11 ms·

Why Climate Alarmism Hurts Us All

34 points by aazaa 7y ago

draklor40 7y ago
Hurting people is precisely the point of all of this alarmism. The goal is not to solve the "climate crisis", but to subvert the guilt of the people for self-serving needs of the few that stand to gain for society taking up measures deemed by them to "solve" the crisis.
- smt88 7y ago
  OK, I'll bite. How do you explain the hundreds of thousands of scientists worldwide who have studied the environment professionally for, collectively, millions of person-years? What is their self-serving motive? Surely a biologist would still have funding and things to study either way. The same is true for physicians, geologists, physicists, and many of the other specialties who have confirmed the finding that there is a climate crisis. The same is not true of 100% of the climate-crisis denial, where you can see multi-trillion-dollar businesses actively astroturfing their side of the conversation.
  - draklor40 7y ago
    There is no question that the climate is changing. But what is the crisis here ? Are the apocalyptic warnings anywhere close to reality? And lets look at the proposed solutions: - Going meatless. There is more and more evidence that the methane/CO2 emissions of meat industry is not very significant, atleast when you compare it to construction, cement and other industrial pollutants. The more important question is, what is the alternative ? Insects protein ? GMO crop fueled veganism? Jurassic park is all about how unintended consequences can arise out of stupid interventions ? Meatless burgers etc are full of junk nutrition and full of stuff like sunflower and vegetable oils, oils a century ago were considered industrial oils and used as paint thinners. - Green energy. Germany reversed their decision on Nuclear reactors to go green and the energy costs are 2x that of France. How do you expect to be competitive with other industries then ? It was the freeing up of stored chemical energy by James Watt that powered the greatest poverty lifting experiment in the history of Manking. There is no way Germany would get to 100% green energy by 2050 unless fusion, or everyone lives like they did in th 18th century or you kill off half the population. - People consume less ? Pray why is that virtue-signaling dipshits like Lenardo Di Fraudio, Attenborough fly around in private jets whereas we plebs have to give up on our tiny cars and electronics ? A single virtue signaling Hollywood nincompoop consumes 100x more than any average person would in an entire lifetime. - More taxes so people consume less ? Aren't we taxed enough ? - Tax the rich ? Gates and Bezos dont have a 100 billion sitting around in cash. Most of it is locked up as assets in Stock or another form. Besides, whatever millions they have paid so far is more than what 100,000 people would pay in a lifetime.
    - smt88 7y ago
      > There is no question that the climate is changing. But what is the crisis here ? The core problem is that humans (and most other living things on earth) evolved to live in a certain climate. For each organism, the tolerance for change differs. If we lose an intolerant, important organism (let's say plankton, for example) and it goes extinct, then there's a chain reaction that ends up making the planet uninhabitable for us. > Are the apocalyptic warnings anywhere close to reality? It depends on the warning. Will human life on earth end in 10 or 50 years? Probably not. But will we have a mass migration crisis that will threaten every wealthy country? Yes, and it will happen in less than 50 years as natural disasters and poor crop output drive people from their birth countries. Climate models from Exxon and public-sector scientists have been pretty accurate at describing the current state of our climate, so predictions from sober, professional scientists are worth paying attention to. The rest of your arguments fall into a few categories: A) Attacking a straw man. No one seriously things that going meatless would instantly solve the problem. There is no single solution. It requires many large changes to small aspects of our lifestyles. Eating less meat (not zero meat) for people who can afford it is helpful. There is a helpful list and rank of different approaches[1]. B) "Green energy (excluding nuclear) is too expensive and can't compete with fossil fuels in an open market." This is not true[2]. C) "Nuclear must be part of the answer." I think this might be true or might not. It's another huge prediction, isn't it? Why are you skeptical of some predictions about 2050, but not others? D) "Celebrities are hypocrites." Yes, they are. But it has nothing to do with the argument environmentalists are making. I find them irritating too, but it doesn't make environmental concerns any less reasonable. Celebrities are a tiny fraction of environmentalists. E) "Taxes are bad." Taxes in the US have rapidly gone down in the last few decades, but increasing them is a separate argument from the environment. Taxing carbon producers is a serious proposal, but that's not taxing Gates or Bezos -- it's forcing companies to pay for the damage they do to the air and environment the rest of us need to survive. 1. https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank 2. https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2019/05/29/renewable-energy-costs-tumble/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2019/05/29/renewa...
