year are kind of unusual and are getting intense every year.
- iikoolpp 7y agoEverything is only going to get worse
- tito 7y agoClimate change will create the first trillionaire. Find every machine that eats fossil fuels and electrify it. Find every crop that requires stable land and predictable weather and farm it in a shipping container. Find every underlying infrastructure that requires decades to pay off and decentralize it. Instead of water line pipes, pull water out of the air. Instead of fiber optic cables make LEO satellites. Instead of refrigerated transportation, grow food in your pocket or your stomach. Instead of roads, take to the air. Instead of high power transmission lines that cause fires and burn down trees, build island-mode ready microgrids. Build a better world, a template for all worlds to come.
- pstuart 7y ago> Climate change will create the first trillionaire. Is that a good thing?
- ISL 7y agoIt is probably more correct to state that solutions that allow us to adapt-to or reverse the effects of greenhouse gases on our environment will result in trillions of dollars in value to humanity at large. Whether that that value-creation gets concentrated or not is some combination of randomness, individual choices, and politics.
- option 7y agoeverything described above is a good thing. Why do you care that someone will become insanely rich by improving lives for millions?
- pstuart 7y agoIt's funny how my comment questioning the concentration of wealth as being a condemnation of business in principle.
- bpodgursky 7y agoWhy are you on Hacker News if you don't think successfully solving enormous problems merits enormous payoff? Like, this is the YCombinator message board. It's about venture capital and discussion for middling-to-wildly-ambitious startups. I don't think you are wrong for asking the question, but this isn't really the place to question whether investment and entrepreneurism is an efficient system. There's a lot of internet out there. This one is for startups. Just let this one exist.
- iikoolpp 7y agoOpened the article expecting it to be a more abstract cost. Turns out it's about economics. Christ alive. "Yeah, billions are gonna die, but what really matters is my house prices are gonna go down."
- Udik 7y agoWho said that billions are gonna die? Frankly, if the solution to climate change will slow economic growth, I think that the highest human cost will come from the lack of growth. To put it in clear terms: lack of growth means that a sewage system, or a hospital, don't get built. This _will_ cause victims.
- ben_w 7y agoEh. While I’m optimistic that solutions will be found, in principle a shifting climate can radically alter food production. Billions could die. I don’t think they will, but in principle they could, and I lack the necessary background in agricultural science to tell what “likely” is.
- Udik 7y agoI doubt that climate can shift so quickly that humans can't adapt at least their most important cultures. We're very good at this, and very quick, and we don't need to produce food anywhere near where it's consumed. Although of course the ships that bring immense amounts of food across the globe have been built, and are operated, with fossil fuels. As is our agriculture. Again, increase the cost of the fuel that makes both possible, and people will die.
- iikoolpp 7y agoAlmost as if tying essential public utilities to making some rich dude nut at his stock prices isn't a good idea
- Udik 7y agoI find your reply below the minimum acceptable level here; in fact I can hardly guess what you tried to say. Anyway, growth means that people who could not afford things before now can. For you it might be a new car; for somebody else it might mean a sanitation system or a reachable hospital. But who cares, you already have the car and the hospital, so screw growth.
- tito 7y agoI'm fascinated by this graph of the growth of solar as compared to International Agency Predictions. Year after year, the IEA massively underestimated the growth of solar. Last year, at a workshop with the World Bank I heard an expert in energy investments say "even just 5 years ago none of us ever thought the price of solar could go this low this fast". GRAPH: https://steinbuch.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/iea-vs-reality-photovoltaics-2018.png?w=1102 https://steinbuch.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/iea-vs-reality... I'm curious if there's something similar for the changing climate. Just how much are we underestimating the changing climate? Has anyone seen a graph like the one above, but regarding climate predictions? For example, the rate of Greeland's massive ice melt was as high as the worst climate predictions for 2070, decades into the future. [1][2] It seems even the scientific predictions can be too conservative. [1] https://twitter.com/xavierfettweis/status/1156487868950482945 https://twitter.com/xavierfettweis/status/115648786895048294... [2] https://twitter.com/xavierfettweis/status/1156487868950482945 https://twitter.com/xavierfettweis/status/115648786895048294...
