11 ms·

What I have found more frustrating than those in denial of climate change lately, is those who deny responsibility. That the real problem is in other countries.

What I have found more frustrating than those in denial of climate change lately, is those who deny responsibility. That the real problem is in other countries. India. China. America. Little old X in Europe can't possible be the ones that need to sort it out. Therefore there's no point changing our habits. I feel a little hopeless in these discussions. I have little hope for change. I cannot argue against the fact that our impact in Europe will not be enough. This requires a global, concerted effort and it's hard to argue against the logic that it won't matter what we do in Europe if everyone else doesn't follow suit. We are just delaying the inevitable.

organsnyder 7y ago
I've also found those discussions to be extremely frustrating. Yeah, I understand feeling that as individuals we're not able to make much of a difference, but that's all the more reason we should be advocating for structural changes.
gchamonlive 7y ago
> Therefore there's no point changing our habits. This kind of feels to me like mutual assured destruction. Nobody lay down their weapons because of the other party. If you are not changing habits because the source of the problem doesn't lie in your geographical section, you are turning your back to the fact that climate crisis is a human kind crisis. We need to change habits as a whole, so that even when we are not directly helping, we are setting precedent and example. Edit: the talks are frustrating though, I am not arguing that! But let's not give up. Giving up we are assuring our defeat.
thbr99 7y ago
Oh blame the third world for climate change because they are busy building their economy & uplifting of their poor. Has the colonists accepted the responsibility for their plundering of once wealthy countries that's called "third world" now ?
ForHackernews 7y ago
This is so ridiculous. Not only are rich countries the biggest polluters per capita, but they're responsible for most of the total emissions since the industrial revolution: https://www.wri.org/blog/2014/05/history-carbon-dioxide-emissions https://www.wri.org/blog/2014/05/history-carbon-dioxide-emis... Any one country isn't enough to make a difference, but we're all in this together, and The West bears more than its fair share of responsibility. Pointing your finger and India and China just makes you look like a selfish hypocrite.
CuriousSkeptic 7y ago
One way to approach this perhaps is to look at emissions per capita. Norway, as an example, is a way bigger offender (or at least has been, haven’t check recent data) than China by this metric. And it _is_ a political problem at this point. You cant really demand change from people around you if you’re not prepared to do the same yourself.
- manfredo 7y ago
  It largely depends on how you count emissions. Norway has very low emissions per capita, as they have the right geography for hydroelectric power (with which they generate >95% of their electricity). On the other hand, they have a large industry of exporting oil to other countries.
- koheripbal 7y ago
  I think a more useful metric is per unit of GDP. ...because then it becomes an efficiency metric. "How much wealth can we create with X amount of CO2".
  - leto_ii 7y ago
    I really don't see how this would be a good idea. First of all it suggests that wealth is the be-all and end-all of human progress. It also implies that wealth creation is equivalent wherever it happens - that somehow if a place is more efficient at creating wealth than it should be privileged. Finally, of course, this means that poorer countries that produce less wealth will almost certainly be less efficient by this metric, and hence should be penalized (of course, we shouldn't mention that a lot of their production actually ends up being consumed by the rich-world which can this way claim to be highly CO2 efficient).
    - koheripbal 7y ago
      > it suggests that wealth is the be-all and end-all of human progress You misunderstand. The point is to quantify economic power. ...because economic power is the ONLY way fix global warming.
koheripbal 7y ago
The only way to combat a Tragedy of the Commons problem is through collective action. Unilateral changes actually have a net negative impact because other parties simply consume more (CO2 in this case).
- eloff 7y ago
  > Unilateral changes actually have a net negative impact because other parties simply consume more (CO2 in this case). I fail to see your logic. If many people consume less petroleum maybe the price goes down and others consume more, but I don't see how they're going to consume more than what was the state of things in the first place. Honestly it seems like a shallow rationalization to avoid taking personal responsibility for your actions. That might sound harsh but I'm a firm believer in extreme ownership as espoused by Jocko Willink. I'm allergic to excuses and rationalizations.
  - koheripbal 7y ago
    It's very simple. If Country A reduces CO2 production by closing a few factories, and Country B increases CO2 production to replace that market demand, Country A will have spent economic resources in making that change, and Country B would simply be producing what A+B produced before. It's a net negative for the world.
    - eloff 7y ago
      I see, you're talking not about unilateral personal choices, but unilateral country choices. It's not that simple, there are many unilateral choices a country can make that would not have a net negative effect. For example if you close a coal power plant in Virginia, China is not simply going to build one and sell the power to the US - there are physical limitations there. You have a valid point that a country needs to think about unintentional consequences of their decisions, something politicians are notoriously bad at, but claiming that all unilateral action is net negative is such a ludicrous strawman that I don't actually beleive that's your position on the subject.
