5 ms·

Amazon rainforest now emitting more CO2 than it absorbs

84 points by hochmartinez 5y ago

shreyshnaccount 5y ago
oh don't worry: the 1% will just go to Mars and leave the peasants to fend for themselves :)
- lsllc 5y ago
  Ben Elton wrote a novel "Stark" around a similar idea (I won't spoil it, but it's a good read!) -- the BBC actually made it into a mini-series: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stark_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stark_(novel)
  - shreyshnaccount 5y ago
    thanks I love this typa novels
- Ardon 5y ago
  Honestly I'd be stoked if they went to Mars since quality of life would inevitably be awful, since at minimum the lower gravity will cause compounding health issues.
  - shreyshnaccount 5y ago
    (the comment is hyperbole, not literal.)
- clydethefrog 5y ago
  >These sad saps. They come to Rapture thinking they're gonna be captains of industry, but they all forget that somebody's gotta scrub the toilets. Fontaine, Bioshock, 2007.
- warglebargle 5y ago
  I honestly can’t wait for people to learn that living in space is just outright horrible
  - shreyshnaccount 5y ago
    (my comment was hyperbole. it meant that 'solving' the climate crisis will become a problem for the 99% cuz the rich will not stop making money for the sake of the future of the planet. if they had to stop, they would've by now)
sweetheart 5y ago
As stated in the article, the reason that this is happening is because of the increasing demand for animal products, so the forest is cleared for cattle and soy, most of which is used as feed for livestock. When we read daunting articles like this and feel a sense of panic or urgency, there is at least one small thing we can do to prevent this issue from worsening: eat as few animal products as possible, which should ideally be none. It has a real effect, and is (in almost all cases) trivial to start.
- desertedisland 5y ago
  > It has a real effect Let me play devil's advocate here. Because I worry a lot about this. In as much as it affects the outcome of climate change you're wrong: not eating meat, driving and flying less, etc. will not, in any meaningful way, save us from what are increasingly alarming predictions regarding climate change. What you're talking about are straw men. In fact I worry that the effect is negative because everyone pats themselves on the back for these kinds of activities and thinks they've done everything they can when, as I say, the impact of what they've done is essentially negligible and draws attention from what really is driving climate change (and noone seems to talk about). And what really is driving climate change (and numerous other environmental issues - see massive over-fishing, environmental destruction by dredging for sand / mining for minerals, etc.) is the massive shift out of poverty of billions in people in China and India and their demands for housing, cars, travel, construction, etc. The US and Europe have had (fairly dramatically) decreasing carbon emissions for some time now, but all of those decreases (and then some) are erased by the increases in India and China. Particularly China which built 184 new coal plants in 2020 and increased its own CO2 emissions by 4% in the second half of 2020 alone: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-coal-idUSKBN2A308U https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-coal-idUSKBN2A308U . Hopefully it does not need to be said that you cannot fault these countries for massively improving the welfare of their citizens or say that this is a bad thing. To be fair to both India and China: both are aware of (do not deny) the problem and are devoting large amounts of resources to finding solutions. But those are the facts. You can virtue signal all you like about being vegan but really you are doing nothing to address the actual problem (and may actually diverting attention away from it).
hsavit1 5y ago
Something people don't think about enough is the exponential effects of this kind of disaster. None of these effects are reversible - once the carbon and heat are in the atmosphere, they stay in our atmosphere. Which makes disasters such as category 5 hurricanes and 500 year floods more and more likely in the coming days.
- 0goel0 5y ago
  This. We can't just plant more trees to make up for the trees that have been cut down. It's not a 1:1
  - gilbetron 5y ago
    Why not? It sounds like you are saying the carbon released by cutting/burning one mature tree is more than that captured by the planting and eventual growth of one tree. It seems non-sensical on the surface, but maybe I'm missing something. Maybe you're arguing that the carbon release is instantaneous but the carbon capture takes decades?
    - Jeff_Brown 5y ago
      From an atmospheric CO2 standpoint, perhaps all trees (of a given carbon mass) are equivalent. But the monocultures that we plant are a pathetic, precarious substitute for natural habitat.
specialist 5y ago
Burning forests, ocean acidification, thawing tundra. All now positive feedback loops. In addition to everything else, now we must remove atmospheric carbon faster than these "natural" emitters.
- bamboozled 5y ago
  All while juggling corona virus and wasting time on shit like brexit.
  - Unbeliever69 5y ago