- maxerickson 7y agoThat melt isn't as unprecedented as the Forbes blagger makes it out to be. Follow the chain and you find out that it is reasonably comparable to one that happened in…2012: https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/08/01/greenland-ice-sheet-poured-billion-tons-water-into-north-atlantic-july-alone/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/08/01/greenland-... If it ends up part of even a 2 year pattern, that's already concerning, I'm not dismissing the issue, I'm just slagging Forbes links.
- tito 7y agoHuge props. I haven't even read the link you posted, but wanted to say I admire your post. Climate discussions often end up fighting even though they're all sort of on the same page. I'm always up for adding more curiosity, and holding everything to a higher standard. I'll check out the link and perhaps find a better reference for the above post. EDIT: Cleaned out the Forbes links, thanks!
- tito 7y agoFollowing up here: The reference to 2070 seems to relate to the rate of melting (ablation rate), which was greater than the 2012 melt. The rate of the recent melt was modeled as the average daily melting rate in 2070 in SSP585: https://twitter.com/xavierfettweis/status/1156487868950482945 https://twitter.com/xavierfettweis/status/115648786895048294... Oh so this looks interesting. Here's what SSP585 refers to, it's a hardcore model for 2000 ppm by 2200: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Relation-of-C4MIP-simulations-to-CMIP6-DECK-and-historical-simulations-and-the-ssp585-and_fig1_306920281 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Relation-of-C4MIP-simula... I haven't found the source for linking that to the ablation rate besides the above xavierfettweis tweet tho. But he has a followup tweet in that thread saying it was related to the melting rate overall.
- zzot 7y agoDropping in here just to say: if this got you worried, come work with us over at http://climateaction.tech/ http://climateaction.tech/ We are a global community of tech professionals using our skills, expertise and platforms to support solutions to the climate crisis.
- hcarvalhoalves 7y agoLooks interesting but what are you actually doing (projects)? I couldn’t find in your site.
- zzot 7y agoThe core of the climateAction.tech at the moment is in a Slack, where different projects are moved forward by the community. There are a bunch of different things happening but recently some of our members where behind the https://digital.globalclimatestrike.net https://digital.globalclimatestrike.net. A couple of things I know are being worked on include putting more pressure on AWS to switch to renewables faster and an idea for a green open-source license
- mooneater 7y agoIm not sure why anyone expects these estimates to hold any water at all. From what I gather, pressure from the establishment has systematically caused scientists to lowball impact estimates and ignore second (and higher) order effects. Meanwhile the complexity and far reach of impact is beyond anything we can model. Consider how all the experts were surprised in the 2008 economic crisis. That was just an economic crisis, primarily involving things we can easily count (dollars) on a very small timescale (years). Now we are talking about many interlocking systems we cannot model well, on a timescale we cannot fathom. How good could those estimates ever be? Maybe +/- 6 orders of magnitude.
- mooneater 7y agoDownvoters please help me understand your angle here
- tito 7y agoI upvoted, FWIW. Maybe help explain your perspective some more? It sounds like you're just kind of saying "we can't model anything so why bother?". We can model what we can. Sure, the big recession catches the world by surprise, but people are working constantly to model these systems, and it seems to be better than doing nothing. Climate models for example tell us that carbon dioxide is indeed a greenhouse gas, and gives us an idea of the amount of warming we'll see at various levels. +/- 6 orders of magnitude seems like a lot. Like that seems like we don't know whether we'll have 400 ppm or 400,000,000 ppm in the future?
- mooneater 7y agoThanks! My order of magnitude range is extreme, but I was thinking of "total cost to humanity" estimate not ppms. I do think trying to put a price tag on climate change's "total cost to humanity" is truly a hopeless task, and results are bound to be meaningless, due to sheer complexity combine with subjectivity. How can we meaningfully price biodiversity, the anguish of future generations, permanently escalating geopolitical stress, and the vast flock of black swan events that will result from these changes, in a single dollar amount? I believe such efforts are pure hogwash.
- chris_va 7y ago(disclaimer: I work in a Climate&Energy research group) I just want to remind everyone that there are solutions to climate change. We know how to produce clean energy and sequester CO2. The current free market does not make those solutions profitable for investors, though, and we will have to change that. Solving climate change can be as simple as getting a carbon price adopted. It needs to ramp up over time, allow a secondary market for offsets, and create a cross-border network effect (e.g. carbon free trade zone), but it can actually be that simple. A "carbon tax" may be infeasible given current political norms, but a revenue neutral "carbon dividend" would have the same effect while being more progressive. So, if you are curious what you can do to solve climate change, consider contacting your representative.
