6 ms·

Do people on HN feel optimistic or pessimistic about the future (both near and far). It seems we are just starting to see the disastrous effects of the current

Do people on HN feel optimistic or pessimistic about the future (both near and far). It seems we are just starting to see the disastrous effects of the current levels of CO2, with no obvious attempts in the world to curb emissions (note the recent US bill just decelerates the amount being released, bit doesn't do anything to reverse the current amount).

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Optimistic in the sense that we already have all the tech we need to fix this and in the process make the world better and richer. Optimistic in the sense that, after a long uphill struggle through the investment phase when clean energy and the tech to use it was actually more expensive, and then more expensive if you ignore pollution, we're now in the it's just plain cheaper phase which puts the greedy and selfish on the other side of the issue. Pessimistic because we wasted 3 decades letting the problem worsen for no reason, so our chances of solving any other big "problem" (in quotes because the only real problem was that we ignored it for so long) seem low generally. Optimistic that the sudden switch from renewables being expensive to cheap might catch the far-right off guard and totally destroy them as a political force, though apparently some are already moving to eco-fascism instead, and they seem good at denying history so they'll just claim it never happened.
helge9210 4y ago
My colleagues eat in twilight (eating area didn't have windows) to lower the energy consumption and limit CO2 release. Yandex is burning 12000 liters of diesel to power their data center for an hour.
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  I have not driven a car in 30 years, always walk, bike or use public transport. No longer fly. I cook and eat local food, as much vegetarian as possible. I don't own a smart phone or use any Big Tech services. Limit my work to what is ethical and sustainable as much as possible. Married later and chose to have one child and a smaller home. For the mostpart this lifestyle makes me 1) Poorer 2) Ostracised There is no reward structure that favours doing the right thing. For me, these positive lifestyle choices have to be their own reward. Unfortunately that makes me see my society, which rewards conspicuous greed and selfishness as beneath contempt, and that's not a nice feeling.
  - ku-man 4y ago
  - revscat 4y ago
    I live my life similarly to yours. Then I read stories about how celebrities are using private jets to make 15 minute runs to the next town over. Or how the Saudi family continues to, you know, exist. This is why I am pessimistic about humanity’s future. We need to make systemic changes, but those who benefit from the system will never voluntarily agree to give up that power, even if it means doom for themselves and the rest of us.
    - tragictrash 4y ago
      This is prime "I'm 13 and this is deep" content. Great job!
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - micromacrofoot 4y ago
    Yep. I obsessively pick up trash in my neighborhood, replaced my lawn with local flora, advocate for better cycling infrastructure, compost, sort my recycling (don't throw away batteries), donate monthly to a tree-planting charity, keep the thermostat low, don't eat meat... ...and many people I know think I'm ridiculous. Honestly I feel like I'm doing the minimum. All these things do is inconvenience me. I'm not expecting an award (outside of my kids not experiencing global famine) but no one gives a shit. I fully expect not enough to be done until people are starving to death. And at that point I still don't expect anything to happen... the wealthy will live with some minor inconviniences and the poor will die.
  - woweoe 4y ago
    In many cultures and especially if you live in a big city, the idea of being able to get around without a car is considered positive. Vegetarianism is massive in India (as are railways) and significant percentages in Europe too. The rest is the problem with how we generate our energy.
- sofixa 4y ago
  I highly doubt even 10 LED bulbs for an hour, on coal, make a dent in a human's CO2 "budget". It sounds like a stupid privation to feel like something is being done because you're making a sacrifice. That it's a useless sacrifice doesn't matter. There are so many more and better optimisation that can be made, on the individual, communal and societal level.
  - limaoscarjuliet 4y ago
    I just installed a 50KWp FV setup in family owned hotel. It produces a 300kWh daily (summer in Europe). Still seems like nothing compared to what is consumed.
xbmcuser 4y ago
Personally I am extremely pessimistic as humans and countries are selfish no one will be willing to do the sacrifices needed. A small portion of worlds population produces majority of the carbon emissions. So even if they start decreasing carbon emissions the population growth and economic growth of the rest will result in carbon emissions growing rather than slowing or stopping. Where as the world need to decrease emissions.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  Selfishness in a world where renewables cost less than fossil fuels helps rsther than hinders. The people wanting to catch up to Western standards of living are strongly motivated to do it with renewables for multiple selfish reasons.
VoodooJuJu 4y ago
