16 ms·

The only thing we should be talking about is the climate crisis

96 points by jader201 5y ago

egberts1 5y ago
Here are some of the many of Los Angeles Times’ newspaper headlines that they used to help with their circulations: 1966 - Oil gone in 10 years 1968 - Overpopulation will spread worldwide 1969 - Everyone will disappear in a Cloud of Blue Steam in 1989 1970 - World will use up its natural resources by 2000 1970 - Urban citizens will require gas mask by 1985 1970 - Nitrogen buildup will make all lands unusable 1970 - Decaying pollution will kill all the fish 1970s - Killer Bees!!! 1970 - Ice Age by 2000 1970 - Americans will be subjected to water rationing by 1975 and food rationing by 1980 1971 - New Ice Age coming by 2020 or 2030 1972 - New Ice Age by 2070 1972 - Oil depleted in 20 years 1974 - Space satellites show New Ice Age coming fast 1974 - Another Ice Age? 1974 - Ozone depletion a great peril to life 1976 - Scientific consensus planet cooling; famines imminent 1977 - Department of Energy says oil will peak in 90s. 1978 - No end in sight to 30-year global cooling 1980 - Acid rain kills life in lakes 1980 - Peak oil in 2000 1988 - Regional drought (that never happened) in 90s. 1988 - Temperatures in DC will hit record high (no records broken) 1988 - Maldive Islands will be underwater by 2018 (nope) 1989 - Rising sea level will obliterate nations if nothing done by 2000. 1989 - New York City Westside Highway underwater by 2018. 1990 - Cellphones caused cancer 1996 - Peak oil in 2020 2000 - Children won’t know what snow is 2001 - WiFi causes cancer 2002 - Famines if we don’t give up eating fishes, meat, and diary 2002 - Peak oil in 2010 2004 - Britain will be Siberia by 2024 2005 - Manhattan underwater by 2015 2006 - Super Hurricanes!!! 2008 - Arctic will be ice-free by 2018 2008 - Climate genius Al Gore predict ice-free Arctic by 2013 2009 - Climate genius Prince Charles says we have 96 months to save the world 2009 UK Prime Ministers says 50 days to “save planet from catastrophe” 2009 Al Gore moves ice-free Arctic prediction from 2013 to 2014 2010 - 4G cell tower causes cancers. 2013 Arctic ice-free by 2015 2014 Only 500 days before climate chaos 2019 - Hey Greta, we really need you to convince them this time. 2020 - Australian bush fires are caused by climate change. 2020 - 5G cellular towers causes cancers. 2020 - Polar bears could be lost by 2100 2021 - Volcano caldera ready to wipe out civilization Ummmm, ok. Should I be unjading myself by now?
- dangerface 5y ago
  It doesn't look like the la times ever used the headline "Everyone will disappear in a Cloud of Blue Steam in", the only results in google was for an Alex Jones book or something
- gunshai 5y ago
  Some what of crying wolf
- camjohnson26 5y ago
  Age old mistake of extrapolating current trends indefinitely into the future.
- YATA1 5y ago
  I remember reading something somewhere in the 1990s that the entirety of New Orleans was going to be underwater by 2020 and the only way you'd be able to visit Bourbon Street was by boat.
  - beepbooptheory 5y ago
    You might wan't to rethink your example here... You don't need a boat yet, but New Orleans has suffered incredibly in the last 20 years, both materially and spiritually, because of the hurricanes and flooding.
    - YATA1 5y ago
      >You might wan't to rethink your example here... I might not... Katrina, Harvey, Betsy, 1915, etc. New Orleans is still there. It's not under sea like all the prophecies foretold.
      - beepbooptheory 5y ago
        I guess the human toll of all those things aren't really all that meaningful when it is not visually apparent to an outside observer. Which does make this a good example of what is going in general, you are right!
tim333 5y ago
There are lots of things to talk about other than the 'climate crisis' and exaggerating it can lead to a misallocation of resources really.
- plaguepilled 5y ago
  The climate crisis coalesces wealth inequality, war tension, national resources, economy, and a host of other pressing current issues. It is trivial to find the link to each of these topics. I mean this respectfully, but there is absolutely no way a nation can 'over-allocate' to the climate crisis. Please provide a precise example or retract your claim. Edit: I'm getting a lot of down votes for this comment but not a lot of conversation to explain how I have gone wrong here, and I think the request for a precise argument is not unreasonable. Perhaps one of my critics could enlighten me to my error?
  - ohCh6zos 5y ago
    Anything that causes a backslide to the point people are burning more fossil fuels would be an over allocation. So would any attempt to pull so much CO2 out of the atmosphere that caused a mass green plant die-off. It is possible to overshoot the problem. It seems improbable, but we could overshoot.
    - plaguepilled 5y ago
      Thanks for clarifying. I think I understand the objection but I have a follow up question: are these hypothetical overshoots realistically possible? With the rate we enact change now, is it even possible to get 'slightly overshot' without opposing interests jumping all over it? (This is not a rhetorical question: I'm not sure one way or another, though my expectation is that it isn't possible)
- Isinlor 5y ago
  We are nowhere near exaggerating it. We should be simple executing what was agreed in the Paris Agreement as it reflects our best evaluation of the cost to benefits ratio. But current policies are aiming at 1.5 degree higher than what we evaluated as the optimal solution.
roenxi 5y ago
There is currently some chance - possibly single digit percentages - that the northern hemisphere will dissolve in a nuclear fireball and the rest of us will freeze in a long sub-zero nuclear winter. The sort of people who suggest we should only talk about the climate are dangerously foolish. Priority 1 is peace, priority 2 is prosperity (which helps keep the peace). Those two issues take priority over the climate, which is only interesting as a component of them.
- dorchadas 5y ago
  If you don't fix the climate issues, neither of those priorities will be met.
  - all2 5y ago
    I propose there is no dichotomy between addressing the immediate needs of a nation or people and the far-reaching needs of the environment and climate. Both can be addressed at the same time.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    Possibly, but there is little doubt to work that out first we will have to talk about them as issues.
ekianjo 5y ago
The only thing we should be taking about is the fact that newspapers love setting the agenda, whether or not there's any link to the reality.
- rlewkov 5y ago
  So so true
mrozbarry 5y ago
I think we should talk about: - How to be decent human beings to each other, and especially how to not kill each other - The media has too much power - Government over-reach Probably other things, but I don't know, these seem like way better hot-button issues.
- jfax 5y ago
  Social unrest is being driven by climate issues, which makes these things largely secondary to it.
  - mrozbarry 5y ago
    I don't know if that's true, do you have an article/thing I can read that backs that up?
- blisterpeanuts 5y ago
  I would put education at the top of the list. We in the U.S. should re-emphasize rigorous topics of STEM, history, language, philosophy, logic, civics etc., set high standards for passing and graduating middle and high school, so that our voting population will know how to think and reason. Without this, I don't see how we as a country can make rational, reasonable decisions to deal with complex issues like climate.
mrfusion 5y ago
I’m a full on believer. I even own an EV but I think this alarmism is just making people numb. I think there’s a whole generation out there that never read “the boy who cried wolf”.
- 71a54xd 5y ago
  Yep, couldn't agree more. I compost, watch what I buy and also own an EV. But as someone who went to engineering school I fully acknowledge that my actions basically don't even move the needle. There will always be people with less education or simply less means than me that quite frankly just have bigger issues. I think the big mistake alarmists make is blaming consumers and not huge companies like Exxon. Even among my educated friends, it's clear that people acknowledge climate change but the ever increasing alarmism of "the world will end in 46 months" is flat out not helping. I barely got through 15 minutes of "Don't Look Up" which was clearly a bizarre politically charged hit-piece. In the meantime I'll keep working with my local town's redwood conservancy and continue growing redwood saplings in my rural greenhouse :)
- bitxbitxbitcoin 5y ago
  They read it, or had it read to them - but they learned the wrong lesson.
  - janto 5y ago
    Maybe they believe in the usefulness of the "repeating it three times makes it true" rhetorical device.
- kgran 5y ago
  >I even own an EV I don't want to be that guy, but driving an EV (unless you drive some sort of electric bicycle or scooter) is not that environmentally friendly as the manufacturers and marketing people want you to believe. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impact_on_the_environment#/media/File:Wynes_Nicholas_CO2_emissions_savings.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impact_on_the_environmen...
softwarebeware 5y ago
If it becomes the only thing we talk about, then it will sound like hysteria, and taking action will get lost in the noise.
civilized 5y ago
I agree that we should be giving a lot more attention to climate change. I don't think it's the only thing we should be talking about, but we should be regularly asking ourselves if there is more that we can do (and there certainly is). I highly recommend this video from the wonderful Kurzgesagt science video series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxgMdjyw8uw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxgMdjyw8uw Climate change is bad and we need to take it seriously, but there is a lot of reason for hope. A lot of trends are pointing in the right direction and we need to support those trends. Climate policy is still in a bad state, in large part because of the gerontocracy, but younger people are entering politics with a different view.
vasco 5y ago