      - draklor40 7y ago
kalado 7y ago
"If you are aware of the science you're priviliged enough to survive climate change, no need to worry just because the 4 billion people in other countries are going to die"
- goatlover 7y ago
  Or the 4 billion number is just a wild guess to emphasize climate change being a big problem. What's the science behind estimating such a number?
delecti 7y ago
> In my last column, I pointed out that there is no scientific basis for claims that climate change will be apocalyptic If the author means literally everyone dead, planet gone, then obviously it won't be "apocalyptic", but the science is suggesting it's likely to be really bad. It seems pretty unreasonable to say "not apocalyptic? oh then that's not so bad, what's all the fuss about" when the situation is this dire. We could avert a lot of it if we actually did anything about it.
- hjkthkrleh 7y ago
  What does "really bad" mean? How is the current situation "this dire"? This kind of statements is exactly what this article is about.
  - gatherhunterer 7y ago
    No, that is not what the article is about. One of the researchers he interviewed asked the Guardian to correct its quotation but stood by his prediction of four billion deaths caused by climate change. The article in no way denies that the situation is bad or dire.
- tonyedgecombe 7y ago
  I often wonder if we would be better off framing it in terms of the financial costs. How much is it going to cost to build a wall around New York, evacuate low lying areas in Florida, move agricultural production around the world, accept millions of climate refugees.
- the-dude 7y ago
  For example, you could have read the article. It tries to counter claims of "4 billion casualties".
- AKrumbach 7y ago
  > If the author means literally everyone dead, planet gone, then obviously it won't be "apocalyptic", but the science is suggesting it's likely to be really bad. No, the science doesn't imply that climate change is going to mean literally everyone dead, only a massive cost to maintain things as they are today. Contrawise, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said "the world will end" by 2030 if we don't stop climate change. (Source: https://thinkprogress.org/we-dont-have-12-years-to-save-the-climate-we-have-14-months-71401316dbc4/ https://thinkprogress.org/we-dont-have-12-years-to-save-the-...) So, yes there are people being absolutely, ridiculously, unscientifically hysterical about the effects of climate change. Unscientific alarmism is just as harmful toward efforts to properly manage the global ecology as the unscientific denial of changes.
charliesome 7y ago
I highly recommend reading David Wallace-Wells' "The Uninhabitable Earth" - https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/41552709-the-uninhabitable-earth https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/41552709-the-uninhabitab... The book is quite information dense, intellectually honest with regard to the likelihood of various outcomes, and offers the clearest and broadest assessment I've yet read of where we are and what lies for us in the future. Describing the contemporary climate discourse as "alarmist" denies the severity and scale of the problem we face.
Miner49er 7y ago
The author is a paid advocate for nuclear power.
- jumbopapa 7y ago
  Isn't that one of the cleanest options available that can actually meet our energy demands?
  - MisterTea 7y ago
    He's also against renewables. This is a shill piece.
    - alfromspace 7y ago
      Answer the question. What's wrong with nuclear power?
    - jumbopapa 7y ago
      Is he against renewables as a matter of principle or because he finds them less effective? I think there's a big difference.
moosey 7y ago
Michael Schennenberger runs the BTI, or the "Breakthrough Institute", which is against taxing carbon, against fossil fuel reduction, and pro-geoengineering. It is ultimately a think-tank, which is just another name for a professional propaganda unit, IMO. This is an article encouraging you to calm down and sit down. It's a careful cherry-pick of data, something that the IPCC report is not, and something that is extremely common in contemporary opinion pieces. We should not be rosy about climate change or other pollution related issues. There exists massive quantities of evidence that can be covered at hacker news, and seeing this disinformation here when we have access to actual scientific information about climate change shocks me.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  He's also a registered lobbyist, founded and runs Environmental Progress - essentially a pro nuclear lobby group, and is rabidly anti-renewables - inventing "facts" to make them look bad. He does far more damage than good, and you basically can't trust a word he says or cites.