Far future (100's-1000's of years), optimistic. Floods, a.k.a. fat-tail disasters like civilization collapse, have happened numerous times in the past, they'll happen numerous more times going forward, we'll continue to be around. We won't go to the stone age, but we'll lose a lot of modern comforts. Near future, pessimistic. A bad flu completely disrupted our global little village - imagine what actual unprecedented natural disasters and abrupt resource shortages will do. When hundreds of millions of people have the rug pulled out from under them with no local sustainable fallbacks, it's going to get very ugly.
jethkl 4y ago
Mixed. The CO2 emission trend in US is trending down, the trend started ~2007 [1]. That's heartening. But I expect the next few decades to be rough. [1] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/carbon-co2-emissions https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/carb...
- sharemywin 4y ago
  but most of it is that natural gas is a lot cheaper than coal and doesn't emit as much co2. the decision was more of a by product of chasing the cheapest energy source.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    Which is good news, because in most of the world, renewables are the cheapest source and getting cheaper. And if cheapness can get Americans off coal, it should work for everyone else.
_0w8t 4y ago
For countries like Russia and to lesser extend Canada the models show that they will benefit from the global warming. Basically they will get more agricultural land and ice-free Arctic will open more transportation routes. Plus they will need to use less energy for heating in winter. On the other hand as the article shows the models can be wrong and even very wrong. For example, it can be that the ricing temperature in fact triggers the new ice age and that can arrive in matter of decades. Of cause, this is very speculative, but since we cannot reliably predict consequences of raising CO2 levels, that can not be excluded.
- sofixa 4y ago
  For Russia it's not that simple. The melting permafrost in Siberia will destroy a lot of infrastructure built into it, and the wildfires there from the last couple of summers have been devastating.
  - _0w8t 4y ago
    The problem with permafrost is not that it melts, but rather that it melts during summer and freezes during winter. To build on it one has to drive piles into the ground and build on top of those. Then there are two cases. First is when the piles can reach bedrock. Then the fact that the layer of melted permafrost will be deeper in summer does not matter. As I understand this is strongly preferred in Russia even if means to move the building site. The second is when there is no suitable bedrock or it is too deep to reach it with piles without making things too expensive. Then the piles are driven just into the permanent permafrost. But this is problematic even without the warming of climate. The piles conduct heat and melt permanent permafrost around them sinking the building unevenly. Previously this was just accepted. So piles were driven as deep as practically possible and let the building gradually sink under assumption that in 20-30 years the things will have to be rebuild or abandoned. But nowadays the piles are refrigerated. This way they can be more shallow and more permanent. So rising temperature is not necessary threatens the infrastructure. It will gradually make buildings on piles that do not reach the bedrock more expensive to operate as the cooling of piles will need more energy.
blueflow 4y ago
I'm optimistic. I'm sure a global warming of 5 to 10 degrees is unavoidable by now. Much of the comfort people currently have might disappear... but given the fact that people live and survive in Australia, I'm confident some degrees are survivable. It won't be a fun ride, tho.
- phtrivier 4y ago
  No, 5 to 10 is not unavoidable, sorry. The current most likely scenario assuming status quo is between 2 and 4, if i recall my IPCC properly. And it's really _not_ the same as 10 !
  - titzer 4y ago
    Politically unavoidable, IMHO. That cheap fossil fuel energy is just too hard to pass up. It's like trying to convince several billion starving people to not eat the marshmallows right in front of them.
  - blueflow 4y ago
    We haven't stopped digging out carbon and inserting it into the carbon cycle. So there is no end to the warming in sight.
- rand49an 4y ago
  Anything between 5 and 10 degrees average rise will kill all life on earth.
  - blueflow 4y ago
    85% of the prehistoric time earth was like that, its called greenhouse earth or acyrogenic climate. Dinosaurs lived when it was around 10 degrees hotter, and they did not die from that. Right now we are living in a icehouse earth where polar caps are a thing, which is not the case in a greenhouse climate.
    - infinite8s 4y ago
weberer 4y ago
I was optimistic 20 years ago. Pessimistic now. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/World_fossil_carbon_dioxide_emissions_six_top_countries_and_confederations.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/World_fo...
username223 4y ago
Less pessimistic than 5-10 years ago, but that’s not saying much. Carbon-free energy sources like solar and wind will soon be cheaper than fossil fuels if they aren’t already, so greed will push us rapidly in the right direction. Unfortunately the climate is a big ship, and we have been steering it toward warming for a long time. Things will get much worse before they stabilize, particularly for the poor and for most species other than humans. Drought, famine, migration, war, and xenophobia might even get bad enough to temporarily make our population decline.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

