10 ms·

I'm shocked that the article didn't mention this, but the mass die-offs we're seeing are because the world's coral reefs will be dead by 2050: https://www.inde

• makerofspoons 6y ago
  I have little hope that we will reduce emissions in time or in sufficient quantity to save the coral reefs. My remaining hope is that projects like Project Vesta will help reverse ocean acidification https://projectvesta.org/ https://projectvesta.org/
  • numpad0 6y ago
    Would a hot war in East Asia be enough for the same effect? Hypothetically of course
    • makerofspoons 6y ago
      Well a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would cool the Earth temporarily, but it wouldn't help long term: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191002144251.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191002144251.h... I would expect ocean acidification would actually get worse, since the effects would mimic the 'Year without a Summer' so people would be releasing more carbon to heat their homes.
• saddlerustle 6y ago
  > 500 million pacific islanders will be forced to flee to Southeast Asia How the heck did you come up with this number? The entire population of Oceania excluding Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea is 3 million.
  • flerchin 6y ago
    What do you consider Indonesia and the Philippines?
    • saddlerustle 6y ago
      Indonesia and the Philippines pretty universally considered southeast asia and not pacific island nations. They are in-fact the majority of southeast asia, which they are supposedly fleeing to? Also, they're quite developed countries and to the relatively small extent their food consumption is fish, it comes from trade and commercial fishing, not subsistence fishing, so their food supply will be no more impacted than any other asian country. And even that impact will look more like more seafood coming from fish farms as commercial fishing becomes less viable, as we've seen in China. There are people, predominantly in the pacific islands proper, who rely on subsistence fishing and the decline of fish stocks will be hugely disruptive for them. It's still a big tragedy, but the number is more like a couple hundred thousand. I don't think it helps the debate to exaggerate by three orders of magnitude.
      • hanniabu 6y ago
        > Indonesia and the Philippines pretty universally considered southeast asia "...will be forced to flee Southeast asia" OP says it right there in the same sentence you quoted...
        • saddlerustle 6y ago
          Uhh the quote is "will be forced to flee to Southeast Asia"?
    • WaltPurvis 6y ago
• vzidex 6y ago
  > I sure wish a tech billionaire would do something about this. I've noticed in tech that a common hope that people in tech hold is that "the billionaires", in their infinite wisdom and generosity, will pull magical solutions out of their hats and save us all. Like you mention later, yeah, right. > one of the thousand reasons I got out of tech Not an option I've considered much, but it's almost tempting.
  • breakingcups 6y ago
    I think the only reason tech billionaires stay tech billionaires is because they don't act out of compassion.
  • sharkmerry 6y ago
    >> that "the billionaires", in their infinite wisdom and generosity, will pull magical solutions out of their hats and save us all. Like you mention later, yeah, right. I think its more that they have the means. Cant get anything done on a large scale without lots of moolah
    • novok 6y ago
      Meh people over-estimate the wealth of billionaires. A $1 billionaire can only buy 1000 houses in the bay area for example, and then make something like $6m/yr in rent from it. If we take all the wealth of the top 100 billionaries and put it towards the US annual budget, it wouldn't fund it for more than a year or two also and then you'd soon be out of billionaires as you go down the list. Governments are the real 'wealthy' organizations out there.
      • mypalmike 6y ago
        More like $60m in rent, just FYI.
    • vkou 6y ago
      > Cant get anything done on a large scale without lots of moolah You can, but it requires collective action. But in order to have collective action, you need to win the propaganda war. I'm not sure that lots of moolah at this point can win the propaganda war against climate denialism.