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    Pro nuclear is a good thing though no? It seems like the solution to climate change and energy production. I know I'm very skeptical of people who claim to be pro-environment then rally against nuclear power.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      Sure if done by actual facts and economic or climate advantages. Using it as a basis to spin against hydro or wind - i.e. to prove they are unviable just makes a complete mockery of his claims. TL;DR He lies about it and makes shit up, repeatedly, in all his pieces. What's he afraid of? Nuclear should stand on the reality of the proposition, and indeed should have a place in any low carbon solution if done properly.
    - mantap 7y ago
      Nuclear is a solution in countries such as India and China where it can be constructed for cheaper, but in the west it is dying due to the high cost. If nuclear only compared unfavorablely to fossil fuels the externalities could be addressed by a carbon tax. But because it compares unfavorably to renewables it is really dying.
malvosenior 7y ago
It's interesting to compare and contrast climate change and nuclear war. When I grew up it was common knowledge that the world could end at any point in time via nuclear holocaust. It was more or less the most direct existential threat to humanity the world had ever seen. It did spawn some nihilistic artistic movements and general detachment, but I'd say that the anxiety people felt was much lower than what you hear from the younger generations re: climate change. Even on this site, you'll see many people say that they don't want to have kids because of climate change. I don't recall people in the 80s saying they wouldn't reproduce due to the future threat of nuclear war. I'm not sure what the exact cause is but I suspect it has something to do with the how the different generations process authority and media messaging. Earlier generations being much more skeptical of what they are told.
- delecti 7y ago
  Having kids didn't make nuclear war more likely. Having kids does increase your effective carbon footprint.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > Having kids does increase your effective carbon footprint. Only for an odd definition of “your”.
- hjkthkrleh 7y ago
  > how the different generations process authority and media messaging The big difference is that the current generation gets it's information from Instagram/..., from peers, not authority, thus at the same time they can be skeptical of authority while totally believing whatever circulates on Instagram (for example the recent fake fact how "Amazon, the lungs of the planet, are burning", the fake fact being that Amazon generates 20% of the world oxygen)
  - goatlover 7y ago
    Also the fake fact that the Amazon rain forest was being burned down instead of an increased fraction of the forest was being burned this year to clear for more farmland over decline in the percentage in recent years. Which is an issue, because it's best if as much of the Amazon is preserved as possible, but not the apocalyptic one of the entire rainforest going up in smoke.
labster 7y ago
This article manages to be mostly correct while at the same time being several shades of ok boomer. Sure, we're not all going to die. But on the other hand a major source of geopolitical instability comes from crop failure, and people still seem rather alarmed about that war in Syria and all the refugees. The fact that we're in a global mass extinction event is somewhat troubling as well, even given that not all of the extinctions are caused by climate change. It's not the one-meter sea level rise (optimistic case). It's the one meter plus more hurricanes with more storm surge. Yes, we can managed retreat. But people really don't want to do that, and then one day you have your sewer system under water. That could have happened with a big enough hurricane anyway, but climate change just makes a lot of problems bigger. It's almost never a prime mover, it's a statistical problem, which in the short term makes the numbers a little worse for all of us. But enough of those numbers are changing that we should be alarmed. Life expectancy decreasing a year or two, as it is in the US right now, should be alarming, even if it is statistics, and climate is not really that different. And if you're using "15 if statements", it doesn't usually mean you're wrong, it just means you need to refactor your code.
Gravityloss 7y ago
I thought Greta Thunberg was pretty factual?
- smt88 7y ago
  She is aggressive, emotional, and passionate about the need for change, but she doesn't present new facts or policies herself. She leaves that up to scientists. > "I don’t want you to listen to me. I want you to listen to the scientists, and I want you to unite behind the science, and then I want you to take real action."[1] She's even been asked to make specific recommendations, and she says to follow the science. 1. https://www.axios.com/greta-thunberg-testimony-climate-change-13876b47-d76d-4538-8a0b-8ac3ac8e7ba1.html https://www.axios.com/greta-thunberg-testimony-climate-chang...