- neiman 7y agoI'm asking out of ignorance. You're using the word "solutions". Do we know those are really "solutions", and not guesses for solutions? Like, will those actions reduce temperatures? It seems that some of what already happened, like melting of icebergs, is not easy to be revert.
- superpermutat0r 7y agoIt's all trial and error and models that are not proved empirically. I'm pretty sure we do not know what those interventions will do and what their impact will eventually be.
- lisper 7y agoThe line between a "solution" and a "mitigation" is not sharply drawn. As mitigations become more and more effective they eventually become solutions. There's no point quibbling over terminology.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- phkahler 7y ago>> Solving climate change can be as simple as getting a carbon price adopted. It needs to ramp up over time, allow a secondary market for offsets The simple solution to this big global catastrophe is my favorite money making scam. Here, just create this market for carbon credits. It makes my guys money while doing Jack shit. Seriously, if you think CO2 is the problem, the solution is to simply tax those that either take it out of the ground or import it. Any other solution is political. Not saying I agree with the premise, but if you do, that's the solution.
- chrisBob 7y agoI am trying to find the source I read a few years ago where climate scientists are intentionally scaling back their predictions so they aren’t discounted as crazy doomsday predictions. I think that there are many accurate predictions out there but we mostly see the most mild ones because they figure some action is better than being written off completely.
- tito 7y agoWould love to see that! See my post above about IEA solar power predictions, interested to learn more about predictions over the years.
- sunseb 7y agoA carbon tax is just massive scam built around this fear of global warning.
- ben_w 7y agoTo claim any tax is a “scam” is to misunderstand tax.
- badfrog 7y agoMaybe by a strict/legal definition of scam, but you can easily imagine taxes that fit colloquial usage. Anything where the government is dishonest about the motivations behind the tax or how it will be used.
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoWhat like income tax, a "temporary tax to pay for the war"? (Napoleonic then Crimean for the UK, WW1 for the US) Still there 200+ years later in the UK, 100 years later in the US. Technically in the UK it still is a temporary tax, renewed every April 5th. I am emphatically not against income tax. Regardless of whether or not there was honesty.
- merpnderp 7y agoNo, the tax makes sense, buying and selling carbon offsets is the scam. We tried it before and it made people alike Al Gore billionaires, but was definitely a huge scam and resulting in nothing but the public getting fleeced and did jack and shite to reduce CO2.
- ctw 7y agoCan you explain why you think it's a scam?
- crankylinuxuser 7y agoIs the great Pacific garbage patch a scam? Is the great Atlantic garbage patch a scam? Are industrial chemicals in aquifers a scam? Is methylmercury accumulation in seafaring life a scam? Is world heating, up to locations being human uninhabitable, a scam? Are the glaciers in the Arctic and Antarctic breaking off and melting, a scam? How much evidence do you need in convincing? Or is it just political posturing, and they tell people to repeat without thought? EDIT: never mind, the "user" is a bad actor who posts doctored images and other "proof". This would be a good case study about Russian Interference and the similar . I would love to see the IP logs for this 'user'. I'd bet they were part of a bot posting farm.
- BurningFrog 7y agoWithout criticizing the article at all, I want to point out that headlines like this go viral and make money, while the opposite ones would go nowhere. In other words, the news you see is selected by virality, not by how well they describe the real world. I have no cure or even complaint for this. I just think it's a very important thing to keep in mind.
- hychoi99 7y agoI may have seen this exact headline maybe once a month for the past 10-15 years.
- mavhc 7y agoMaybe soon someone will take notice and do something
- lumberjack 7y agoThis is not just news. It is an academic article published by reputable institutions. If they had published the opposite article it would be even more noteworthy, being that it would be more revolutionary. Your comment would be true of opinion pieces written by wackos without reputation, that we only read because they validate our intuitions. Academic articles are a different matter.
- crb002 7y agoI still think many models are missing volcanic winters. We know they have crazy cooling effects, but they are something we don’t yet control. More $$$ money needs to go into Vulcanering. Crazy, but if we can make ash spread 20% more that’s years of cooling.