Optimistic in the sense that we already have all the tech we need to fix this and in the process make the world better and richer. Optimistic in the sense that, after a long uphill struggle through the investment phase when clean energy and the tech to use it was actually more expensive, and then more expensive if you ignore pollution, we're now in the it's just plain cheaper phase which puts the greedy and selfish on the other side of the issue. Pessimistic because we wasted 3 decades letting the problem worsen for no reason, so our chances of solving any other big "problem" (in quotes because the only real problem was that we ignored it for so long) seem low generally. Optimistic that the sudden switch from renewables being expensive to cheap might catch the far-right off guard and totally destroy them as a political force, though apparently some are already moving to eco-fascism instead, and they seem good at denying history so they'll just claim it never happened.

helge9210 4y ago

My colleagues eat in twilight (eating area didn't have windows) to lower the energy consumption and limit CO2 release. Yandex is burning 12000 liters of diesel to power their data center for an hour.

nonrandomstring 4y ago
I have not driven a car in 30 years, always walk, bike or use public transport. No longer fly. I cook and eat local food, as much vegetarian as possible. I don't own a smart phone or use any Big Tech services. Limit my work to what is ethical and sustainable as much as possible. Married later and chose to have one child and a smaller home. For the mostpart this lifestyle makes me 1) Poorer 2) Ostracised There is no reward structure that favours doing the right thing. For me, these positive lifestyle choices have to be their own reward. Unfortunately that makes me see my society, which rewards conspicuous greed and selfishness as beneath contempt, and that's not a nice feeling.
- ku-man 4y ago
- revscat 4y ago
  I live my life similarly to yours. Then I read stories about how celebrities are using private jets to make 15 minute runs to the next town over. Or how the Saudi family continues to, you know, exist. This is why I am pessimistic about humanity’s future. We need to make systemic changes, but those who benefit from the system will never voluntarily agree to give up that power, even if it means doom for themselves and the rest of us.
  - tragictrash 4y ago
    This is prime "I'm 13 and this is deep" content. Great job!
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- micromacrofoot 4y ago
  Yep. I obsessively pick up trash in my neighborhood, replaced my lawn with local flora, advocate for better cycling infrastructure, compost, sort my recycling (don't throw away batteries), donate monthly to a tree-planting charity, keep the thermostat low, don't eat meat... ...and many people I know think I'm ridiculous. Honestly I feel like I'm doing the minimum. All these things do is inconvenience me. I'm not expecting an award (outside of my kids not experiencing global famine) but no one gives a shit. I fully expect not enough to be done until people are starving to death. And at that point I still don't expect anything to happen... the wealthy will live with some minor inconviniences and the poor will die.
- woweoe 4y ago
  In many cultures and especially if you live in a big city, the idea of being able to get around without a car is considered positive. Vegetarianism is massive in India (as are railways) and significant percentages in Europe too. The rest is the problem with how we generate our energy.
sofixa 4y ago
I highly doubt even 10 LED bulbs for an hour, on coal, make a dent in a human's CO2 "budget". It sounds like a stupid privation to feel like something is being done because you're making a sacrifice. That it's a useless sacrifice doesn't matter. There are so many more and better optimisation that can be made, on the individual, communal and societal level.
- limaoscarjuliet 4y ago
  I just installed a 50KWp FV setup in family owned hotel. It produces a 300kWh daily (summer in Europe). Still seems like nothing compared to what is consumed.

xbmcuser 4y ago

Personally I am extremely pessimistic as humans and countries are selfish no one will be willing to do the sacrifices needed. A small portion of worlds population produces majority of the carbon emissions. So even if they start decreasing carbon emissions the population growth and economic growth of the rest will result in carbon emissions growing rather than slowing or stopping. Where as the world need to decrease emissions.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Selfishness in a world where renewables cost less than fossil fuels helps rsther than hinders. The people wanting to catch up to Western standards of living are strongly motivated to do it with renewables for multiple selfish reasons.