    The "Big Lie" has entered the chat.
- 0goel0 5y ago
  Removing carbon well be a kidding battle without stopping emissions
hellothere1337 5y ago
People are using the euphemism large scale political action. But what does this large scale political action mean for the billions that only now are starting to get a decent standard of living and wont accept a no?
- blooalien 5y ago
  Sadly, the sort of "large scale political action" that really needs to happen to solve these sorts of issues will simply not happen, because it would involve governments working together for the good of all humanity everywhere, and it would involve eliminating poverty altogether worldwide, and it would involve providing clean renewable energy to people whereever it's wanted, and so many other things that politicians nowhere on Earth appear to be capable of doing.
zests 5y ago
You should expect this to be true of any shrinking rainforest. A growing rainforest will absorb more CO2 than it emits. A rainforest that remains the same size will be carbon neutral. The idea that the rainforest removes a significant net amount of CO2 from the atmosphere is simply false. The rainforest even emits methane.
jshen 5y ago
Ultimately, our current economic system is based on superexponential growth, and this cannot be sustained. Really bad things are going to happen if we don’t change this. Reference: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
- Jeff_Brown 5y ago
  The world economy doesn't really have any single basis, but its bases would be things like property rights, the permitted opportunities to trade, outlandish government subsidies for particular sectors, etc. Exponential growth is an outcome, and has indeed become part of our expectations, but it's not fundamental.
  - jshen 5y ago
    I’d say that the western view of economics has taken over most of the world with minor variations here and there. That includes countries like China. I define this view as an economy predicated on exponential (or superexponential) growth.
    - Jeff_Brown 5y ago
      What parts of economics seem Western and not objective to you? Supply and demand? Game theory? Fractional reserve lending? The effects of monopoly? Of rent control? Of pollution taxes? Of immigration restrictions? I got a master's in economics. Everything in the textbooks is positive (what is, what happens) rather than normative (what should be). Individual professors have their individual beliefs regarding justice, of course, but those beliefs don't really constitute what economics is. Economics is a set of methods for anticipating how people will respond to incentives.
      - jshen 5y ago
        That’s a deep question, I’ll try to answer later when I have time to do it justice. On the off chance I don’t, the book “Debt: The First 5000 Years” is pretty close to my view of it. Also, if you want a less “economics” view of it, I’d recommend “Scale” by Geoffrey West
Jeff_Brown 5y ago
We're erasing countless species to replace them with cows and soy. I've tried often to convince people to care more about biodiversity. I don't focus on the chemical/pharma angle because I'm not grounded in those sciences, and because while I think they're important, they're not what's most important. Biodiversity is simply the best thing in the known universe. Nothing else holds a candle to the beauty, the wonder, the awe that the living world engenders. I've met people who agree, and people who disagree, but I've never seen anyone change their minds. On the bright side (if you can call it that), whereas the positive value of biodiversity doesn't seem to motivate much change, the negative value of potential catastrophic species collapse might ...
- akudha 5y ago
  I've met people who agree, and people who disagree, but I've never seen anyone change their minds. I've had the same experience. There are people who will not give up (or even reduce) meat no matter what - they are fully aware of the effects of the meat industry on the environment. It is pointless to even engage them in a conversation. Instead, it is better to spend the time and energy on people who are not aware of the effects, but I'd guess these are smaller numbers compared to the I know but I don't care group. Nothing else holds a candle to the beauty, the wonder, the awe that the living world engenders. Much of the urban population hasn't seen this beauty, except on TV. I guess it is hard for them to have that personal connection to nature, when all the animals they know (except perhaps the ones they keep as pets and some urban dwelling birds) they have only seen on TV.
- mediocregopher 5y ago
  > Biodiversity is simply the best thing in the known universe. Nothing else holds a candle to the beauty, the wonder, the awe that the living world engenders. If the beauty argument doesn't sway others, there's a very strong argument to be made that biodiversity is one of the biggest strengths life on earth (or anywhere else) has. To the extent someone cares about the process of life persisting onwards through time, they should care about biodiversity.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
merricksb 5y ago
Earlier discussion still on front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27843049 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27843049