- skybrian 7y ago
skybrian 7y ago
Collective action is essential but the way forward is through smaller efforts as pilot projects and to prove the market. Setting a good example doesn't inevitably result in everyone following along, but a proven solution is a whole lot easier to sell than a proposal that's never been tried at scale.
- dv_dt 7y ago
  I'd go further and say there could easily be a set of outcomes where it's a big first mover advantage for anyone who develops the approach that works in any of the many niches needed to move forward. And for the first nation that systematically enables that kind of scaled climate focused development - they'll get huge payback as the effects get worse and lagging nations pony up the money to mitigate effects and go to leading nations and companies looking for solutions with any sort of track record.
robomartin 7y ago
> the real problem is in other countries It's worse than that. And this always receives a negative reaction...yet this is the truth nobody seems to want to talk about save a very few brave researchers: We can't do a thing about it. Period. I've written about this many times. This isn't about denying climate change or our contribution to atmospheric CO2 concentration --that would be silly, it's as real as it gets. This is about pulling our heads out of the sand to take a look at the data in order to understand what it is screaming at us very loudly. It goes something like this: If humanity --all of us-- left the planet tomorrow and we took all of our technology, cars, planes, buildings --everything-- with us...it would take somewhere in the range of 50K to 100K years for atmospheric CO2 to come down by 100 ppm (which is roughly what we need). This isn't me saying it. This is the very accurate data we have. We know, with a very high degree of certainty, what the atmosphere looked like and how long it took for CO2 to increase and decrease when humanity was but a bunch of apes on trees. This data is provided to us by the 800,000 years of ice core atmospheric data we already have. Ice core atmospheric composition sampling is a highly accurate way to learn about what the atmosphere looked like in the past. And, again, to be redundant, we have data going back 800,000 years. This means we KNOW how the atmosphere behaved when we were not here. This also means we KNOW how it will behave is we all left. If it takes the planet 50,000 to 100,000 years for a 100 ppm reduction there's NOTHING we can do at a small scale (solar panels world-wide, stop using cars, stop using planes, ban all fossil fuels, etc.) that will accelerate the slope at all. If we stay on the planet the rate of change is GREATER than 50K to 100K for 100 ppm, because we are contributing more CO2 to the equation. Please don't take my word for it. Look at the data and you should have the same revelation about this issue I had many years ago. This does not mean we should not make an effort to clean-up our act, there are many reasons for which this is a good idea and none of them anything to do with climate change. I does mean we need to not lie to ourselves and start having real conversations about this stuff rather than, on the one hand, denying it, and, on the other, thinking we can actually affect planetary scale problems with truly insignificant measures. Hint: Everything is insignificant when compared to humanity leaving the planet. Both extreme positions are unreasonable and delusional. Finally, a problem: Scientists, researchers, don't want to talk about this reality because their careers would be over if they did. At the very least their grants would evaporate. This is a terrible side-effect of the religion climate change has become. We need to free our researchers so that they can be honest about what we know and we can put them to work on how to deal with reality. Here's were you will find the 800,000 years of ice core data: https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/images/air_bubbles_historical.jpg https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/images/air_bubbles_historical... https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html Here's a paper that explains why it is that atmospheric CO2 will continue to rise exponentially even if we switch the the most optimal forms of renewable energy world-wide: https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-data/pdf/43326.pdf https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-... I have looked into this issue in depth and I have yet to find any argument or proposed solution that can do better than all of humanity leaving the planet, which is to say we can't fix it. We better start talking about how to live with it soon rather than propose ridiculous "solutions" that are far more likely to kill us all than fix anything.
roenxi 7y ago
There is a very harsh implicit truth that humans, when left to do what they think best, choose to live in cities. Anything larger than about knee high is systematically exterminated and anything smaller is fitfully exterminated. Most of the land is covered in concrete. The idea that people need to take responsibility for increased PPM of CO2 when their default contribution is city living has a certain flavor of missing the forest for the trees. That is just how we roll by choice. The hope that people might choose reduced/more expensive energy availability was always slim to nonexistant. Collective action is not going to fly; the only things that will work are (1) running out of fossil fuels or (2) Renewables/nuclear being a cheaper, better choice.
agumonkey 7y ago
The few I know (and it's "few") there's TheShifters group (a team of ~volunteers helping the Shift Project). They've been trying social efforts for quite a while now. Are there other similar groups that try to educate and motivate the rest of the population ? With enough of these groups, I believe most people will feel motivated, they just need a headstart to follow (we're too social).