VoodooJuJu 4y ago

Far future (100's-1000's of years), optimistic. Floods, a.k.a. fat-tail disasters like civilization collapse, have happened numerous times in the past, they'll happen numerous more times going forward, we'll continue to be around. We won't go to the stone age, but we'll lose a lot of modern comforts. Near future, pessimistic. A bad flu completely disrupted our global little village - imagine what actual unprecedented natural disasters and abrupt resource shortages will do. When hundreds of millions of people have the rug pulled out from under them with no local sustainable fallbacks, it's going to get very ugly.

jethkl 4y ago

Mixed. The CO2 emission trend in US is trending down, the trend started ~2007 [1]. That's heartening. But I expect the next few decades to be rough. [1] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/carbon-co2-emissions https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/carb...

sharemywin 4y ago
but most of it is that natural gas is a lot cheaper than coal and doesn't emit as much co2. the decision was more of a by product of chasing the cheapest energy source.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  Which is good news, because in most of the world, renewables are the cheapest source and getting cheaper. And if cheapness can get Americans off coal, it should work for everyone else.

_0w8t 4y ago

For countries like Russia and to lesser extend Canada the models show that they will benefit from the global warming. Basically they will get more agricultural land and ice-free Arctic will open more transportation routes. Plus they will need to use less energy for heating in winter. On the other hand as the article shows the models can be wrong and even very wrong. For example, it can be that the ricing temperature in fact triggers the new ice age and that can arrive in matter of decades. Of cause, this is very speculative, but since we cannot reliably predict consequences of raising CO2 levels, that can not be excluded.

sofixa 4y ago
For Russia it's not that simple. The melting permafrost in Siberia will destroy a lot of infrastructure built into it, and the wildfires there from the last couple of summers have been devastating.
- _0w8t 4y ago
  The problem with permafrost is not that it melts, but rather that it melts during summer and freezes during winter. To build on it one has to drive piles into the ground and build on top of those. Then there are two cases. First is when the piles can reach bedrock. Then the fact that the layer of melted permafrost will be deeper in summer does not matter. As I understand this is strongly preferred in Russia even if means to move the building site. The second is when there is no suitable bedrock or it is too deep to reach it with piles without making things too expensive. Then the piles are driven just into the permanent permafrost. But this is problematic even without the warming of climate. The piles conduct heat and melt permanent permafrost around them sinking the building unevenly. Previously this was just accepted. So piles were driven as deep as practically possible and let the building gradually sink under assumption that in 20-30 years the things will have to be rebuild or abandoned. But nowadays the piles are refrigerated. This way they can be more shallow and more permanent. So rising temperature is not necessary threatens the infrastructure. It will gradually make buildings on piles that do not reach the bedrock more expensive to operate as the cooling of piles will need more energy.

blueflow 4y ago

I'm optimistic. I'm sure a global warming of 5 to 10 degrees is unavoidable by now. Much of the comfort people currently have might disappear... but given the fact that people live and survive in Australia, I'm confident some degrees are survivable. It won't be a fun ride, tho.

phtrivier 4y ago
No, 5 to 10 is not unavoidable, sorry. The current most likely scenario assuming status quo is between 2 and 4, if i recall my IPCC properly. And it's really _not_ the same as 10 !
- titzer 4y ago
  Politically unavoidable, IMHO. That cheap fossil fuel energy is just too hard to pass up. It's like trying to convince several billion starving people to not eat the marshmallows right in front of them.
- blueflow 4y ago
  We haven't stopped digging out carbon and inserting it into the carbon cycle. So there is no end to the warming in sight.
rand49an 4y ago
Anything between 5 and 10 degrees average rise will kill all life on earth.
- blueflow 4y ago
  85% of the prehistoric time earth was like that, its called greenhouse earth or acyrogenic climate. Dinosaurs lived when it was around 10 degrees hotter, and they did not die from that. Right now we are living in a icehouse earth where polar caps are a thing, which is not the case in a greenhouse climate.
  - infinite8s 4y ago

weberer 4y ago

I was optimistic 20 years ago. Pessimistic now. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/World_fossil_carbon_dioxide_emissions_six_top_countries_and_confederations.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/World_fo...

username223 4y ago

Less pessimistic than 5-10 years ago, but that’s not saying much. Carbon-free energy sources like solar and wind will soon be cheaper than fossil fuels if they aren’t already, so greed will push us rapidly in the right direction. Unfortunately the climate is a big ship, and we have been steering it toward warming for a long time. Things will get much worse before they stabilize, particularly for the poor and for most species other than humans. Drought, famine, migration, war, and xenophobia might even get bad enough to temporarily make our population decline.