the-dude 7y ago
This submission is now flagged. Please unflag it, there is nothing wrong with the article.
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  It's a dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21648582 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21648582
baxtr 7y ago
I am not sure if flagging this helps. Why not discuss a controversial position?
- goodmachine 7y ago
  Flagging helps here because the author (with whom, fwiw, I basically agree - let's have more nuclear power!) cannot be trusted to supply reliable information, ie not to distort data whenever it suits him. https://www.wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/853/exposing-misinformation-michael-shellenberger-and-environmental-progress https://www.wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/853/exposi... https://theecologist.org/2018/sep/20/nuclear-power-lobbyist-michael-shellenberger-learns-love-bomb https://theecologist.org/2018/sep/20/nuclear-power-lobbyist-... https://news.mongabay.com/2019/08/michael-shellenbergers-sloppy-forbes-diatribe-on-amazon-fires-commentary/ https://news.mongabay.com/2019/08/michael-shellenbergers-slo...
  - thu2111 7y ago
    Neither can many journalists, but we don't systematically flag stories found in the NY Times. The article in question gives many citations, interviews with original sources and is in general an excellent piece of journalism. It's also arguing against a ridiculous, extreme position whose prime proponents have frequently admitted they're lying. Trying to suppress this article because it's written by someone in favour of nuclear power is exactly what makes people suspicious of all environmentalist narratives because how do they know they're getting the full picture?
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  It's a dupe. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21648582 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21648582
- smt88 7y ago
  > Why not discuss a controversial position? One reason is if the argument is made in bad faith by a paid shill, as is the case here. There are lots of discussions happening now about nuclear vs. renewables vs. fossil fuels. There's no need to waste anyone's time broadcasting a piece like this that presumed its conclusion when a check was signed.
GVIrish 7y ago
While I agree that alarmists who think the world is ending in 10-20 years are wildly off-base, Shellenberger is badly understating things at times. He asked an IPCC scientist about what was unmanageable about a 3 ft+ sea level rise, and after said scientist explained the numerous serious scenarios his glib conclusion was: "In other words, the problems from sea level rise that Oppenheimer is calling “unmanageable” are situations like the ones that already occur, such as in the days following Hurricane Katrina, where societies become temporarily difficult to manage. (Katrina killed over 1,800)." This is a really bad hot take. Number one, Hurricane Katrina was a one-time weather event. Sea level rise means you're always going to be dealing with trying to hold back the sea. In parts of the world that are already struggling with poverty, how are they gonna come up with the billions of dollars to engineer, build, and maintain sea walls and dykes? And that's not even getting into the fact that if you're starting out with much higher sea level, storm surge is gonna cause that much more damage. On top of that, significantly warmer seas are going to cause much stronger storms. People displaced by said consequences of climate change are going destabilize governments and/or cause conflicts. There are many hot spots in the world where long standing tensions could burst into open conflict if a climate-related disaster or crisis hits.
lcall 7y ago
We don't have to be surprised about some of these events, since they have been predicted in the scriptures, for now, for a long time (ice melting, storms, quakes, waves of the sea heaving themselves beyond their bounds, fires/smoke, and other significant catastrophic events--not just the usual levels of them). I do appreciate the science and am glad for progress in our efforts. But it seems to me we are not competent to solve such things when we have largely rejected the instructions given by the earth's Creator (like, honesty, the Golden Rule, etc, etc): we have a hard time trusting each other even when we say we agree. I'm glad we can share our own thoughts. We need His help both to address important issues globally, and in our personal lives. And we can be OK. Related thoughts at http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854581820.html http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854581820.html , a simple site w/ no javascript or sales).