organsnyder 7y ago

I've also found those discussions to be extremely frustrating. Yeah, I understand feeling that as individuals we're not able to make much of a difference, but that's all the more reason we should be advocating for structural changes.

gchamonlive 7y ago

> Therefore there's no point changing our habits. This kind of feels to me like mutual assured destruction. Nobody lay down their weapons because of the other party. If you are not changing habits because the source of the problem doesn't lie in your geographical section, you are turning your back to the fact that climate crisis is a human kind crisis. We need to change habits as a whole, so that even when we are not directly helping, we are setting precedent and example. Edit: the talks are frustrating though, I am not arguing that! But let's not give up. Giving up we are assuring our defeat.

thbr99 7y ago

Oh blame the third world for climate change because they are busy building their economy & uplifting of their poor. Has the colonists accepted the responsibility for their plundering of once wealthy countries that's called "third world" now ?

ForHackernews 7y ago

This is so ridiculous. Not only are rich countries the biggest polluters per capita, but they're responsible for most of the total emissions since the industrial revolution: https://www.wri.org/blog/2014/05/history-carbon-dioxide-emissions https://www.wri.org/blog/2014/05/history-carbon-dioxide-emis... Any one country isn't enough to make a difference, but we're all in this together, and The West bears more than its fair share of responsibility. Pointing your finger and India and China just makes you look like a selfish hypocrite.

CuriousSkeptic 7y ago

One way to approach this perhaps is to look at emissions per capita. Norway, as an example, is a way bigger offender (or at least has been, haven’t check recent data) than China by this metric. And it _is_ a political problem at this point. You cant really demand change from people around you if you’re not prepared to do the same yourself.

manfredo 7y ago
It largely depends on how you count emissions. Norway has very low emissions per capita, as they have the right geography for hydroelectric power (with which they generate >95% of their electricity). On the other hand, they have a large industry of exporting oil to other countries.
koheripbal 7y ago
I think a more useful metric is per unit of GDP. ...because then it becomes an efficiency metric. "How much wealth can we create with X amount of CO2".
- leto_ii 7y ago
  I really don't see how this would be a good idea. First of all it suggests that wealth is the be-all and end-all of human progress. It also implies that wealth creation is equivalent wherever it happens - that somehow if a place is more efficient at creating wealth than it should be privileged. Finally, of course, this means that poorer countries that produce less wealth will almost certainly be less efficient by this metric, and hence should be penalized (of course, we shouldn't mention that a lot of their production actually ends up being consumed by the rich-world which can this way claim to be highly CO2 efficient).
  - koheripbal 7y ago
    > it suggests that wealth is the be-all and end-all of human progress You misunderstand. The point is to quantify economic power. ...because economic power is the ONLY way fix global warming.

koheripbal 7y ago

The only way to combat a Tragedy of the Commons problem is through collective action. Unilateral changes actually have a net negative impact because other parties simply consume more (CO2 in this case).

eloff 7y ago
> Unilateral changes actually have a net negative impact because other parties simply consume more (CO2 in this case). I fail to see your logic. If many people consume less petroleum maybe the price goes down and others consume more, but I don't see how they're going to consume more than what was the state of things in the first place. Honestly it seems like a shallow rationalization to avoid taking personal responsibility for your actions. That might sound harsh but I'm a firm believer in extreme ownership as espoused by Jocko Willink. I'm allergic to excuses and rationalizations.
- koheripbal 7y ago
  It's very simple. If Country A reduces CO2 production by closing a few factories, and Country B increases CO2 production to replace that market demand, Country A will have spent economic resources in making that change, and Country B would simply be producing what A+B produced before. It's a net negative for the world.
  - eloff 7y ago
    I see, you're talking not about unilateral personal choices, but unilateral country choices. It's not that simple, there are many unilateral choices a country can make that would not have a net negative effect. For example if you close a coal power plant in Virginia, China is not simply going to build one and sell the power to the US - there are physical limitations there. You have a valid point that a country needs to think about unintentional consequences of their decisions, something politicians are notoriously bad at, but claiming that all unilateral action is net negative is such a ludicrous strawman that I don't actually beleive that's your position on the subject.
skybrian 7y ago

skybrian 7y ago

Collective action is essential but the way forward is through smaller efforts as pilot projects and to prove the market. Setting a good example doesn't inevitably result in everyone following along, but a proven solution is a whole lot easier to sell than a proposal that's never been tried at scale.