> Nothing matters as much as our bone-headed, mass-suicidal march toward extreme-weather oblivion. Not COVID-19, not the invasion of Ukraine, not even “The Godfather.” Says a reporter living in Los Angeles, the 49th most expensive city in the world to live in. For a lot of people, what they need to talk about is how they're getting their next meal, how they're going to make rent, or survive a current war. Maybe go to a war zone or a poor area and try to make the same point with a straight face.
- nawgz 5y ago
  His audience is first-world readers, who have time to digest the material, and then in the face of the ugly implications upon their own action, respond with snark about how plenty of humans are facing more urgent crises so we shouldn't worry about the destruction of our planet. Your point isn't what you think it is.
- throwaway5752 5y ago
  If I told a person in a war zone there was a planetary crisis that would guarantee the death of the children or grandchildren, I don't have a doubt in the world they would care about it. Just because someone living in danger or poverty doesn't make them a fool or a coward.
  - bmmayer1 5y ago
    I was in Ukraine yesterday. That is 100% untrue. When you're in a war zone, even if you're in the country but far from the action, the only thing you can think about is your immediate survival and the survival of your friends and family. Literally nothing else matters.
    - throwaway5752 5y ago
      Thanks for editing your comment for additional clarity. There isn't much one can do about anything if they survive until the next day, but that does not mean they don't care about non-immediate concerns. Flight 571 survivors were not pro-cannibalism, they did what they had to in order to survive in terrible circumstances. People in poverty and conflict definitely still care about their familys' futures.
greggeter 5y ago
caenorst 5y ago
A quick look at the author history on latimes, the last column before that: "Column: The Gardiner brothers are TikTok’s lords of the dance". So how about you first? Sometimes I don't understand how something like that end up on HN...
tonguez 5y ago
sounds like something a rich person would say
rpmisms 5y ago
To paraphrase: "Panic about what we are telling you to panic about". I'll pass, thank you. This is not climate denialism. I am not going to panic at the whim of a newspaper editor.
endisneigh 5y ago
Is there any solution that doesn’t either involve developed countries lowering their quality of life or preventing developing nations from cheaply industrializing?
- titzer 5y ago
  > developed countries lowering their quality of life I seriously disagree with this framing. Developed countries have been artificially inflating their quality of life through cheap energy available from burning fossil fuels. This is an unsustainable practice that will a.) come to end due to exhaustion of said fuels b.) have significant, compounding externalities that are subject to incredible levels of reality distortion from entities benefiting from the economies they intentionally structured to be dependent on said energy sources. The truth is that western countries have developed too fast through the planetary equivalent of roid rage. We've gone massively into debt, dug into a huge reservoir that is emptying, and the waste products produced by our flagrant exploitation of dirty energy reserves are very bad for the planet. So yeah, I completely disagree with the "lowering their quality of life" framing. It's true that if you've been going into debt your whole life, and suddenly stop spending like a drunken sailor, your quality of life might go down.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    Framing aside it’s a fact that the quality of life will be lowered for some. What you’re saying isn’t wrong, but it is what it is. This is a political issue, acting as if switching entirely to renewables will not result in some short term sacrifices is well, disingenuous.
    - titzer 5y ago
      I will still challenge these assertions. Lowering quality of life....to only a bazillion times better than a couple generations ago. When in reality the things people would be giving up are gluttonous wastes of energy like private jets and affordable vacations in the Caribbean (a new thing!).
browningstreet 5y ago
Working on a web project about the reality of our situation and who can actually fix this and what we, as individuals, can actually contribute. A corrective to both the doomism and the superficial "recycle, plant a tree" listicles.
newsclues 5y ago
The climate crisis was interrupted by the Covid crisis, which resulted in a change of way of life that was harmful to the environment (masks in the water, more delivery is using more fossil fuels).
Cthulhu_ 5y ago
False dichotomy; we can - and are - doing multiple things at once. Absolutism isn't going to work, I mean if you want to deal with the climate crisis effectively, just elect me God-Emperor and I'll take care of it. Many of you will die, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.
lordnacho 5y ago
The thing about a crisis is that it forces you to act on it, right now. Something like being invaded by your larger neighbor is a crisis, because you have to drop whatever you're doing and think about defense, immediately and with all your effort. The climate "crisis" is a slow boil. Ice caps melt a bit, water goes up a bit, a few houses fall in, no big deal. Drought happens, we have less food, we buy it from elsewhere, no big deal. Hurricanes increase, we fix the damage, no big deal. Everything bad about the climate crisis seems to be localized and episodic, on the scale of how we normally report the news. Put together it may well be much, much, worse, and far more expensive, but the way it happens makes a big difference to whether we do anything about it. I fear that calling it a crisis trips the wrong false alarm override, there should be some other word. We keep getting told this COP is the last chance, and that we have 10 years at most. But we're still here, so we think the warning was overdone, and maybe we should just ignore it next time. We should call it "the generational inheritance of our planet project" or something like that. I don't want to be the guy who screws up a crisis and the world ends, but I also don't want to leave a slightly shittier planet for my kids, and for them to do the same.
- Cthulhu_ 5y ago
  The issue there is that global warming isn't a crisis, until it suddenly is due to a weather event. Ice caps melting: not a crisis. Flooding during a weather event: Crisis. Average temperatures in a year going up by .5 degrees: not a crisis. Forest fires destroying your house, or droughts causing crops to fail: Crisis. Glaciers and permafrost melting: not a crisis. Ocean gulf stream stopping, causing warm water to no longer go north and vice-versa, triggering a new ice age and all of Scandinavia, northern Europe and northern America to be covered in a kilometer of ice: that's a bit of an issue. I get it, it's not an immediate crisis for most, so people are like "huh I remember hot summers back in MY day", confusing weather for climate and not seeing a need to act. I'm pessimistic though. Any change now will be too little, too late; we've passed the point of no return, of climate collapse years ago. Things like: permafrost is melting, releasing sequestered CO2 and methane in the atmosphere at a rate greater than our own pollution. Polar caps and glaciers are not recovering, making the ocean absorb more heat (ice reflects sun rays back into space). Rising sea levels and the like make water push ice up and about, causing large ice sheets to break off of Antarctica and float into warmer waters. The list goes on. I'm not very optimistic. I just hope to die of old age before famine and war strike; given the current instability of existing unions like Europe and NATO, I'm not very positive about that either though.
baskethead 5y ago
I fully believe in the climate crisis but this sort of talk is religious extremism. This is what religious extremists say and if you dare to disobey oir question them, you are considered a heretic and should be essentially punished or killed. The New Left has turned into religious extremists. The climate crisis ISN'T the only thing we should be talking about. We also have problems with straight up pollution, and other things like countries like China that fish until extinction. There are 1000+ Chinese fishing boats parked in international waters off the coast of South America that are fishing until the point of extinction and then bringing the fish back to China, leaving nothing for the South Americans. There are companies like Nestle whose CEO doesn't believe water is a fundamental right, and places like California and Canada that let it bottle water for essentially free and then sell it for more than gasoline. We have runoff of PFAS polluting water, we have so much pollution from microplastics, we have plastics polluting the Pacific Ocean, microplastics in our blood, etc. So, NO. Climate crisis is NOT the only thing we should be talking about. That is utterly crazy, and sounds like something ISIS would say.
- verisimi 5y ago
  More than that, they are using religious touchstones to make their point. Feeling guilty for existence and making things worse - is original sin. Recycling, putting oneself to trouble and expense - is penance. Scientist and politicians - are the priests. Saving the earth - is heaven.
verisimi 5y ago
> The moment that, by the latest estimates, is less than 10 years away The moment is always 10 years away. Remember global cooling or the mini ice age of the 70s? Remember Al Gore and global warming? It's an inconvenient truth that nothing has really materialised in the past 15 years following that, despite his hysteria. (He is surely sad that it hasn't, given his environmental investment portfolio). I've seen nothing to indicate any change at all. The beaches of my childhood are the same, weather does change - but if anything, things seem cooler not warmer to me. There is surely pollution, but I lay all blame for that at the feet of corporations. They should pay, rather than getting their governments to socialise the expense of the population - by making us feel guilty for consuming, even teaching this in schools. Apparently we should feel guilty for merely existing. They can stick it. I'm afraid that I do not trust the science, the media or politicians to convey truth to us here. They are all self-serving. They can stick it too. And let's remember that this wasn't an issue until the Club of Rome came up with the idea to make Man the enemy in order to gain greater control of our lives on behalf of the oligarchs: "In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. [. . .] All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself." The Club of Rome, in their 1991 publications The First Global Revolution, under the heading “the common enemy of humanity is Man”.