• ascar 6y ago
  > All due to runaway global warming acidifying the ocean with CO2. Doesn't an increase in water temperature release CO2 from the water, because warm water binds less CO2 than warm water? I remember this as one of the many serious effects of accerlating global warming (more CO2 in the atmosphere heats up global temperatures, thereby heats up ocean water, which releases even more CO2). As CO2 acidifies water shouldn't global warming thus basify the oceans? Wikipedia about CO2 [1] states that ocean absorbed CO2 from burned fossil fuels. While CO2 from fossil fules is a driver of global warming, the act of global warming itself should actually counteract the acidification of the oceans. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid#Role_of_carbonic_acid_in_ocean_chemistry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid#Role_of_carbonic...
  • strbean 6y ago
    I think increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere more than offsets the decreased solubility of CO2 in the ocean due to temperature rises. We are talking about a couple of degrees increase in surface sea temperatures, versus a much more significant increase in CO2 concentration. Also, we have to worry about increased temperatures releasing reservoirs of CO2. So while the direct action of warming might reduce ocean acidity, the causes of that warming, and the side effects, both increase acidity more than the warming reduces it.
• spectrum1234 6y ago
  "I sure wish a tech billionaire would do something about this. Their inaction on countless fronts, in fact their complacency in undermining progress on environmental causes in global politics, is one of the thousand reasons I got out of tech." - Which industries (and organizations) are you still in at this point?
  • zackmorris 6y ago
    I've come to realize over the course of 20 years pursuing a career in tech, that work itself is the primary impediment standing in the way of ever working on my dreams. Sure, someone can moonlight and try to change the world. But 99 people of out 100 will never even come close. There's nothing more pathetic than a visionary with no access to resources. Right now I am working with a guy in the solar industry, doing handyman work around his house until we come out of quarantine. It's hard work physically, but I find my mental health has recovered and my motivation and work capacity have never been higher. I'm basically living the ending of the movie Office Space and searching for spiritual meaning. I donate plasma to make rent, and am looking into apps like Bacon (Uber for hourly jobs) as a way to transition out of obligation-based employment. Work should be a straight-up time-for-money exchange. Taking advantage of our work ethic and patriotism, saddling us to someone else's vision of meaningful work, is one of the great travesties undermining the American Dream. I learned this the hard way moving furniture for 3 years in my early 20s to support my web business because "someone has to do it". No, someone doesn't have to do it. Stand up for yourself and leave if your job stinks. Let the free market adjust wages to what they should be, double or quadruple what they are now. Don't get suckered into indentured servitude.
    • Gieskanne 6y ago
      Soooo you still live in our society? Including using bottled water? Cloth from overseas? Consuming highly processed food? You are very much dependent. Whats the difference between me, working in tech, having a good job, great money and being able to put everything i earn in my own land and become independent with something between 40 and 50 versus you? Stoped working, doing small jobs barely making it, not having any money for any sustainable development on your own? If you are not doing it, everyone else will do. Either you understand and accept that the world is going to look different in 50 years and you are ready for it with the minimum footprint you need or you go more extreme to try to change something. And even if you do know that you might not change the world, if you would sacrifice for the society, the money you would earn in tech would allow you, as a single person, to funnel the money from the economy where you want to. You would do more good then tthe other person who is now doing your job and who is just spending and consuming it somehow. And just to clarify another thing: In tech you are able to go to your boss and work half time and even then you would have more possibilities then in any other job.
• pdubs1 6y ago
  Your logic is faulty. > "the mass die-offs we're seeing are because the world's coral reefs will be dead by 2050" This does not make sense. Let's break it down: This is what you're saying: "The [current thing happening] is due to [the occurrence of a future thing]." Clearly, something in the present is not due a dependency on an event which has not happened yet. What you should perhaps say is something more like: "The [current thing happening] is due to [the same causality] as what will cause/is causing [the future occurrence]."
• typeformer 6y ago
  Billionaire will not save anyone they are too busy enriching themselves.
• TheTruth321 6y ago
  Zack, the priority is Mars! ... or, if you're not that good at rocketry, then low earth orbit, or possibly the moon. THAT's the priority. We need to mobilise for that.