34 points by aazaa 7y ago

Hurting people is precisely the point of all of this alarmism. The goal is not to solve the "climate crisis", but to subvert the guilt of the people for self-serving needs of the few that stand to gain for society taking up measures deemed by them to "solve" the crisis.

smt88 7y ago
OK, I'll bite. How do you explain the hundreds of thousands of scientists worldwide who have studied the environment professionally for, collectively, millions of person-years? What is their self-serving motive? Surely a biologist would still have funding and things to study either way. The same is true for physicians, geologists, physicists, and many of the other specialties who have confirmed the finding that there is a climate crisis. The same is not true of 100% of the climate-crisis denial, where you can see multi-trillion-dollar businesses actively astroturfing their side of the conversation.
- draklor40 7y ago
  There is no question that the climate is changing. But what is the crisis here ? Are the apocalyptic warnings anywhere close to reality? And lets look at the proposed solutions: - Going meatless. There is more and more evidence that the methane/CO2 emissions of meat industry is not very significant, atleast when you compare it to construction, cement and other industrial pollutants. The more important question is, what is the alternative ? Insects protein ? GMO crop fueled veganism? Jurassic park is all about how unintended consequences can arise out of stupid interventions ? Meatless burgers etc are full of junk nutrition and full of stuff like sunflower and vegetable oils, oils a century ago were considered industrial oils and used as paint thinners. - Green energy. Germany reversed their decision on Nuclear reactors to go green and the energy costs are 2x that of France. How do you expect to be competitive with other industries then ? It was the freeing up of stored chemical energy by James Watt that powered the greatest poverty lifting experiment in the history of Manking. There is no way Germany would get to 100% green energy by 2050 unless fusion, or everyone lives like they did in th 18th century or you kill off half the population. - People consume less ? Pray why is that virtue-signaling dipshits like Lenardo Di Fraudio, Attenborough fly around in private jets whereas we plebs have to give up on our tiny cars and electronics ? A single virtue signaling Hollywood nincompoop consumes 100x more than any average person would in an entire lifetime. - More taxes so people consume less ? Aren't we taxed enough ? - Tax the rich ? Gates and Bezos dont have a 100 billion sitting around in cash. Most of it is locked up as assets in Stock or another form. Besides, whatever millions they have paid so far is more than what 100,000 people would pay in a lifetime.
  - smt88 7y ago
    > There is no question that the climate is changing. But what is the crisis here ? The core problem is that humans (and most other living things on earth) evolved to live in a certain climate. For each organism, the tolerance for change differs. If we lose an intolerant, important organism (let's say plankton, for example) and it goes extinct, then there's a chain reaction that ends up making the planet uninhabitable for us. > Are the apocalyptic warnings anywhere close to reality? It depends on the warning. Will human life on earth end in 10 or 50 years? Probably not. But will we have a mass migration crisis that will threaten every wealthy country? Yes, and it will happen in less than 50 years as natural disasters and poor crop output drive people from their birth countries. Climate models from Exxon and public-sector scientists have been pretty accurate at describing the current state of our climate, so predictions from sober, professional scientists are worth paying attention to. The rest of your arguments fall into a few categories: A) Attacking a straw man. No one seriously things that going meatless would instantly solve the problem. There is no single solution. It requires many large changes to small aspects of our lifestyles. Eating less meat (not zero meat) for people who can afford it is helpful. There is a helpful list and rank of different approaches[1]. B) "Green energy (excluding nuclear) is too expensive and can't compete with fossil fuels in an open market." This is not true[2]. C) "Nuclear must be part of the answer." I think this might be true or might not. It's another huge prediction, isn't it? Why are you skeptical of some predictions about 2050, but not others? D) "Celebrities are hypocrites." Yes, they are. But it has nothing to do with the argument environmentalists are making. I find them irritating too, but it doesn't make environmental concerns any less reasonable. Celebrities are a tiny fraction of environmentalists. E) "Taxes are bad." Taxes in the US have rapidly gone down in the last few decades, but increasing them is a separate argument from the environment. Taxing carbon producers is a serious proposal, but that's not taxing Gates or Bezos -- it's forcing companies to pay for the damage they do to the air and environment the rest of us need to survive. 1. https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank 2. https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2019/05/29/renewable-energy-costs-tumble/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2019/05/29/renewa...
    - draklor40 7y ago