beepbooptheory 5y ago
Reading the thread, I guess all I need is to buy an EV and compost my food waste and then I won't have to worry anymore, plus have a nice moral ground to complain about climate scientists like the Republicans do. Honestly, a huge majority of you need to be honest with yourselves: this kind of thing bugs you because you are business people, founders, people broadly trying to make serious investments in some kind of economic future that will (ultimately) lead to your (continued) success. Your aspirations are not bad in themselves, but neither is reporting about climate change, and the honesty comes in when you recognize there is a conflict of interest between the two here.
- VonGuard 5y ago
  This is indicative of what I think is the primary problem we're all dealing with: we are all told to buy EVs and compost and recycle. It's OUR fault the Earth is dying. The consumers.... Which is HORSESHIT. Doritos bags made of shiny plastic, microplastics in products, pesticides used on crops... All of these things are corporate driven decisions. Those bags are used for chips because they make the shelf life longer, saving them money. Microplastics make it easier and cheaper to produce exfoliating products, which could be done with pumice or other stuff that's more expensive. Pesticides increase crop yield, increasing the bottom line. So while us consumers are out here fretting over how our single coke can not recycled is killing the planet, large corporations make decisions every day that either make them money or save them money, and do irreparable harm to the world. But instead of fixing these problems, they run ads to tell us to recycle. That highly concentrated soap you use on your dishes that goes into the water supply? It's got a baby duck on the bottle so you can feel better about using it! We lie to ourselves about all of this. Individual changes in behavior make no difference. The things we litter and don't recycle should simply not be there in the first place. I buy a lot of bacon, but it always comes in an un-resealable plastic bag, so they want you to use a Ziplock on it to put it in your fridge. Shit like that. 100 million decisions made by businesses every day killing the Earth. And we get blamed for it as peons. Explain to me why we have to fly empty planes around the world just to make sure those airlines don't lose their terminal rights? Everything we do every day is optimized to make money at the expense of every other possible method of worth. We forgo reason, we forgo safety, we give up our world to make money. That's not going to change until there's no money left to earn, and we're all fighting over food. We know how to fix this. Go to Marin and see their waste reclamation site. There is no landfill in that county. They recycle and compost and handle everything, even hazardous wastes like paint. We have the tech, we know how to do it. But we don't. This entire comment section is full of the main reason why: y'all want yer money. Gotta make that paper. Fuck the world, I want mine. Glad I never had kids.
aww_dang 5y ago
Strongly disagree. Does anyone on any side of this issue have anything substantially new to say? If we have heard it all before, then what more is there to say? Perhaps we shouldn't be doomsaying 24/7. It isn't healthy for anyone involved.
goodgoblin 5y ago
I'm sorry, but this is utterly unhinged. There is no evidence of weather patterns of any kind, much less indications that we are about to face "extreme-weather". What caused the weather which led to the dust-bowl? What caused the ice-age? The climate of the earth has changed for millions of years w/o humans, and while certainly greenhouse gases impact the current trends, they aren't cause for apocalyptic concern. I realize many people will probably vote this into oblivion, but I do not think there is a climate crisis at all.
- all2 5y ago
  The dust-bowl wasn't specifically weather, it was farming practices (and apparently a drought). > The Dust Bowl was a period of severe dust storms that greatly damaged the ecology and agriculture of the American and Canadian prairies during the 1930s; severe drought and a failure to apply dryland farming methods to prevent the aeolian processes (wind erosion) caused the phenomenon. from Wikipedia
  - goodgoblin 5y ago
    thank you - I thought someone might make a comment like this, which is why I added the qualifier ("weather which led to the dust-bowl") to distinguish it from the human factors - but hey - it's cool - and I love that you used the word "aeolian" - thats a really cool word :) my point was just that weird weather has been happening for a long time, and if you think about it, if the weather people can't predict whether it will rain or not 2 weeks from now, how can they possibly predict there will be more or less storms 5 years from now, 10 years, etc?
  - drewcoo 5y ago
    And the draining of aquifers more so than climate change, makes the dust bowl more and more likely to happen again. https://theconversation.com/farmers-are-depleting-the-ogallala-aquifer-because-the-government-pays-them-to-do-it-145501 https://theconversation.com/farmers-are-depleting-the-ogalla...
- blisterpeanuts 5y ago
  It seems like technological innovations and lifestyle trends are already reducing human greenhouse gas production: - Residential and commercial buildings with solar panels; - electric vehicles (albeit, the production of EV batteries is reportedly very dirty); - more efficient consumption of oil/gas; - CO2 capture and sequestration; - backyard farming (raising chickens, composting, vegetable gardening); - growing preferences for alternatives to red meat; - work-from-home that reduces use of the roads and highways; - widespread acceptance of plastics recycling; and others. I don't understand the use of the term "crisis" when we're already implementing pretty much every possible solution, and with some other cool solutions in the pipelines such as vastly improved batteries, better and safer nuclear fission reactors, electric aircraft, better and more efficient agriculture; better recycling of plastics, etc. I would advocate continued and improved support for these approaches through tax incentives, research grants, and education. Also, we should spur economic growth, without which we can't afford to do any of the above. We can solve this without the need to panic.
dr_dshiv 5y ago
Then why aren’t we talking about the the most promising solution to avert the crisis: solar radiation management? If things are really so dire, why are there efforts to even ban scientific research on solutions like marine cloud brightening or atmospheric sulfur injections?
incomingpain 5y ago
From my perspective LATimes is often talking about climate change. I don't thoroughly read the LATimes but here's a selection of articles I've read from them. Like how Race is involved with climate change: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-03-18/race-environmental-justice-justice40-screening-tool-joe-biden-california https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-03-18/race-enviro... Also how climate change is itself racist: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-02-13/climate-systemic-inequity-drive-california-water-law-reforms https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-02-13/climate-... Then also covering anti-climate change politician as black face of white supremacy? You'll have to read the article to understand how a black dude is a white supremacist. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-08-20/recall-candidate-larry-elder-is-a-threat-to-black-californians https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-08-20/recall-c... Dont worry about the title; the article definitely brings up race: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-22/what-has-california-cap-and-trade-accomplished https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-22/what-has... Not sure why they are so focused on race. Race doesn't really have anything to do with climate change in the rest of the world. Perhaps that's what we are doing wrong?
- mapster 5y ago
  - incomingpain 5y ago
    >Paraphrasing the LA times articles like you do…give yourself a clap on the back and go back to Fox news. I very rarely read fox news. I'm not from or in the USA. Politically I am conservative but fox news will not provide me any new viewpoint or benefit. Might I also point out how your attack on fox news is rather empty. I remember the keith olberman vs hannity/oreilly era. Fox news was one of the worst journalism entities there was. While keith was epic. Oddly enough, fox took this criticism and certainly improved. Flipside, msnbc and keith are now the ones peddling disinformation. In a way they each became what the other was.
temp8964 5y ago
What if China promises there is an authoritarian way to fix the climate crisis, and it's possibly the only way. Will you agree and support China to be the world leader to do that? BTW, latimes will be closed in China's solution.
all2 5y ago
> Why are we talking about anything but climate change? The whole premise of this opinion piece is to be a "what-about"ism. I was going to do a point-by-point response, but I can't bring myself to it. This is more of "just trust The Science TM", when the ScienceTM is heavily flawed, the models ever changing, the proportion of disaster predicted ebbs and flows with the seasons, and government funding is the only thing that continues to fuel positive results. Not to mention lack of transparency into the models which makes replication impossible. The politicians use the fear generated to win elections and erode freedoms and levy more taxes that are uselessly added to the slush-funds of state and federal government. The solutions offered ("adopt clean energy") are tone deaf -- even elitist -- and if adopted, will kill vulnerable populations all over the world. I hate fear mongering. Fear is a powerful tool for control and will be exploited by every single sociopath that takes office, whether they intend to or not. [edit]Removing irrelevant claims.[/edit]