dv_dt 7y ago
I'd go further and say there could easily be a set of outcomes where it's a big first mover advantage for anyone who develops the approach that works in any of the many niches needed to move forward. And for the first nation that systematically enables that kind of scaled climate focused development - they'll get huge payback as the effects get worse and lagging nations pony up the money to mitigate effects and go to leading nations and companies looking for solutions with any sort of track record.

robomartin 7y ago

> the real problem is in other countries It's worse than that. And this always receives a negative reaction...yet this is the truth nobody seems to want to talk about save a very few brave researchers: We can't do a thing about it. Period. I've written about this many times. This isn't about denying climate change or our contribution to atmospheric CO2 concentration --that would be silly, it's as real as it gets. This is about pulling our heads out of the sand to take a look at the data in order to understand what it is screaming at us very loudly. It goes something like this: If humanity --all of us-- left the planet tomorrow and we took all of our technology, cars, planes, buildings --everything-- with us...it would take somewhere in the range of 50K to 100K years for atmospheric CO2 to come down by 100 ppm (which is roughly what we need). This isn't me saying it. This is the very accurate data we have. We know, with a very high degree of certainty, what the atmosphere looked like and how long it took for CO2 to increase and decrease when humanity was but a bunch of apes on trees. This data is provided to us by the 800,000 years of ice core atmospheric data we already have. Ice core atmospheric composition sampling is a highly accurate way to learn about what the atmosphere looked like in the past. And, again, to be redundant, we have data going back 800,000 years. This means we KNOW how the atmosphere behaved when we were not here. This also means we KNOW how it will behave is we all left. If it takes the planet 50,000 to 100,000 years for a 100 ppm reduction there's NOTHING we can do at a small scale (solar panels world-wide, stop using cars, stop using planes, ban all fossil fuels, etc.) that will accelerate the slope at all. If we stay on the planet the rate of change is GREATER than 50K to 100K for 100 ppm, because we are contributing more CO2 to the equation. Please don't take my word for it. Look at the data and you should have the same revelation about this issue I had many years ago. This does not mean we should not make an effort to clean-up our act, there are many reasons for which this is a good idea and none of them anything to do with climate change. I does mean we need to not lie to ourselves and start having real conversations about this stuff rather than, on the one hand, denying it, and, on the other, thinking we can actually affect planetary scale problems with truly insignificant measures. Hint: Everything is insignificant when compared to humanity leaving the planet. Both extreme positions are unreasonable and delusional. Finally, a problem: Scientists, researchers, don't want to talk about this reality because their careers would be over if they did. At the very least their grants would evaporate. This is a terrible side-effect of the religion climate change has become. We need to free our researchers so that they can be honest about what we know and we can put them to work on how to deal with reality. Here's were you will find the 800,000 years of ice core data: https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/images/air_bubbles_historical.jpg https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/images/air_bubbles_historical... https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html Here's a paper that explains why it is that atmospheric CO2 will continue to rise exponentially even if we switch the the most optimal forms of renewable energy world-wide: https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-data/pdf/43326.pdf https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-... I have looked into this issue in depth and I have yet to find any argument or proposed solution that can do better than all of humanity leaving the planet, which is to say we can't fix it. We better start talking about how to live with it soon rather than propose ridiculous "solutions" that are far more likely to kill us all than fix anything.

roenxi 7y ago

There is a very harsh implicit truth that humans, when left to do what they think best, choose to live in cities. Anything larger than about knee high is systematically exterminated and anything smaller is fitfully exterminated. Most of the land is covered in concrete. The idea that people need to take responsibility for increased PPM of CO2 when their default contribution is city living has a certain flavor of missing the forest for the trees. That is just how we roll by choice. The hope that people might choose reduced/more expensive energy availability was always slim to nonexistant. Collective action is not going to fly; the only things that will work are (1) running out of fossil fuels or (2) Renewables/nuclear being a cheaper, better choice.

agumonkey 7y ago

The few I know (and it's "few") there's TheShifters group (a team of ~volunteers helping the Shift Project). They've been trying social efforts for quite a while now. Are there other similar groups that try to educate and motivate the rest of the population ? With enough of these groups, I believe most people will feel motivated, they just need a headstart to follow (we're too social).