3 ms·

> Nobody 100 years ago had the slightest clue that the industrialization at the time could cause global warming, for example. This is incorrect. The first meas

by qubex 6y ago

> Nobody 100 years ago had the slightest clue that the industrialization at the time could cause global warming, for example. This is incorrect. The first measurements and effects were calculated at the end of the 19th Century (quoted as 1896). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_scie...

joycian 6y ago
Indeed, Arrhenius definitely had a 'slight clue' in 1896. It is probably comfortable to think that we really could not have known, but I think the reality is that it is often so much easier to kick the can down the road than to be careful in the present moment.
simonh 6y ago
Interesting, thanks I had no idea. It doesn’t change my basic premise that the decisions made to do thing such as industrialise weren’t really informed ones when it comes to the long term consequences.
neuronic 6y ago
This, again, proves that as an educated society we need to decisively counter the for-profit lies of influential corporations. There is a fundamental problem that may cost us severely in the not too distant future. Fossil fuel companies have paid large sums to lie about the effects of their products on climate change, just like tobacco companies have directly killed innumerous people by lying about the negative health impact of cigarettes for decades. Nowadays, the evidence that these companies collaborated on misleading the public is openly accessible but back in the 70s or 80s YOU were the enemy for trying to warn about health dangers. Climate is the same now, propaganda has done its work for a long time. And again, the same cancerous people jump on the bandwagon of an increasingly aware public and try to profit off the new movement by ways of green-washing and other pseudo-helpful bullshit. These are significant problems where short-term profit motivation is more influential than long-term sustainability and "positive" development of society. Our only hope is the few people in human society who are motivated enough to study, learn, read and act for the greater good. That's kind of hingey if you ask me.
- jhoechtl 6y ago
  > This, again, proves that as an educated society we need to decisively counter the for-profit lies of influential corporations. There is a fundamental problem that may cost us severely in the not too distant future. Who do you think has or rather should have more power than corporations? The state! And who is constantly crying for a less influential state? The current US administration. As long as we as the voters do not allow the state to be the one in power but rather companies it will be companies doing whats best for them.
  - aeternum 6y ago
    Don't we have just as much if not more power over corporations? You effectively vote for a corporation each time you do business with it. We can choose to buy zero emission cars and purchase products exclusively from environmentally friendly corporations. Corporations will either adapt or go bankrupt.
    - dane-pgp 6y ago
      The difference is, with a decent voting system, it only takes 51% of the population to decide government policy, but with corporations, even 1% of the population can keep harmful corporations from bankruptcy. Even ignoring the problem of those 1% potentially being the richest 1%, there is the issue that harmful businesses often have lower costs than ethical businesses, and some consumers are too price-sensitive (or don't have time to become informed about every corporation's business practices) to vote "correctly" with their purchasing power.
      - aeternum 6y ago
        Is it right that the 51% of the population is able to coerce 100% of the population into paying higher prices for the more ethical businesses? High and mid income earners can and should choose more ethical/environmental businesses as they have the means to do so.
        6y ago
qes 6y ago
Awareness of anthropogenic climate change goes back quite a bit further than 1896. https://daily.jstor.org/how-19th-century-scientists-predicted-global-warming/ https://daily.jstor.org/how-19th-century-scientists-predicte...
eitland 6y ago
Had to look that up, and this was the closest I could get in a few minutes, which is still impressive, thanks for the link! > Arrhenius saw that this human emission of carbon would eventually lead to warming. However, because of the relatively low rate of CO 2 production in 1896, Arrhenius thought the warming would take thousands of years, and he expected it would be beneficial to humanity. It still seems that scientists at that point looked at it more from an interesting terraforming perspective and less like a looming catastrophy perspective.

by qubex 6y ago

joycian 6y ago

Indeed, Arrhenius definitely had a 'slight clue' in 1896. It is probably comfortable to think that we really could not have known, but I think the reality is that it is often so much easier to kick the can down the road than to be careful in the present moment.

simonh 6y ago

Interesting, thanks I had no idea. It doesn’t change my basic premise that the decisions made to do thing such as industrialise weren’t really informed ones when it comes to the long term consequences.

neuronic 6y ago

This, again, proves that as an educated society we need to decisively counter the for-profit lies of influential corporations. There is a fundamental problem that may cost us severely in the not too distant future. Fossil fuel companies have paid large sums to lie about the effects of their products on climate change, just like tobacco companies have directly killed innumerous people by lying about the negative health impact of cigarettes for decades. Nowadays, the evidence that these companies collaborated on misleading the public is openly accessible but back in the 70s or 80s YOU were the enemy for trying to warn about health dangers. Climate is the same now, propaganda has done its work for a long time. And again, the same cancerous people jump on the bandwagon of an increasingly aware public and try to profit off the new movement by ways of green-washing and other pseudo-helpful bullshit. These are significant problems where short-term profit motivation is more influential than long-term sustainability and "positive" development of society. Our only hope is the few people in human society who are motivated enough to study, learn, read and act for the greater good. That's kind of hingey if you ask me.

jhoechtl 6y ago
> This, again, proves that as an educated society we need to decisively counter the for-profit lies of influential corporations. There is a fundamental problem that may cost us severely in the not too distant future. Who do you think has or rather should have more power than corporations? The state! And who is constantly crying for a less influential state? The current US administration. As long as we as the voters do not allow the state to be the one in power but rather companies it will be companies doing whats best for them.
- aeternum 6y ago
  Don't we have just as much if not more power over corporations? You effectively vote for a corporation each time you do business with it. We can choose to buy zero emission cars and purchase products exclusively from environmentally friendly corporations. Corporations will either adapt or go bankrupt.
  - dane-pgp 6y ago
    The difference is, with a decent voting system, it only takes 51% of the population to decide government policy, but with corporations, even 1% of the population can keep harmful corporations from bankruptcy. Even ignoring the problem of those 1% potentially being the richest 1%, there is the issue that harmful businesses often have lower costs than ethical businesses, and some consumers are too price-sensitive (or don't have time to become informed about every corporation's business practices) to vote "correctly" with their purchasing power.
    - aeternum 6y ago
      Is it right that the 51% of the population is able to coerce 100% of the population into paying higher prices for the more ethical businesses? High and mid income earners can and should choose more ethical/environmental businesses as they have the means to do so.
      - 6y ago

qes 6y ago

Awareness of anthropogenic climate change goes back quite a bit further than 1896. https://daily.jstor.org/how-19th-century-scientists-predicted-global-warming/ https://daily.jstor.org/how-19th-century-scientists-predicte...

eitland 6y ago

Had to look that up, and this was the closest I could get in a few minutes, which is still impressive, thanks for the link! > Arrhenius saw that this human emission of carbon would eventually lead to warming. However, because of the relatively low rate of CO 2 production in 1896, Arrhenius thought the warming would take thousands of years, and he expected it would be beneficial to humanity. It still seems that scientists at that point looked at it more from an interesting terraforming perspective and less like a looming catastrophy perspective.