mekoka 5y ago
The article's tone answers its own question. There's a consensus on change, not on crisis. Let's have an honest conversation about that. What do we truly know? What does the data really indicate? What can we do? What should we do? Please leave your emotions and opinions at the door. Trying to prematurely wrap the conversation with alarmism is the reason for the eyerolls.
iso1210 5y ago
I think some countries are still at stage 2 of the Yes Minister observation of how a government responds, some are at stage 3 > In stage one we say nothing is going to happen. > Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it. > In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there’s nothing we can do. > Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it’s too late now.
magpi3 5y ago
Honest question: is there any chance that this does NOT end in an attempt at climate engineering, i.e. shooting shit into the atmosphere to cool the planet? I just can't imagine world nations are going to accept the catastrophic consequences that are incoming. Eventually, when things look bleak enough, it will become politically viable to propose such strategies. Obviously it is not at the current moment. But a cynical part of me just feels that it is just a matter of time. And that governments know it is just a matter of time, and they are preparing for it. Asking people to change their habits or drastically alter their economies in a short period of time is, from what I have read, just a complete non-starter. I welcome arguments explaining how I am wrong.
- hotpotamus 5y ago
  The thing to realize is that we're already engaged in climate engineering. There's no going back or unwinding it at this point, so basically I agree that this is the logical next step.
- goodgoblin 5y ago
  this would be a really bad idea -- b/c if you shoot too much into the atmosphere - you'd basically have an ice age - right? It's just scary b/c we don't have a "QA" planet to test it on :)
samuel 5y ago
A state with nuclear weapons and ruled by an authoritarian tyrant without any counterbalances is waging a war while throwing threats to other nuclear weapon states. This is happening in the part of the world where I live in. Furthermore, the countries involved in this war are the biggest exporters of some crops and we could be facing global famines this very same year. So, no.
agentultra 5y ago
I'm going to wager that the majority of comments here will be along the lines of, "ok, doomer." That's where we are now. More than forty years of denialism and anti-science political pandering brought us here. With all of the calamities happening in the world right now, many people "just want to go back to normal." Unfortunately what was normal sucked. Normal is advertising, marketing, and campaigning to ensure people feel personally responsible for the climate crisis. Normal is articles and helpful guides on how you can reduce your, "carbon footprint." Normal is green-washing products so that you continue along consuming as much as possible without having to feel like there is anything wrong with it. Normal is paying lobbyists to prevent any action on climate change from impeding any industry from reaping profits off exploiting the environment. Normal is making sure that coal plants continue to burn, oil continues to be extracted and traded. Normal is making sure people feel like they ought to take several vacations around the world every year. That they ought to have more than one car, live in a neighbourhood that requires it, that driving to work for an hour and a half each way five days a week is a totally normal thing to do. Normal is making sure nobody notices how weird it is that we bottle water in plastic and sell it. Normal is making sure nobody notices that big corporations set up these operations on stolen land and avoid persecution for endangering the lives of the people that live there and the environment they operate in. There's so much more about, "let's get back to normal," that is just gross. Why do we want to get back to that? Is it even each of us, individually, that want this or is it someone else? Who benefits the most from, "going back to normal?" If the pandemic has taught us something it should be that we can radically and quickly alter social structures when we need to. I try not to let all of the anti-mask/vaxx pressure from a vocal minority make me cynical. But I haven't forgotten the wild fires, floods, hurricanes, heat waves, record ice sheet loss, missing glaciers, and the thousands of species going extinct and into decline. Going back to normal is going back into the past. That sucked. I think we should be looking to the future. Make a new normal that sucks a bit less.
t0bia_s 5y ago
I called that type of narration "impressionlogy". Opinion based on emotions and impressions. Scared people are easier to by manipulated and open for new orders. Just a friendly reminder.
mc4ndr3 5y ago
One reason climate change has not been adequately addressed is that we are facing many simultaneous crises and people are treating each one as the "end of civilization". No. Things are very bad. But take incremental steps forward to address them. Another Y Combinatory article posted recently even remarked that studies indicate gloom and doom detracts from advocacy.
photochemsyn 5y ago
> "Doomsday being the moment when the ability to lower the atmospheric temperature has slipped from our control. The moment when we puny humans are finally and irrevocably at the mercy of hurricanes, fires, tornadoes, drought, food shortages, rising sea levels and all the socio-political carnage that will accompany same." We're already there, current CO2 is 420 ppm and steadily rising. Climate is on an irrevocable trajectory towards a much warmer norm, similar to conditions ~3-5 million years ago during the Pliocene era, before the onset of the ice-age cycle of the Pliestocene. Those who deny this at this point are simply ignorant of the facts. > "It is sometimes imagined that slow processes such as climate changes pose small risks, on the basis of the assumption that a choice can always be made to quickly reduce emissions and thereby reverse any harm within a few years or decades. We have shown that this assumption is incorrect for carbon dioxide emissions, because of the longevity of the atmospheric CO4 perturbation and ocean warming." Source: Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions, PNAS (2009) (sci-hub_se) CO2 was 320 ppm in 1960; we're not going back there, it's 420 ppm now, with a current growth rate of 10 ppm / decade. Stabilizing at ~440 ppm might be possible (neglecting slow but steady permafrost outgassing) if the world commits to a 3% reduction in fossil fuel use per year over the next 30 years, about the fastest change I imagine to be feasibly possible. This means zero fossil fuel use globally in 30 years, and of course current oil/gas corporation projections are to maintain current output for the next 30 years. Non oil-gas producers like Germany and China are the ones shifting the fastest to renewables; the likes of the USA, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela etc. are bent on continuing to produce and export. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/... Practically this means human civilization is going to have to spend as much effort on adapting to this new climate reality as on replacing fossil fuel infrastructure with renewable energy sources. Water supply infrastructure will be a major issue, food production will be a major issue, sea level rise will be a major issue, population migration and extreme weather damages will be major issues. The point has been tipped, the pooch has been screwed, and now we all have to deal with the aftermath.
adrianN 5y ago
Man I wish we could just stop talking about the climate crisis all the time and start actually doing something about it. The science has been crystal clear for decades, and we have enough studies about how to solve problem to fill libraries. The issues has been discussed sufficiently, it's time to just implement the solutions.
gwbas1c 5y ago
The problem is so deep, even I don't understand it. All I can say is that when we can get Republicans to stop denying climate change, and work with Democrats on the issue, they will figure out how to solve it very quickly. --- I went to a debate between a well-established Republican, Randy Hunt, (who was rumored to replace Senator Warren if she was picked for VP,) and a first-time running Democrat. The Democrat's response to climate change was to just put solar panels all over the place. He had no knowledge about how we need to store energy for when the sun goes down; no knowledge about how there's more sunlight in the summer, but we need more energy in the winter, ect, ect. Randy spoke about working with MIT for energy storage, and promoted a local project to build the USA's largest offshore windfarm. Even though I'm a D, I voted for Randy. When the D's supporters knocked on my door, I told them straight up that I live in a carbon neutral home, drive two electric cars, and that Randy (the R) understood how to battle climate change much more than their candidate. But even worse, a year later I met some of the D's friends. They had no clue about how renewable energy works, and couldn't comprehend why I'd vote against a D. I tried to point out why you just can't put solar panels everywhere, but their eyes glazed over.
- civilized 5y ago
  Makes sense at one level, but I wonder if partisan voting patterns overwhelm the potential positive contribution of any one Republican. I genuinely don't know here.
  - gwbas1c 5y ago
    I wonder how Ted Cruz and other Texan politicians are going to behave with Tesla in their state? One thing I noticed in their Cyber Rodeo is that Elon said, "sustainable energy" and never mentioned "climate change."