• njarboe 6y ago
  Bill Gates has funded the development of a new nuclear reactor design that is much smaller and safer than current ones and uses the huge current US stockpile of depleted uranium as a fuel source. He was going to build it in China, as the US permitting process is very difficult (impossible?), put that is no longer possible with the current US/China political environment. Environmentalists have been fighting nuclear power since the beginning of the movement and that is what has really caused the continuation of the burning of carbon to fuel the modern world. Due to the environmental groups (and the rest of the media) constant propaganda against nuclear, almost everyone is irrationally fearful of nuclear power plants and therefor building new ones has little chance of getting support, even if the environmental groups see the error of opposing nuclear at this point and change their position. Many people and groups pushing for changes to combat climate change want to change much more about society than just how much carbon dioxide is emitted. They want to use the fear of climate catastrophe to push other political agendas that the majority of people in the US do not support. If the world had just focused on the fact that rising CO2 would cause ocean acidification, which is a very simple and easy to understand consequence of rising CO2 levels, I think the world could have come together to decide on an acceptable level and make a plan to get to that level. A similar global proposal was done with CFCs when ozone depletion became an issue. Making the issue more scary by saying the world is going to heat up and everyone is going to die, using very complicated climate models, is a lot harder to prove. Many people are not going to be convinced, as we have seen.
  • jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
    While I support nuclear as part of the mix for clean energy, it's very important to understand that nuclear is NOT failing due to "propaganda" alone. The problem is the cost, in particular the capital cost. You see similar costs globally, even in places where environmental opposition to nuclear is basically a non factor like China. Given current costs (check the Lazard decks) and likely trends, it's pretty possible that nuclear would lose out to renewables + storage + CO2 capture even with a global carbon tax forcing CO2 neutrality. I also don't think it helps our cause to cast all opposition to nuclear power as ignorant paranoia. While the impact was thankfully minimal, Fukushima should have never happened in the first place. I personally changed my views on how much we can trust governments to properly regulate this infrastructure as a result. Basically it's left me hoping that some of the more novel new nuclear concepts work out. I'm definitely cheering for NuScale.
• anonuser123456 6y ago
  >I sure wish a tech billionaire would do something about this. The only way a tech billionaire can stop it is to facilitate the development of low carbon energy sources and industrials. This is literally part of Tesla's mission. There are huge numbers of investors pushing hard on CCS, battery, solar, wind, grid etc. Biotech and ag-tech are pushing hard on technology to lower the carbon footprint of faming. And industrials are looking hard are low carbon steel, aluminum and cement manufacturing (huge co2 footprint here). The climate change freight train is in motion. Technology is the ONLY WAY OUT.
• pengaru 6y ago
  > All due to runaway global warming acidifying the ocean with CO2 Err, what? My understanding is ocean acidification is a contributing factor, but that the primary cause of coral bleaching is the warming directly, not acidification [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coral_Bleaching.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coral_Bleaching.jpg
  • madaxe_again 6y ago
    Warming is the primary cause of coral die offs right now, but acidification will hit a tipping point pretty soon where it becomes nigh on impossible to get calcium ions out of solution. Pretty much anything that lives in the ocean and has a skeleton is in for a rough time - as well as everything that depends on them.
    • InitialLastName 6y ago
      I'm not necessarily skeptical of the overall trend, but I'd be very interested in a citation on this.