84 points by hochmartinez 5y ago

shreyshnaccount 5y ago

oh don't worry: the 1% will just go to Mars and leave the peasants to fend for themselves :)

lsllc 5y ago
Ben Elton wrote a novel "Stark" around a similar idea (I won't spoil it, but it's a good read!) -- the BBC actually made it into a mini-series: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stark_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stark_(novel)
- shreyshnaccount 5y ago
  thanks I love this typa novels
Ardon 5y ago
Honestly I'd be stoked if they went to Mars since quality of life would inevitably be awful, since at minimum the lower gravity will cause compounding health issues.
- shreyshnaccount 5y ago
  (the comment is hyperbole, not literal.)
clydethefrog 5y ago
>These sad saps. They come to Rapture thinking they're gonna be captains of industry, but they all forget that somebody's gotta scrub the toilets. Fontaine, Bioshock, 2007.
warglebargle 5y ago
I honestly can’t wait for people to learn that living in space is just outright horrible
- shreyshnaccount 5y ago
  (my comment was hyperbole. it meant that 'solving' the climate crisis will become a problem for the 99% cuz the rich will not stop making money for the sake of the future of the planet. if they had to stop, they would've by now)

sweetheart 5y ago

As stated in the article, the reason that this is happening is because of the increasing demand for animal products, so the forest is cleared for cattle and soy, most of which is used as feed for livestock. When we read daunting articles like this and feel a sense of panic or urgency, there is at least one small thing we can do to prevent this issue from worsening: eat as few animal products as possible, which should ideally be none. It has a real effect, and is (in almost all cases) trivial to start.

desertedisland 5y ago
> It has a real effect Let me play devil's advocate here. Because I worry a lot about this. In as much as it affects the outcome of climate change you're wrong: not eating meat, driving and flying less, etc. will not, in any meaningful way, save us from what are increasingly alarming predictions regarding climate change. What you're talking about are straw men. In fact I worry that the effect is negative because everyone pats themselves on the back for these kinds of activities and thinks they've done everything they can when, as I say, the impact of what they've done is essentially negligible and draws attention from what really is driving climate change (and noone seems to talk about). And what really is driving climate change (and numerous other environmental issues - see massive over-fishing, environmental destruction by dredging for sand / mining for minerals, etc.) is the massive shift out of poverty of billions in people in China and India and their demands for housing, cars, travel, construction, etc. The US and Europe have had (fairly dramatically) decreasing carbon emissions for some time now, but all of those decreases (and then some) are erased by the increases in India and China. Particularly China which built 184 new coal plants in 2020 and increased its own CO2 emissions by 4% in the second half of 2020 alone: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-coal-idUSKBN2A308U https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-coal-idUSKBN2A308U . Hopefully it does not need to be said that you cannot fault these countries for massively improving the welfare of their citizens or say that this is a bad thing. To be fair to both India and China: both are aware of (do not deny) the problem and are devoting large amounts of resources to finding solutions. But those are the facts. You can virtue signal all you like about being vegan but really you are doing nothing to address the actual problem (and may actually diverting attention away from it).

hsavit1 5y ago

Something people don't think about enough is the exponential effects of this kind of disaster. None of these effects are reversible - once the carbon and heat are in the atmosphere, they stay in our atmosphere. Which makes disasters such as category 5 hurricanes and 500 year floods more and more likely in the coming days.

0goel0 5y ago
This. We can't just plant more trees to make up for the trees that have been cut down. It's not a 1:1
- gilbetron 5y ago
  Why not? It sounds like you are saying the carbon released by cutting/burning one mature tree is more than that captured by the planting and eventual growth of one tree. It seems non-sensical on the surface, but maybe I'm missing something. Maybe you're arguing that the carbon release is instantaneous but the carbon capture takes decades?
  - Jeff_Brown 5y ago
    From an atmospheric CO2 standpoint, perhaps all trees (of a given carbon mass) are equivalent. But the monocultures that we plant are a pathetic, precarious substitute for natural habitat.

specialist 5y ago

Burning forests, ocean acidification, thawing tundra. All now positive feedback loops. In addition to everything else, now we must remove atmospheric carbon faster than these "natural" emitters.