96 points by jader201 5y ago

Here are some of the many of Los Angeles Times’ newspaper headlines that they used to help with their circulations: 1966 - Oil gone in 10 years 1968 - Overpopulation will spread worldwide 1969 - Everyone will disappear in a Cloud of Blue Steam in 1989 1970 - World will use up its natural resources by 2000 1970 - Urban citizens will require gas mask by 1985 1970 - Nitrogen buildup will make all lands unusable 1970 - Decaying pollution will kill all the fish 1970s - Killer Bees!!! 1970 - Ice Age by 2000 1970 - Americans will be subjected to water rationing by 1975 and food rationing by 1980 1971 - New Ice Age coming by 2020 or 2030 1972 - New Ice Age by 2070 1972 - Oil depleted in 20 years 1974 - Space satellites show New Ice Age coming fast 1974 - Another Ice Age? 1974 - Ozone depletion a great peril to life 1976 - Scientific consensus planet cooling; famines imminent 1977 - Department of Energy says oil will peak in 90s. 1978 - No end in sight to 30-year global cooling 1980 - Acid rain kills life in lakes 1980 - Peak oil in 2000 1988 - Regional drought (that never happened) in 90s. 1988 - Temperatures in DC will hit record high (no records broken) 1988 - Maldive Islands will be underwater by 2018 (nope) 1989 - Rising sea level will obliterate nations if nothing done by 2000. 1989 - New York City Westside Highway underwater by 2018. 1990 - Cellphones caused cancer 1996 - Peak oil in 2020 2000 - Children won’t know what snow is 2001 - WiFi causes cancer 2002 - Famines if we don’t give up eating fishes, meat, and diary 2002 - Peak oil in 2010 2004 - Britain will be Siberia by 2024 2005 - Manhattan underwater by 2015 2006 - Super Hurricanes!!! 2008 - Arctic will be ice-free by 2018 2008 - Climate genius Al Gore predict ice-free Arctic by 2013 2009 - Climate genius Prince Charles says we have 96 months to save the world 2009 UK Prime Ministers says 50 days to “save planet from catastrophe” 2009 Al Gore moves ice-free Arctic prediction from 2013 to 2014 2010 - 4G cell tower causes cancers. 2013 Arctic ice-free by 2015 2014 Only 500 days before climate chaos 2019 - Hey Greta, we really need you to convince them this time. 2020 - Australian bush fires are caused by climate change. 2020 - 5G cellular towers causes cancers. 2020 - Polar bears could be lost by 2100 2021 - Volcano caldera ready to wipe out civilization Ummmm, ok. Should I be unjading myself by now?

dangerface 5y ago
It doesn't look like the la times ever used the headline "Everyone will disappear in a Cloud of Blue Steam in", the only results in google was for an Alex Jones book or something
gunshai 5y ago
Some what of crying wolf
camjohnson26 5y ago
Age old mistake of extrapolating current trends indefinitely into the future.
YATA1 5y ago
I remember reading something somewhere in the 1990s that the entirety of New Orleans was going to be underwater by 2020 and the only way you'd be able to visit Bourbon Street was by boat.
- beepbooptheory 5y ago
  You might wan't to rethink your example here... You don't need a boat yet, but New Orleans has suffered incredibly in the last 20 years, both materially and spiritually, because of the hurricanes and flooding.
  - YATA1 5y ago
    >You might wan't to rethink your example here... I might not... Katrina, Harvey, Betsy, 1915, etc. New Orleans is still there. It's not under sea like all the prophecies foretold.
    - beepbooptheory 5y ago
      I guess the human toll of all those things aren't really all that meaningful when it is not visually apparent to an outside observer. Which does make this a good example of what is going in general, you are right!

tim333 5y ago

There are lots of things to talk about other than the 'climate crisis' and exaggerating it can lead to a misallocation of resources really.

plaguepilled 5y ago
The climate crisis coalesces wealth inequality, war tension, national resources, economy, and a host of other pressing current issues. It is trivial to find the link to each of these topics. I mean this respectfully, but there is absolutely no way a nation can 'over-allocate' to the climate crisis. Please provide a precise example or retract your claim. Edit: I'm getting a lot of down votes for this comment but not a lot of conversation to explain how I have gone wrong here, and I think the request for a precise argument is not unreasonable. Perhaps one of my critics could enlighten me to my error?
- ohCh6zos 5y ago
  Anything that causes a backslide to the point people are burning more fossil fuels would be an over allocation. So would any attempt to pull so much CO2 out of the atmosphere that caused a mass green plant die-off. It is possible to overshoot the problem. It seems improbable, but we could overshoot.
  - plaguepilled 5y ago
    Thanks for clarifying. I think I understand the objection but I have a follow up question: are these hypothetical overshoots realistically possible? With the rate we enact change now, is it even possible to get 'slightly overshot' without opposing interests jumping all over it? (This is not a rhetorical question: I'm not sure one way or another, though my expectation is that it isn't possible)
Isinlor 5y ago
We are nowhere near exaggerating it. We should be simple executing what was agreed in the Paris Agreement as it reflects our best evaluation of the cost to benefits ratio. But current policies are aiming at 1.5 degree higher than what we evaluated as the optimal solution.

roenxi 5y ago

There is currently some chance - possibly single digit percentages - that the northern hemisphere will dissolve in a nuclear fireball and the rest of us will freeze in a long sub-zero nuclear winter. The sort of people who suggest we should only talk about the climate are dangerously foolish. Priority 1 is peace, priority 2 is prosperity (which helps keep the peace). Those two issues take priority over the climate, which is only interesting as a component of them.

dorchadas 5y ago
If you don't fix the climate issues, neither of those priorities will be met.
- all2 5y ago
  I propose there is no dichotomy between addressing the immediate needs of a nation or people and the far-reaching needs of the environment and climate. Both can be addressed at the same time.
- roenxi 5y ago
  Possibly, but there is little doubt to work that out first we will have to talk about them as issues.

ekianjo 5y ago

The only thing we should be taking about is the fact that newspapers love setting the agenda, whether or not there's any link to the reality.

rlewkov 5y ago
So so true

mrozbarry 5y ago

I think we should talk about: - How to be decent human beings to each other, and especially how to not kill each other - The media has too much power - Government over-reach Probably other things, but I don't know, these seem like way better hot-button issues.

jfax 5y ago
Social unrest is being driven by climate issues, which makes these things largely secondary to it.
- mrozbarry 5y ago
  I don't know if that's true, do you have an article/thing I can read that backs that up?
blisterpeanuts 5y ago
I would put education at the top of the list. We in the U.S. should re-emphasize rigorous topics of STEM, history, language, philosophy, logic, civics etc., set high standards for passing and graduating middle and high school, so that our voting population will know how to think and reason. Without this, I don't see how we as a country can make rational, reasonable decisions to deal with complex issues like climate.

mrfusion 5y ago

I’m a full on believer. I even own an EV but I think this alarmism is just making people numb. I think there’s a whole generation out there that never read “the boy who cried wolf”.