- WillPostForFood 7y agoThere are feasible approaches with similar effects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_cloud_brightening https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_cloud_brightening
- korpiq 7y agoIf I understand correctly, currently anthropogenically accumulated extra CO2 takes some hundreds of thousands of years to return to geological circulation, while the faster biological circulation won't withhold it all, and seas are getting saturated (and will acidify beyond supporting current lifeforms in the process). [see eg. Hot Earth Dreams] Also, if I understood correctly a single article I'll try to dig up a link to later, the kickback effect of stopping a temporary cooling measure and returning to the warming trend caused by the CO2 still in air will have stronger harmful effects. If these hold, it might prove tricky to keep up a moderate, safe cooling effect long enough, even if some technical measure to cause volcanic winter was found. [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-017-0431-0?utm_source=commission_junction&utm_medium=affiliate https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-017-0431-0?utm_source... via https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/devils-bargain-why-aerosols-pose-a-deadly-climate-change-threat-126855/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/devi...] I would hope this or some other measure would prove successful. but I'm not yet able to put all my faith on any of them.
- fungicide 7y agoToo late. https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
- olivermarks 7y agoThis is a very wide ranging piece by the two academics Naomi Oreskes and Nicholas Stern. Oreskes: '...contrary to popular belief, there is no single scientific method. Rather, the trustworthiness of scientific claims derives from the social process by which they are rigorously vetted against'. It comes down to trust... http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/event/why-trust-science-a-talk-by-professor-naomi-oreskes/ http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/event/why-trust-scien...
- gggegegeh 7y agoI don’t get why people are so crazy about climate change. There are multiple avenues to fixing it. It’s a very simple problem to solve. Some aspects might not be like ocean acidification but cooling the planet is well within our reach. And when it starts getting way too warm, everyone will realize what’s happening and everyone will work together on a solution. It’s already starting to happen. It’s not like a gamma ray burst or an asteroid where there is basically nothing we can do about it. The media makes it look way worse than it is. Stop watching the fear mongers on cnn.
- ben_w 7y agoIt’s simple to solve, but right now it’s also expensive and most of the consequences of doing nothing will impact a different group of people than those who are causing the problems.
- azinman2 7y agoPlease tell me this “simple solution?” More importantly, is it, viable?
- gggegegeh 7y agoWhy should I tell you? Clearly from your condescending tone you are, whether you realize it or not, emotionally invested in the idea that it’s unsolvable. I know because I know tons of liberal people who are the same way. It’s like the liberal version of religion. It’s simply doesn’t yield to logic. And also the solutions are quite simple and obvious and if you haven’t thought of them yourself then you aren’t going to be contributing much either way.
- joyjoyjoy 7y agoWe always had climate change. Not having climate change is the exception. Is it man made? Is it caused by CO2? Ist it getting warmer? Is this a good or a bad thing? Can we and should we do something about it? This are many questions and climate change is one of the most complex phenomenons. I have a STEM PhD and would not be able to make a quick judgement. "Climate Change Will Cost Us Even More Than We Think" Given that all the statements are true, something that is seldom discussed, who is "We"? People with real estate in NYC, Amsterdam and Miami? Maybe. People in super hot climates? Probably. How about people in Greenland? Russia? Canada?
- DennisP 7y agoIf you had a climate science PhD, you'd be better able to judge. Until then, a good overview of the scientific evidence for manmade climate change is in Hansen's Storms of My Grandchildren. The fact that climate is not especially stable is precisely the problem.
- tito 7y agoThat the climate is changing is not a complex question. The impacts are less known, but an unstable climate seems net negative for the average person on Earth. Heat wave deaths in Serbia and Canada: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/07/02/climate-change-heatwave-strikes-serbia-central-and-eastern-europe/1627412001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/07/02/climate-chang... https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-canada-1.4878263 https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-canada-1.4...
- radiorental 7y agoThis is a net sum loss. We, the species and the Our ecosystems will lose on the whole. The 'we've always had climate change' argument is bogus. It's the rate of change and the multitude of system's abilities to adapt. Life will go on, but not as we know it, Jim.
- tito 7y agoEvery time a climate change article hits the front page of HN, I cheer a bit. Are there any other awesome tech + climate communities around?