bamboozled 5y ago
All while juggling corona virus and wasting time on shit like brexit.
- Unbeliever69 5y ago
  The "Big Lie" has entered the chat.
0goel0 5y ago
Removing carbon well be a kidding battle without stopping emissions

hellothere1337 5y ago

People are using the euphemism large scale political action. But what does this large scale political action mean for the billions that only now are starting to get a decent standard of living and wont accept a no?

blooalien 5y ago
Sadly, the sort of "large scale political action" that really needs to happen to solve these sorts of issues will simply not happen, because it would involve governments working together for the good of all humanity everywhere, and it would involve eliminating poverty altogether worldwide, and it would involve providing clean renewable energy to people whereever it's wanted, and so many other things that politicians nowhere on Earth appear to be capable of doing.

zests 5y ago

You should expect this to be true of any shrinking rainforest. A growing rainforest will absorb more CO2 than it emits. A rainforest that remains the same size will be carbon neutral. The idea that the rainforest removes a significant net amount of CO2 from the atmosphere is simply false. The rainforest even emits methane.

jshen 5y ago

Ultimately, our current economic system is based on superexponential growth, and this cannot be sustained. Really bad things are going to happen if we don’t change this. Reference: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

Jeff_Brown 5y ago
The world economy doesn't really have any single basis, but its bases would be things like property rights, the permitted opportunities to trade, outlandish government subsidies for particular sectors, etc. Exponential growth is an outcome, and has indeed become part of our expectations, but it's not fundamental.
- jshen 5y ago
  I’d say that the western view of economics has taken over most of the world with minor variations here and there. That includes countries like China. I define this view as an economy predicated on exponential (or superexponential) growth.
  - Jeff_Brown 5y ago
    What parts of economics seem Western and not objective to you? Supply and demand? Game theory? Fractional reserve lending? The effects of monopoly? Of rent control? Of pollution taxes? Of immigration restrictions? I got a master's in economics. Everything in the textbooks is positive (what is, what happens) rather than normative (what should be). Individual professors have their individual beliefs regarding justice, of course, but those beliefs don't really constitute what economics is. Economics is a set of methods for anticipating how people will respond to incentives.
    - jshen 5y ago
      That’s a deep question, I’ll try to answer later when I have time to do it justice. On the off chance I don’t, the book “Debt: The First 5000 Years” is pretty close to my view of it. Also, if you want a less “economics” view of it, I’d recommend “Scale” by Geoffrey West

Jeff_Brown 5y ago

We're erasing countless species to replace them with cows and soy. I've tried often to convince people to care more about biodiversity. I don't focus on the chemical/pharma angle because I'm not grounded in those sciences, and because while I think they're important, they're not what's most important. Biodiversity is simply the best thing in the known universe. Nothing else holds a candle to the beauty, the wonder, the awe that the living world engenders. I've met people who agree, and people who disagree, but I've never seen anyone change their minds. On the bright side (if you can call it that), whereas the positive value of biodiversity doesn't seem to motivate much change, the negative value of potential catastrophic species collapse might ...

akudha 5y ago
I've met people who agree, and people who disagree, but I've never seen anyone change their minds. I've had the same experience. There are people who will not give up (or even reduce) meat no matter what - they are fully aware of the effects of the meat industry on the environment. It is pointless to even engage them in a conversation. Instead, it is better to spend the time and energy on people who are not aware of the effects, but I'd guess these are smaller numbers compared to the I know but I don't care group. Nothing else holds a candle to the beauty, the wonder, the awe that the living world engenders. Much of the urban population hasn't seen this beauty, except on TV. I guess it is hard for them to have that personal connection to nature, when all the animals they know (except perhaps the ones they keep as pets and some urban dwelling birds) they have only seen on TV.
mediocregopher 5y ago
> Biodiversity is simply the best thing in the known universe. Nothing else holds a candle to the beauty, the wonder, the awe that the living world engenders. If the beauty argument doesn't sway others, there's a very strong argument to be made that biodiversity is one of the biggest strengths life on earth (or anywhere else) has. To the extent someone cares about the process of life persisting onwards through time, they should care about biodiversity.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

merricksb 5y ago

Earlier discussion still on front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27843049 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27843049