kalado 7y ago

"If you are aware of the science you're priviliged enough to survive climate change, no need to worry just because the 4 billion people in other countries are going to die"

goatlover 7y ago
Or the 4 billion number is just a wild guess to emphasize climate change being a big problem. What's the science behind estimating such a number?

delecti 7y ago

> In my last column, I pointed out that there is no scientific basis for claims that climate change will be apocalyptic If the author means literally everyone dead, planet gone, then obviously it won't be "apocalyptic", but the science is suggesting it's likely to be really bad. It seems pretty unreasonable to say "not apocalyptic? oh then that's not so bad, what's all the fuss about" when the situation is this dire. We could avert a lot of it if we actually did anything about it.

hjkthkrleh 7y ago
What does "really bad" mean? How is the current situation "this dire"? This kind of statements is exactly what this article is about.
- gatherhunterer 7y ago
  No, that is not what the article is about. One of the researchers he interviewed asked the Guardian to correct its quotation but stood by his prediction of four billion deaths caused by climate change. The article in no way denies that the situation is bad or dire.
tonyedgecombe 7y ago
I often wonder if we would be better off framing it in terms of the financial costs. How much is it going to cost to build a wall around New York, evacuate low lying areas in Florida, move agricultural production around the world, accept millions of climate refugees.
the-dude 7y ago
For example, you could have read the article. It tries to counter claims of "4 billion casualties".
AKrumbach 7y ago
> If the author means literally everyone dead, planet gone, then obviously it won't be "apocalyptic", but the science is suggesting it's likely to be really bad. No, the science doesn't imply that climate change is going to mean literally everyone dead, only a massive cost to maintain things as they are today. Contrawise, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said "the world will end" by 2030 if we don't stop climate change. (Source: https://thinkprogress.org/we-dont-have-12-years-to-save-the-climate-we-have-14-months-71401316dbc4/ https://thinkprogress.org/we-dont-have-12-years-to-save-the-...) So, yes there are people being absolutely, ridiculously, unscientifically hysterical about the effects of climate change. Unscientific alarmism is just as harmful toward efforts to properly manage the global ecology as the unscientific denial of changes.

charliesome 7y ago

I highly recommend reading David Wallace-Wells' "The Uninhabitable Earth" - https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/41552709-the-uninhabitable-earth https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/41552709-the-uninhabitab... The book is quite information dense, intellectually honest with regard to the likelihood of various outcomes, and offers the clearest and broadest assessment I've yet read of where we are and what lies for us in the future. Describing the contemporary climate discourse as "alarmist" denies the severity and scale of the problem we face.

Miner49er 7y ago

The author is a paid advocate for nuclear power.

jumbopapa 7y ago
Isn't that one of the cleanest options available that can actually meet our energy demands?
- MisterTea 7y ago
  He's also against renewables. This is a shill piece.
  - alfromspace 7y ago
    Answer the question. What's wrong with nuclear power?
  - jumbopapa 7y ago
    Is he against renewables as a matter of principle or because he finds them less effective? I think there's a big difference.