• xoa 6y ago
  >I sure wish a tech billionaire would do something about this. I sure wish VOTERS would "do something" about this, where "something" = vote for the party/parties that actually champion or at least acknowledge the importance of dealing with AGW/CO2 increasing vs actively denying and supporting continuing the current anti-free market policies destroying so much future beauty and potential. This should have been so straightforward, we want net neutral CO2 ASAP and then net negative as soon as feasible, so all that's needed is to legislate that emitting a ton of CO2 (or equivalent) is priced at the cost of rapid industrial removal of a ton of CO2+margin. We could just make all our energy usage net neutral in a matter of months/years by finally establishing a Free Market there and then let humanity sort out the best way to reduce the cost of that. But instead it's a mixture of full denial or, even more frustrating, so-called "greens" bitching about other people's luxury energy usage and engaging in worthless moralizing bullshit about $Cause_Of_The_Day (like Ebil Big Tech) rather then just working to deal with the problem as efficiently as possible and focusing moral arguments purely on the harm of AGW. >Their inaction on countless fronts, in fact their complacency in undermining progress on environmental causes in global politics, is one of the thousand reasons I got out of tech. I'd say the inaction on countless fronts of people like you who just shove all responsibility off onto nameless godkings rather then actually internalize that democracy means we're responsible as well has been a far bigger threat. Tech has been relatively green, and far more active at green efforts then most industries. It's ludicrous to see you pinning so much on "tech billionaires" vs, say, oil/coal billionaires.
  • _emacsomancer_ 6y ago
    Sure, but in many cases the politicians who are statistically able to win office are about as likely to do something meaningful (and not just symbolic) about these issues as the tech billionaires are.
    • all_usernames 6y ago
      If the ~50% of Americans who choose not to vote, actually did, that would by definition change the politicians who are "able to win."
• mping 6y ago
  Why a tech billionaire? We as humans just need to eat less animal food, and reduce our emissions as low as possible.
  • failuser 6y ago
    I hope he was sarcastic.
  • firebaze 6y ago
    We need to start to understand as humankind that we're a pest to other life on this planet, be it animals, plants, naval lifeforms or anything else, us included (maybe except tardigrades, extremophiles and deep-sea creatures). We need to reduce our numbers, and sustain that. Or embrace Musk's ideas.
    • oivey 6y ago
      Population isn’t the problem, first world consumption and the expansion of the first world are. This isn’t an abstract problem where people in developing countries need to have less children. This is a problem where we need to personally reduce our carbon footprints.
    • dublin 6y ago
      As far as I know, Musk's ideas do not include mass genocide on the scale of billions. Gates, on the other hand...
      • bserge 6y ago
        Is that why he's trying to eradicate the mosquitoes? Come on...
• mythrwy 6y ago
  "but the mass die-offs we're seeing are because the world's coral reefs will be dead by 2050" I've argued this point before here but I don't believe that will happen by 2050 at all. For several reasons, not the least of which is there are fossilized reefs from epochs with much much higher C02 levels (and temperatures) then we will see any time in the near future. I was in Mexico last year. On the reefs. Diving. They were in good shape with lots of young corals and very little die off. Sunscreen and human activity are a threat. Not getting into the whole debate on warming (I believe something is happening) but this coral die off claim I do not believe at all. Particularly the 30 years bit.
  • jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
    I mean, the internet is here if you'd like to learn the actual science. This is a topic we understand and have ample empirical evidence on. I'd start by considering that most species were also quite different during the high CO2 era. And while I'm glad you had fun in Mexico and what you saw there looked healthy, that doesn't somehow erase the bleaching we see on reefs globally. That the coral is dying, rapidly, is not under contention. It's a clearly known fact.
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • mythrwy 6y ago
      The species may have been different but they were constructed with the same calcium skeletons that are claimed to be much under threat from acid producing C02. Yet they thrived and left fossil remains in environments that were much much much more C02 rich and warmer.
• LockAndLol 6y ago
  > I sure wish a tech billionaire would do something about this No need to single out one group of people. We vote for shitty politicians, we give money to shitty corporations, we form tribes of "us vs them", we put more children on this world condemning (putting a human on the planet is worst thing you can do to it in terms of pollution), we don't do our part "because corporations are the biggest polluters" and think that absolves us of any evil. We are inactive. We'd rather shift the blame than do anything. We are complacent. We are all complicit. We are all to blame. If the world is full of non-evil people, then why aren't they keeping the evil people in check?