71a54xd 5y ago
Yep, couldn't agree more. I compost, watch what I buy and also own an EV. But as someone who went to engineering school I fully acknowledge that my actions basically don't even move the needle. There will always be people with less education or simply less means than me that quite frankly just have bigger issues. I think the big mistake alarmists make is blaming consumers and not huge companies like Exxon. Even among my educated friends, it's clear that people acknowledge climate change but the ever increasing alarmism of "the world will end in 46 months" is flat out not helping. I barely got through 15 minutes of "Don't Look Up" which was clearly a bizarre politically charged hit-piece. In the meantime I'll keep working with my local town's redwood conservancy and continue growing redwood saplings in my rural greenhouse :)
bitxbitxbitcoin 5y ago
They read it, or had it read to them - but they learned the wrong lesson.
- janto 5y ago
  Maybe they believe in the usefulness of the "repeating it three times makes it true" rhetorical device.
kgran 5y ago
>I even own an EV I don't want to be that guy, but driving an EV (unless you drive some sort of electric bicycle or scooter) is not that environmentally friendly as the manufacturers and marketing people want you to believe. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impact_on_the_environment#/media/File:Wynes_Nicholas_CO2_emissions_savings.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impact_on_the_environmen...

softwarebeware 5y ago

If it becomes the only thing we talk about, then it will sound like hysteria, and taking action will get lost in the noise.

civilized 5y ago

I agree that we should be giving a lot more attention to climate change. I don't think it's the only thing we should be talking about, but we should be regularly asking ourselves if there is more that we can do (and there certainly is). I highly recommend this video from the wonderful Kurzgesagt science video series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxgMdjyw8uw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxgMdjyw8uw Climate change is bad and we need to take it seriously, but there is a lot of reason for hope. A lot of trends are pointing in the right direction and we need to support those trends. Climate policy is still in a bad state, in large part because of the gerontocracy, but younger people are entering politics with a different view.

vasco 5y ago

> Nothing matters as much as our bone-headed, mass-suicidal march toward extreme-weather oblivion. Not COVID-19, not the invasion of Ukraine, not even “The Godfather.” Says a reporter living in Los Angeles, the 49th most expensive city in the world to live in. For a lot of people, what they need to talk about is how they're getting their next meal, how they're going to make rent, or survive a current war. Maybe go to a war zone or a poor area and try to make the same point with a straight face.

nawgz 5y ago
His audience is first-world readers, who have time to digest the material, and then in the face of the ugly implications upon their own action, respond with snark about how plenty of humans are facing more urgent crises so we shouldn't worry about the destruction of our planet. Your point isn't what you think it is.
throwaway5752 5y ago
If I told a person in a war zone there was a planetary crisis that would guarantee the death of the children or grandchildren, I don't have a doubt in the world they would care about it. Just because someone living in danger or poverty doesn't make them a fool or a coward.
- bmmayer1 5y ago
  I was in Ukraine yesterday. That is 100% untrue. When you're in a war zone, even if you're in the country but far from the action, the only thing you can think about is your immediate survival and the survival of your friends and family. Literally nothing else matters.
  - throwaway5752 5y ago
    Thanks for editing your comment for additional clarity. There isn't much one can do about anything if they survive until the next day, but that does not mean they don't care about non-immediate concerns. Flight 571 survivors were not pro-cannibalism, they did what they had to in order to survive in terrible circumstances. People in poverty and conflict definitely still care about their familys' futures.

greggeter 5y ago

caenorst 5y ago

A quick look at the author history on latimes, the last column before that: "Column: The Gardiner brothers are TikTok’s lords of the dance". So how about you first? Sometimes I don't understand how something like that end up on HN...

tonguez 5y ago

sounds like something a rich person would say

rpmisms 5y ago

To paraphrase: "Panic about what we are telling you to panic about". I'll pass, thank you. This is not climate denialism. I am not going to panic at the whim of a newspaper editor.

endisneigh 5y ago

Is there any solution that doesn’t either involve developed countries lowering their quality of life or preventing developing nations from cheaply industrializing?

titzer 5y ago
> developed countries lowering their quality of life I seriously disagree with this framing. Developed countries have been artificially inflating their quality of life through cheap energy available from burning fossil fuels. This is an unsustainable practice that will a.) come to end due to exhaustion of said fuels b.) have significant, compounding externalities that are subject to incredible levels of reality distortion from entities benefiting from the economies they intentionally structured to be dependent on said energy sources. The truth is that western countries have developed too fast through the planetary equivalent of roid rage. We've gone massively into debt, dug into a huge reservoir that is emptying, and the waste products produced by our flagrant exploitation of dirty energy reserves are very bad for the planet. So yeah, I completely disagree with the "lowering their quality of life" framing. It's true that if you've been going into debt your whole life, and suddenly stop spending like a drunken sailor, your quality of life might go down.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  Framing aside it’s a fact that the quality of life will be lowered for some. What you’re saying isn’t wrong, but it is what it is. This is a political issue, acting as if switching entirely to renewables will not result in some short term sacrifices is well, disingenuous.
  - titzer 5y ago
    I will still challenge these assertions. Lowering quality of life....to only a bazillion times better than a couple generations ago. When in reality the things people would be giving up are gluttonous wastes of energy like private jets and affordable vacations in the Caribbean (a new thing!).

browningstreet 5y ago

Working on a web project about the reality of our situation and who can actually fix this and what we, as individuals, can actually contribute. A corrective to both the doomism and the superficial "recycle, plant a tree" listicles.

newsclues 5y ago

The climate crisis was interrupted by the Covid crisis, which resulted in a change of way of life that was harmful to the environment (masks in the water, more delivery is using more fossil fuels).

Cthulhu_ 5y ago

False dichotomy; we can - and are - doing multiple things at once. Absolutism isn't going to work, I mean if you want to deal with the climate crisis effectively, just elect me God-Emperor and I'll take care of it. Many of you will die, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.

lordnacho 5y ago

The thing about a crisis is that it forces you to act on it, right now. Something like being invaded by your larger neighbor is a crisis, because you have to drop whatever you're doing and think about defense, immediately and with all your effort. The climate "crisis" is a slow boil. Ice caps melt a bit, water goes up a bit, a few houses fall in, no big deal. Drought happens, we have less food, we buy it from elsewhere, no big deal. Hurricanes increase, we fix the damage, no big deal. Everything bad about the climate crisis seems to be localized and episodic, on the scale of how we normally report the news. Put together it may well be much, much, worse, and far more expensive, but the way it happens makes a big difference to whether we do anything about it. I fear that calling it a crisis trips the wrong false alarm override, there should be some other word. We keep getting told this COP is the last chance, and that we have 10 years at most. But we're still here, so we think the warning was overdone, and maybe we should just ignore it next time. We should call it "the generational inheritance of our planet project" or something like that. I don't want to be the guy who screws up a crisis and the world ends, but I also don't want to leave a slightly shittier planet for my kids, and for them to do the same.

Cthulhu_ 5y ago
The issue there is that global warming isn't a crisis, until it suddenly is due to a weather event. Ice caps melting: not a crisis. Flooding during a weather event: Crisis. Average temperatures in a year going up by .5 degrees: not a crisis. Forest fires destroying your house, or droughts causing crops to fail: Crisis. Glaciers and permafrost melting: not a crisis. Ocean gulf stream stopping, causing warm water to no longer go north and vice-versa, triggering a new ice age and all of Scandinavia, northern Europe and northern America to be covered in a kilometer of ice: that's a bit of an issue. I get it, it's not an immediate crisis for most, so people are like "huh I remember hot summers back in MY day", confusing weather for climate and not seeing a need to act. I'm pessimistic though. Any change now will be too little, too late; we've passed the point of no return, of climate collapse years ago. Things like: permafrost is melting, releasing sequestered CO2 and methane in the atmosphere at a rate greater than our own pollution. Polar caps and glaciers are not recovering, making the ocean absorb more heat (ice reflects sun rays back into space). Rising sea levels and the like make water push ice up and about, causing large ice sheets to break off of Antarctica and float into warmer waters. The list goes on. I'm not very optimistic. I just hope to die of old age before famine and war strike; given the current instability of existing unions like Europe and NATO, I'm not very positive about that either though.

baskethead 5y ago

I fully believe in the climate crisis but this sort of talk is religious extremism. This is what religious extremists say and if you dare to disobey oir question them, you are considered a heretic and should be essentially punished or killed. The New Left has turned into religious extremists. The climate crisis ISN'T the only thing we should be talking about. We also have problems with straight up pollution, and other things like countries like China that fish until extinction. There are 1000+ Chinese fishing boats parked in international waters off the coast of South America that are fishing until the point of extinction and then bringing the fish back to China, leaving nothing for the South Americans. There are companies like Nestle whose CEO doesn't believe water is a fundamental right, and places like California and Canada that let it bottle water for essentially free and then sell it for more than gasoline. We have runoff of PFAS polluting water, we have so much pollution from microplastics, we have plastics polluting the Pacific Ocean, microplastics in our blood, etc. So, NO. Climate crisis is NOT the only thing we should be talking about. That is utterly crazy, and sounds like something ISIS would say.

verisimi 5y ago
More than that, they are using religious touchstones to make their point. Feeling guilty for existence and making things worse - is original sin. Recycling, putting oneself to trouble and expense - is penance. Scientist and politicians - are the priests. Saving the earth - is heaven.

