7 ms·

Asteroid Bennu now has a greater chance of hitting Earth through 2300

39 points by rustoo 5y ago

jeffrwells 5y ago
“Asteroid Bennu had a 0.0133% chance of hitting earth in next 300 years”
alex_young 5y ago
Original headline was less sensational: …” but still slim”
saurik 5y ago
By "greater" they really mean only "slightly greater", really; if you weren't worried before (which is unrelated to the absolute risk, which is on the same general order as supposedly my risk of dying in a fire... though I say that and it is a bit ironic as I have spent the past half hour--before reading this--concerned that I smell smoke) you probably still shouldn't be now?
johnchristopher 5y ago
What I take from that news and https://www.livescience.com/china-rocket-fleet-divert-asteroid-bennu.html https://www.livescience.com/china-rocket-fleet-divert-astero... is that Nations are more ready to tackle a single planet killer event with a slim chance of happening than tackling climate change. Also, with the trajectory we are on regarding climate change, there might not be the resources needed or a humanity capable to carry on this task of destroying/diverting the asteroid in 2300.
- vegetablepotpie 5y ago
  If I can hazard a reason for why this is: an asteroid heading to earth is a problem you can project manage your way out of, you can allocate funds to a program and have dedicated professionals work in isolation to address it. Climate change requires us to change our energy sources, which will require changes in the incentive structures of society, it will change who the winners and losers are, which affects politicians and their donors.
  - kdmdmsk 5y ago
    > Climate change requires us to change our energy sources, which will require changes in the incentive structures of society This is a massive understatement. If the claims of climate activists are to be believed, the only way to beat climate change is to have the entire industrialized world return to a pre-industrialized state[0]. Since not everyone will want to adopt the living standards of Zambia[0], effecting such a change also would inevitably involve killing anyone who refused. Every American would need to cut their energy usage by 90%[0] or up against the wall! This is about a lot more than the politicians and their donors, this is about reversing the clock on progress two hundred years 0 https://reason.com/2021/07/02/to-stop-climate-change-americans-must-cut-energy-use-by-90-percent-live-in-640-square-feet-and-fly-only-once-every-3-years-says-study/ https://reason.com/2021/07/02/to-stop-climate-change-america...
  - beebmam 5y ago
    Climate change has a very simple and efficient solution, that can even be popular: a Carbon tax, where all revenue generated from it is redistributed through a UBI or negative income tax. Carbon taxes are the best economic solution, and UBIs are extremely popular
    - jpgvm 5y ago
      Popular with the people. Not popular with the interests that oppose climate change or the politicians they own.
    - vegetablepotpie 5y ago
      That’s a great point, and a carbon dividend is probably the most politically palatable climate policy in the west right now. If you look at one proposal, HR.2307 in the US, it says that it will introduce a $20/ton of CO2 price, which will step up by $10 per ton every year. This means that 1 gallon of gas would have an additional tax of $0.18, stepping up by $0.09 every year. Not too terrible, but any rise in the price of gas is met with hostility in the US just because many people are reliant on cars as their only source of transportation. If the bill does attract enough support and goes to the floor, it will attract media attention. And since most media attention focuses on the most tangible immediate implications for most adults, most reporting will center on the rise of gasoline prices. This will trigger strong political opposition, in unison from huge diverse ranges of the population, regardless of how much money they would get from a redistribution of the money.
- bpodgursky 5y ago
  2300 is a very long time way. Even trying to estimate what resources humanity will have available in 2300 is sort of silly; we'll either be able to leisurely atomize it, or will helplessly stare at it from our campfires. Theres' not a lot in-between IMO.
- ipspam 5y ago
  Humans won't be the victim of climate change. Animals will be. Humans are capable of taking care of ourselves at the expense of everything else. Astroid impacts have the potential to wipe out life as we know it. Two totally different threat levels.

39 points by rustoo 5y ago

jeffrwells 5y ago

“Asteroid Bennu had a 0.0133% chance of hitting earth in next 300 years”

alex_young 5y ago

Original headline was less sensational: …” but still slim”

saurik 5y ago

By "greater" they really mean only "slightly greater", really; if you weren't worried before (which is unrelated to the absolute risk, which is on the same general order as supposedly my risk of dying in a fire... though I say that and it is a bit ironic as I have spent the past half hour--before reading this--concerned that I smell smoke) you probably still shouldn't be now?

johnchristopher 5y ago

What I take from that news and https://www.livescience.com/china-rocket-fleet-divert-asteroid-bennu.html https://www.livescience.com/china-rocket-fleet-divert-astero... is that Nations are more ready to tackle a single planet killer event with a slim chance of happening than tackling climate change. Also, with the trajectory we are on regarding climate change, there might not be the resources needed or a humanity capable to carry on this task of destroying/diverting the asteroid in 2300.

vegetablepotpie 5y ago
If I can hazard a reason for why this is: an asteroid heading to earth is a problem you can project manage your way out of, you can allocate funds to a program and have dedicated professionals work in isolation to address it. Climate change requires us to change our energy sources, which will require changes in the incentive structures of society, it will change who the winners and losers are, which affects politicians and their donors.
- kdmdmsk 5y ago
  > Climate change requires us to change our energy sources, which will require changes in the incentive structures of society This is a massive understatement. If the claims of climate activists are to be believed, the only way to beat climate change is to have the entire industrialized world return to a pre-industrialized state[0]. Since not everyone will want to adopt the living standards of Zambia[0], effecting such a change also would inevitably involve killing anyone who refused. Every American would need to cut their energy usage by 90%[0] or up against the wall! This is about a lot more than the politicians and their donors, this is about reversing the clock on progress two hundred years 0 https://reason.com/2021/07/02/to-stop-climate-change-americans-must-cut-energy-use-by-90-percent-live-in-640-square-feet-and-fly-only-once-every-3-years-says-study/ https://reason.com/2021/07/02/to-stop-climate-change-america...
- beebmam 5y ago
  Climate change has a very simple and efficient solution, that can even be popular: a Carbon tax, where all revenue generated from it is redistributed through a UBI or negative income tax. Carbon taxes are the best economic solution, and UBIs are extremely popular
  - jpgvm 5y ago
    Popular with the people. Not popular with the interests that oppose climate change or the politicians they own.
  - vegetablepotpie 5y ago
    That’s a great point, and a carbon dividend is probably the most politically palatable climate policy in the west right now. If you look at one proposal, HR.2307 in the US, it says that it will introduce a $20/ton of CO2 price, which will step up by $10 per ton every year. This means that 1 gallon of gas would have an additional tax of $0.18, stepping up by $0.09 every year. Not too terrible, but any rise in the price of gas is met with hostility in the US just because many people are reliant on cars as their only source of transportation. If the bill does attract enough support and goes to the floor, it will attract media attention. And since most media attention focuses on the most tangible immediate implications for most adults, most reporting will center on the rise of gasoline prices. This will trigger strong political opposition, in unison from huge diverse ranges of the population, regardless of how much money they would get from a redistribution of the money.
bpodgursky 5y ago
2300 is a very long time way. Even trying to estimate what resources humanity will have available in 2300 is sort of silly; we'll either be able to leisurely atomize it, or will helplessly stare at it from our campfires. Theres' not a lot in-between IMO.
ipspam 5y ago
Humans won't be the victim of climate change. Animals will be. Humans are capable of taking care of ourselves at the expense of everything else. Astroid impacts have the potential to wipe out life as we know it. Two totally different threat levels.