moosey 7y ago

Michael Schennenberger runs the BTI, or the "Breakthrough Institute", which is against taxing carbon, against fossil fuel reduction, and pro-geoengineering. It is ultimately a think-tank, which is just another name for a professional propaganda unit, IMO. This is an article encouraging you to calm down and sit down. It's a careful cherry-pick of data, something that the IPCC report is not, and something that is extremely common in contemporary opinion pieces. We should not be rosy about climate change or other pollution related issues. There exists massive quantities of evidence that can be covered at hacker news, and seeing this disinformation here when we have access to actual scientific information about climate change shocks me.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
He's also a registered lobbyist, founded and runs Environmental Progress - essentially a pro nuclear lobby group, and is rabidly anti-renewables - inventing "facts" to make them look bad. He does far more damage than good, and you basically can't trust a word he says or cites.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  Pro nuclear is a good thing though no? It seems like the solution to climate change and energy production. I know I'm very skeptical of people who claim to be pro-environment then rally against nuclear power.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Sure if done by actual facts and economic or climate advantages. Using it as a basis to spin against hydro or wind - i.e. to prove they are unviable just makes a complete mockery of his claims. TL;DR He lies about it and makes shit up, repeatedly, in all his pieces. What's he afraid of? Nuclear should stand on the reality of the proposition, and indeed should have a place in any low carbon solution if done properly.
  - mantap 7y ago
    Nuclear is a solution in countries such as India and China where it can be constructed for cheaper, but in the west it is dying due to the high cost. If nuclear only compared unfavorablely to fossil fuels the externalities could be addressed by a carbon tax. But because it compares unfavorably to renewables it is really dying.

malvosenior 7y ago

It's interesting to compare and contrast climate change and nuclear war. When I grew up it was common knowledge that the world could end at any point in time via nuclear holocaust. It was more or less the most direct existential threat to humanity the world had ever seen. It did spawn some nihilistic artistic movements and general detachment, but I'd say that the anxiety people felt was much lower than what you hear from the younger generations re: climate change. Even on this site, you'll see many people say that they don't want to have kids because of climate change. I don't recall people in the 80s saying they wouldn't reproduce due to the future threat of nuclear war. I'm not sure what the exact cause is but I suspect it has something to do with the how the different generations process authority and media messaging. Earlier generations being much more skeptical of what they are told.

delecti 7y ago
Having kids didn't make nuclear war more likely. Having kids does increase your effective carbon footprint.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Having kids does increase your effective carbon footprint. Only for an odd definition of “your”.
hjkthkrleh 7y ago
> how the different generations process authority and media messaging The big difference is that the current generation gets it's information from Instagram/..., from peers, not authority, thus at the same time they can be skeptical of authority while totally believing whatever circulates on Instagram (for example the recent fake fact how "Amazon, the lungs of the planet, are burning", the fake fact being that Amazon generates 20% of the world oxygen)
- goatlover 7y ago
  Also the fake fact that the Amazon rain forest was being burned down instead of an increased fraction of the forest was being burned this year to clear for more farmland over decline in the percentage in recent years. Which is an issue, because it's best if as much of the Amazon is preserved as possible, but not the apocalyptic one of the entire rainforest going up in smoke.

labster 7y ago

This article manages to be mostly correct while at the same time being several shades of ok boomer. Sure, we're not all going to die. But on the other hand a major source of geopolitical instability comes from crop failure, and people still seem rather alarmed about that war in Syria and all the refugees. The fact that we're in a global mass extinction event is somewhat troubling as well, even given that not all of the extinctions are caused by climate change. It's not the one-meter sea level rise (optimistic case). It's the one meter plus more hurricanes with more storm surge. Yes, we can managed retreat. But people really don't want to do that, and then one day you have your sewer system under water. That could have happened with a big enough hurricane anyway, but climate change just makes a lot of problems bigger. It's almost never a prime mover, it's a statistical problem, which in the short term makes the numbers a little worse for all of us. But enough of those numbers are changing that we should be alarmed. Life expectancy decreasing a year or two, as it is in the US right now, should be alarming, even if it is statistics, and climate is not really that different. And if you're using "15 if statements", it doesn't usually mean you're wrong, it just means you need to refactor your code.