verisimi 5y ago

> The moment that, by the latest estimates, is less than 10 years away The moment is always 10 years away. Remember global cooling or the mini ice age of the 70s? Remember Al Gore and global warming? It's an inconvenient truth that nothing has really materialised in the past 15 years following that, despite his hysteria. (He is surely sad that it hasn't, given his environmental investment portfolio). I've seen nothing to indicate any change at all. The beaches of my childhood are the same, weather does change - but if anything, things seem cooler not warmer to me. There is surely pollution, but I lay all blame for that at the feet of corporations. They should pay, rather than getting their governments to socialise the expense of the population - by making us feel guilty for consuming, even teaching this in schools. Apparently we should feel guilty for merely existing. They can stick it. I'm afraid that I do not trust the science, the media or politicians to convey truth to us here. They are all self-serving. They can stick it too. And let's remember that this wasn't an issue until the Club of Rome came up with the idea to make Man the enemy in order to gain greater control of our lives on behalf of the oligarchs: "In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. [. . .] All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself." The Club of Rome, in their 1991 publications The First Global Revolution, under the heading “the common enemy of humanity is Man”.

beepbooptheory 5y ago

Reading the thread, I guess all I need is to buy an EV and compost my food waste and then I won't have to worry anymore, plus have a nice moral ground to complain about climate scientists like the Republicans do. Honestly, a huge majority of you need to be honest with yourselves: this kind of thing bugs you because you are business people, founders, people broadly trying to make serious investments in some kind of economic future that will (ultimately) lead to your (continued) success. Your aspirations are not bad in themselves, but neither is reporting about climate change, and the honesty comes in when you recognize there is a conflict of interest between the two here.

VonGuard 5y ago
This is indicative of what I think is the primary problem we're all dealing with: we are all told to buy EVs and compost and recycle. It's OUR fault the Earth is dying. The consumers.... Which is HORSESHIT. Doritos bags made of shiny plastic, microplastics in products, pesticides used on crops... All of these things are corporate driven decisions. Those bags are used for chips because they make the shelf life longer, saving them money. Microplastics make it easier and cheaper to produce exfoliating products, which could be done with pumice or other stuff that's more expensive. Pesticides increase crop yield, increasing the bottom line. So while us consumers are out here fretting over how our single coke can not recycled is killing the planet, large corporations make decisions every day that either make them money or save them money, and do irreparable harm to the world. But instead of fixing these problems, they run ads to tell us to recycle. That highly concentrated soap you use on your dishes that goes into the water supply? It's got a baby duck on the bottle so you can feel better about using it! We lie to ourselves about all of this. Individual changes in behavior make no difference. The things we litter and don't recycle should simply not be there in the first place. I buy a lot of bacon, but it always comes in an un-resealable plastic bag, so they want you to use a Ziplock on it to put it in your fridge. Shit like that. 100 million decisions made by businesses every day killing the Earth. And we get blamed for it as peons. Explain to me why we have to fly empty planes around the world just to make sure those airlines don't lose their terminal rights? Everything we do every day is optimized to make money at the expense of every other possible method of worth. We forgo reason, we forgo safety, we give up our world to make money. That's not going to change until there's no money left to earn, and we're all fighting over food. We know how to fix this. Go to Marin and see their waste reclamation site. There is no landfill in that county. They recycle and compost and handle everything, even hazardous wastes like paint. We have the tech, we know how to do it. But we don't. This entire comment section is full of the main reason why: y'all want yer money. Gotta make that paper. Fuck the world, I want mine. Glad I never had kids.

aww_dang 5y ago

Strongly disagree. Does anyone on any side of this issue have anything substantially new to say? If we have heard it all before, then what more is there to say? Perhaps we shouldn't be doomsaying 24/7. It isn't healthy for anyone involved.

goodgoblin 5y ago

I'm sorry, but this is utterly unhinged. There is no evidence of weather patterns of any kind, much less indications that we are about to face "extreme-weather". What caused the weather which led to the dust-bowl? What caused the ice-age? The climate of the earth has changed for millions of years w/o humans, and while certainly greenhouse gases impact the current trends, they aren't cause for apocalyptic concern. I realize many people will probably vote this into oblivion, but I do not think there is a climate crisis at all.

all2 5y ago
The dust-bowl wasn't specifically weather, it was farming practices (and apparently a drought). > The Dust Bowl was a period of severe dust storms that greatly damaged the ecology and agriculture of the American and Canadian prairies during the 1930s; severe drought and a failure to apply dryland farming methods to prevent the aeolian processes (wind erosion) caused the phenomenon. from Wikipedia
- goodgoblin 5y ago
  thank you - I thought someone might make a comment like this, which is why I added the qualifier ("weather which led to the dust-bowl") to distinguish it from the human factors - but hey - it's cool - and I love that you used the word "aeolian" - thats a really cool word :) my point was just that weird weather has been happening for a long time, and if you think about it, if the weather people can't predict whether it will rain or not 2 weeks from now, how can they possibly predict there will be more or less storms 5 years from now, 10 years, etc?
- drewcoo 5y ago
  And the draining of aquifers more so than climate change, makes the dust bowl more and more likely to happen again. https://theconversation.com/farmers-are-depleting-the-ogallala-aquifer-because-the-government-pays-them-to-do-it-145501 https://theconversation.com/farmers-are-depleting-the-ogalla...
blisterpeanuts 5y ago
It seems like technological innovations and lifestyle trends are already reducing human greenhouse gas production: - Residential and commercial buildings with solar panels; - electric vehicles (albeit, the production of EV batteries is reportedly very dirty); - more efficient consumption of oil/gas; - CO2 capture and sequestration; - backyard farming (raising chickens, composting, vegetable gardening); - growing preferences for alternatives to red meat; - work-from-home that reduces use of the roads and highways; - widespread acceptance of plastics recycling; and others. I don't understand the use of the term "crisis" when we're already implementing pretty much every possible solution, and with some other cool solutions in the pipelines such as vastly improved batteries, better and safer nuclear fission reactors, electric aircraft, better and more efficient agriculture; better recycling of plastics, etc. I would advocate continued and improved support for these approaches through tax incentives, research grants, and education. Also, we should spur economic growth, without which we can't afford to do any of the above. We can solve this without the need to panic.

dr_dshiv 5y ago

Then why aren’t we talking about the the most promising solution to avert the crisis: solar radiation management? If things are really so dire, why are there efforts to even ban scientific research on solutions like marine cloud brightening or atmospheric sulfur injections?

incomingpain 5y ago

From my perspective LATimes is often talking about climate change. I don't thoroughly read the LATimes but here's a selection of articles I've read from them. Like how Race is involved with climate change: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-03-18/race-environmental-justice-justice40-screening-tool-joe-biden-california https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-03-18/race-enviro... Also how climate change is itself racist: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-02-13/climate-systemic-inequity-drive-california-water-law-reforms https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-02-13/climate-... Then also covering anti-climate change politician as black face of white supremacy? You'll have to read the article to understand how a black dude is a white supremacist. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-08-20/recall-candidate-larry-elder-is-a-threat-to-black-californians https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-08-20/recall-c... Dont worry about the title; the article definitely brings up race: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-22/what-has-california-cap-and-trade-accomplished https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-22/what-has... Not sure why they are so focused on race. Race doesn't really have anything to do with climate change in the rest of the world. Perhaps that's what we are doing wrong?

mapster 5y ago
- incomingpain 5y ago
  >Paraphrasing the LA times articles like you do…give yourself a clap on the back and go back to Fox news. I very rarely read fox news. I'm not from or in the USA. Politically I am conservative but fox news will not provide me any new viewpoint or benefit. Might I also point out how your attack on fox news is rather empty. I remember the keith olberman vs hannity/oreilly era. Fox news was one of the worst journalism entities there was. While keith was epic. Oddly enough, fox took this criticism and certainly improved. Flipside, msnbc and keith are now the ones peddling disinformation. In a way they each became what the other was.

temp8964 5y ago

What if China promises there is an authoritarian way to fix the climate crisis, and it's possibly the only way. Will you agree and support China to be the world leader to do that? BTW, latimes will be closed in China's solution.