Gravityloss 7y ago

I thought Greta Thunberg was pretty factual?

smt88 7y ago
She is aggressive, emotional, and passionate about the need for change, but she doesn't present new facts or policies herself. She leaves that up to scientists. > "I don’t want you to listen to me. I want you to listen to the scientists, and I want you to unite behind the science, and then I want you to take real action."[1] She's even been asked to make specific recommendations, and she says to follow the science. 1. https://www.axios.com/greta-thunberg-testimony-climate-change-13876b47-d76d-4538-8a0b-8ac3ac8e7ba1.html https://www.axios.com/greta-thunberg-testimony-climate-chang...

the-dude 7y ago

This submission is now flagged. Please unflag it, there is nothing wrong with the article.

bryanlarsen 7y ago
It's a dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21648582 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21648582

baxtr 7y ago

I am not sure if flagging this helps. Why not discuss a controversial position?

goodmachine 7y ago
Flagging helps here because the author (with whom, fwiw, I basically agree - let's have more nuclear power!) cannot be trusted to supply reliable information, ie not to distort data whenever it suits him. https://www.wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/853/exposing-misinformation-michael-shellenberger-and-environmental-progress https://www.wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/853/exposi... https://theecologist.org/2018/sep/20/nuclear-power-lobbyist-michael-shellenberger-learns-love-bomb https://theecologist.org/2018/sep/20/nuclear-power-lobbyist-... https://news.mongabay.com/2019/08/michael-shellenbergers-sloppy-forbes-diatribe-on-amazon-fires-commentary/ https://news.mongabay.com/2019/08/michael-shellenbergers-slo...
- thu2111 7y ago
  Neither can many journalists, but we don't systematically flag stories found in the NY Times. The article in question gives many citations, interviews with original sources and is in general an excellent piece of journalism. It's also arguing against a ridiculous, extreme position whose prime proponents have frequently admitted they're lying. Trying to suppress this article because it's written by someone in favour of nuclear power is exactly what makes people suspicious of all environmentalist narratives because how do they know they're getting the full picture?
bryanlarsen 7y ago
It's a dupe. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21648582 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21648582
smt88 7y ago
> Why not discuss a controversial position? One reason is if the argument is made in bad faith by a paid shill, as is the case here. There are lots of discussions happening now about nuclear vs. renewables vs. fossil fuels. There's no need to waste anyone's time broadcasting a piece like this that presumed its conclusion when a check was signed.

GVIrish 7y ago

While I agree that alarmists who think the world is ending in 10-20 years are wildly off-base, Shellenberger is badly understating things at times. He asked an IPCC scientist about what was unmanageable about a 3 ft+ sea level rise, and after said scientist explained the numerous serious scenarios his glib conclusion was: "In other words, the problems from sea level rise that Oppenheimer is calling “unmanageable” are situations like the ones that already occur, such as in the days following Hurricane Katrina, where societies become temporarily difficult to manage. (Katrina killed over 1,800)." This is a really bad hot take. Number one, Hurricane Katrina was a one-time weather event. Sea level rise means you're always going to be dealing with trying to hold back the sea. In parts of the world that are already struggling with poverty, how are they gonna come up with the billions of dollars to engineer, build, and maintain sea walls and dykes? And that's not even getting into the fact that if you're starting out with much higher sea level, storm surge is gonna cause that much more damage. On top of that, significantly warmer seas are going to cause much stronger storms. People displaced by said consequences of climate change are going destabilize governments and/or cause conflicts. There are many hot spots in the world where long standing tensions could burst into open conflict if a climate-related disaster or crisis hits.

lcall 7y ago

We don't have to be surprised about some of these events, since they have been predicted in the scriptures, for now, for a long time (ice melting, storms, quakes, waves of the sea heaving themselves beyond their bounds, fires/smoke, and other significant catastrophic events--not just the usual levels of them). I do appreciate the science and am glad for progress in our efforts. But it seems to me we are not competent to solve such things when we have largely rejected the instructions given by the earth's Creator (like, honesty, the Golden Rule, etc, etc): we have a hard time trusting each other even when we say we agree. I'm glad we can share our own thoughts. We need His help both to address important issues globally, and in our personal lives. And we can be OK. Related thoughts at http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854581820.html http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854581820.html , a simple site w/ no javascript or sales).