all2 5y ago

> Why are we talking about anything but climate change? The whole premise of this opinion piece is to be a "what-about"ism. I was going to do a point-by-point response, but I can't bring myself to it. This is more of "just trust The Science TM", when the ScienceTM is heavily flawed, the models ever changing, the proportion of disaster predicted ebbs and flows with the seasons, and government funding is the only thing that continues to fuel positive results. Not to mention lack of transparency into the models which makes replication impossible. The politicians use the fear generated to win elections and erode freedoms and levy more taxes that are uselessly added to the slush-funds of state and federal government. The solutions offered ("adopt clean energy") are tone deaf -- even elitist -- and if adopted, will kill vulnerable populations all over the world. I hate fear mongering. Fear is a powerful tool for control and will be exploited by every single sociopath that takes office, whether they intend to or not. [edit]Removing irrelevant claims.[/edit]

mekoka 5y ago

The article's tone answers its own question. There's a consensus on change, not on crisis. Let's have an honest conversation about that. What do we truly know? What does the data really indicate? What can we do? What should we do? Please leave your emotions and opinions at the door. Trying to prematurely wrap the conversation with alarmism is the reason for the eyerolls.

iso1210 5y ago

I think some countries are still at stage 2 of the Yes Minister observation of how a government responds, some are at stage 3 > In stage one we say nothing is going to happen. > Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it. > In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there’s nothing we can do. > Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it’s too late now.

magpi3 5y ago

Honest question: is there any chance that this does NOT end in an attempt at climate engineering, i.e. shooting shit into the atmosphere to cool the planet? I just can't imagine world nations are going to accept the catastrophic consequences that are incoming. Eventually, when things look bleak enough, it will become politically viable to propose such strategies. Obviously it is not at the current moment. But a cynical part of me just feels that it is just a matter of time. And that governments know it is just a matter of time, and they are preparing for it. Asking people to change their habits or drastically alter their economies in a short period of time is, from what I have read, just a complete non-starter. I welcome arguments explaining how I am wrong.

hotpotamus 5y ago
The thing to realize is that we're already engaged in climate engineering. There's no going back or unwinding it at this point, so basically I agree that this is the logical next step.
goodgoblin 5y ago
this would be a really bad idea -- b/c if you shoot too much into the atmosphere - you'd basically have an ice age - right? It's just scary b/c we don't have a "QA" planet to test it on :)

samuel 5y ago

A state with nuclear weapons and ruled by an authoritarian tyrant without any counterbalances is waging a war while throwing threats to other nuclear weapon states. This is happening in the part of the world where I live in. Furthermore, the countries involved in this war are the biggest exporters of some crops and we could be facing global famines this very same year. So, no.

agentultra 5y ago

I'm going to wager that the majority of comments here will be along the lines of, "ok, doomer." That's where we are now. More than forty years of denialism and anti-science political pandering brought us here. With all of the calamities happening in the world right now, many people "just want to go back to normal." Unfortunately what was normal sucked. Normal is advertising, marketing, and campaigning to ensure people feel personally responsible for the climate crisis. Normal is articles and helpful guides on how you can reduce your, "carbon footprint." Normal is green-washing products so that you continue along consuming as much as possible without having to feel like there is anything wrong with it. Normal is paying lobbyists to prevent any action on climate change from impeding any industry from reaping profits off exploiting the environment. Normal is making sure that coal plants continue to burn, oil continues to be extracted and traded. Normal is making sure people feel like they ought to take several vacations around the world every year. That they ought to have more than one car, live in a neighbourhood that requires it, that driving to work for an hour and a half each way five days a week is a totally normal thing to do. Normal is making sure nobody notices how weird it is that we bottle water in plastic and sell it. Normal is making sure nobody notices that big corporations set up these operations on stolen land and avoid persecution for endangering the lives of the people that live there and the environment they operate in. There's so much more about, "let's get back to normal," that is just gross. Why do we want to get back to that? Is it even each of us, individually, that want this or is it someone else? Who benefits the most from, "going back to normal?" If the pandemic has taught us something it should be that we can radically and quickly alter social structures when we need to. I try not to let all of the anti-mask/vaxx pressure from a vocal minority make me cynical. But I haven't forgotten the wild fires, floods, hurricanes, heat waves, record ice sheet loss, missing glaciers, and the thousands of species going extinct and into decline. Going back to normal is going back into the past. That sucked. I think we should be looking to the future. Make a new normal that sucks a bit less.

t0bia_s 5y ago

I called that type of narration "impressionlogy". Opinion based on emotions and impressions. Scared people are easier to by manipulated and open for new orders. Just a friendly reminder.

mc4ndr3 5y ago

One reason climate change has not been adequately addressed is that we are facing many simultaneous crises and people are treating each one as the "end of civilization". No. Things are very bad. But take incremental steps forward to address them. Another Y Combinatory article posted recently even remarked that studies indicate gloom and doom detracts from advocacy.

photochemsyn 5y ago

> "Doomsday being the moment when the ability to lower the atmospheric temperature has slipped from our control. The moment when we puny humans are finally and irrevocably at the mercy of hurricanes, fires, tornadoes, drought, food shortages, rising sea levels and all the socio-political carnage that will accompany same." We're already there, current CO2 is 420 ppm and steadily rising. Climate is on an irrevocable trajectory towards a much warmer norm, similar to conditions ~3-5 million years ago during the Pliocene era, before the onset of the ice-age cycle of the Pliestocene. Those who deny this at this point are simply ignorant of the facts. > "It is sometimes imagined that slow processes such as climate changes pose small risks, on the basis of the assumption that a choice can always be made to quickly reduce emissions and thereby reverse any harm within a few years or decades. We have shown that this assumption is incorrect for carbon dioxide emissions, because of the longevity of the atmospheric CO4 perturbation and ocean warming." Source: Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions, PNAS (2009) (sci-hub_se) CO2 was 320 ppm in 1960; we're not going back there, it's 420 ppm now, with a current growth rate of 10 ppm / decade. Stabilizing at ~440 ppm might be possible (neglecting slow but steady permafrost outgassing) if the world commits to a 3% reduction in fossil fuel use per year over the next 30 years, about the fastest change I imagine to be feasibly possible. This means zero fossil fuel use globally in 30 years, and of course current oil/gas corporation projections are to maintain current output for the next 30 years. Non oil-gas producers like Germany and China are the ones shifting the fastest to renewables; the likes of the USA, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela etc. are bent on continuing to produce and export. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/... Practically this means human civilization is going to have to spend as much effort on adapting to this new climate reality as on replacing fossil fuel infrastructure with renewable energy sources. Water supply infrastructure will be a major issue, food production will be a major issue, sea level rise will be a major issue, population migration and extreme weather damages will be major issues. The point has been tipped, the pooch has been screwed, and now we all have to deal with the aftermath.

adrianN 5y ago

Man I wish we could just stop talking about the climate crisis all the time and start actually doing something about it. The science has been crystal clear for decades, and we have enough studies about how to solve problem to fill libraries. The issues has been discussed sufficiently, it's time to just implement the solutions.

gwbas1c 5y ago

The problem is so deep, even I don't understand it. All I can say is that when we can get Republicans to stop denying climate change, and work with Democrats on the issue, they will figure out how to solve it very quickly. --- I went to a debate between a well-established Republican, Randy Hunt, (who was rumored to replace Senator Warren if she was picked for VP,) and a first-time running Democrat. The Democrat's response to climate change was to just put solar panels all over the place. He had no knowledge about how we need to store energy for when the sun goes down; no knowledge about how there's more sunlight in the summer, but we need more energy in the winter, ect, ect. Randy spoke about working with MIT for energy storage, and promoted a local project to build the USA's largest offshore windfarm. Even though I'm a D, I voted for Randy. When the D's supporters knocked on my door, I told them straight up that I live in a carbon neutral home, drive two electric cars, and that Randy (the R) understood how to battle climate change much more than their candidate. But even worse, a year later I met some of the D's friends. They had no clue about how renewable energy works, and couldn't comprehend why I'd vote against a D. I tried to point out why you just can't put solar panels everywhere, but their eyes glazed over.

civilized 5y ago
Makes sense at one level, but I wonder if partisan voting patterns overwhelm the potential positive contribution of any one Republican. I genuinely don't know here.
- gwbas1c 5y ago
  I wonder how Ted Cruz and other Texan politicians are going to behave with Tesla in their state? One thing I noticed in their Cyber Rodeo is that Elon said, "sustainable energy" and never mentioned "climate change."