3 ms·

mediopolitical narrative is driving hard on this topic right now since covid left a void that ukraine can't fill (though they're trying, with the nuclear plant[

mediopolitical narrative is driving hard on this topic right now since covid left a void that ukraine can't fill (though they're trying, with the nuclear plant[0]). i'd support a framing around pollution, but not climate change. CO₂ (a gas that life co-evolved with and depends on) simply isn't our most important environmental issue. let's focus instead on pollution: CO, NOₓ, SO₂, VOCs (PAHs & petroleum hydrocarbons, phthalates, alcohols, aldehydes, terpenes, ketones, formaldehyde, etc.), lead, mercury, ozone, radon & other radioactive elements, fertilizers/pesticides, plastics, and especially particulates, which are things that kill millions of people right now, every year (not to mention all the harm to everyone else as well). the focus on climate change is fashion, but with a little tweak we can actually address impactful environmental problems instead. [0]: nuclear, by the way, has the potential to help significantly, principally by removing coal, our biggest categorical polluter, from the energy mix. incidentally, that would also measurably reduce CO₂ emissions.

lordswork 4y ago
>the focus on climate change is fashion, but with a little tweak we can actually address impactful environmental problems instead. Strongly disagree. Climate change is a much bigger threat in the short and long term than pollution itself. See my sibling comment for more on that. That said, it feels like a silly thing to argue about. We should be making efforts to reduce both general pollution and CO2 emissions. Fortunately, a lot of solutions in one area will benefit the other.
- clairity 4y ago
  no, see, that's exactly the problem. CO₂ is a mediopolitical wedge issue designed to trap us in partisan gridlock, not bring meaningful change to the global population. that's why it's so fickle and formless, perfect for sowing discord, because it can be shaped in any number of desired directions. and it's clearly not threat to anyone living today and probably not for many generations to come, no matter what the 'trust the science' rhetoric claims. pollution, however, has been and will continue to kill millions of people every year. it has the potential to unite all sorts of factions (something vested interests fear) and actually make meaningful progress. CO₂ and climate change is a sideshow, but it's been brought front and center because it serves a powerful purpose for those vested interests. anyone jumping on the climate change train is only furthering those interests, rather than solving real problems. instead, we should focus on the actual problems like pollution, and discard the chosen mediopolitical narrative.
  - lordswork 4y ago
    >and it's clearly not threat to anyone living today and probably not for many generations to come I am not sure how to respond to this in productive way. You clearly deny the impact of climate change, and it is unlikely I will convince you otherwise, so I don't know if it's worth anyone's time. If you're open minded and want to have a conversation, maybe start by responding to the well understood impacts of climate change today, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Impacts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Impacts
    - clairity 4y ago
      the productive conversation is to compare that to millions of deaths per year from pollution.
      - lordswork 4y ago
        Deaths linked to pollution and climate change are both on the order of millions per year. Are there particular solutions you advocate for investing in that don't tackle both issues?
        clairity 4y ago
        you've been lied to. climate change has not killed millions of people[0]. pollution has. the core problem with the climate change mediopolitical narrative is the focus on CO₂, which as i've noted before, is among the least important and most nebulous environmental issues, and therefore among the most attractive for political distraction and do-nothing gridlock. you see the effectiveness of this narrative all over hn, via the casuistry with which climate change is discussed. in contrast with pollutants, which have squarely been introduced relatively recently by human industry, CO₂ is a gas on which life depends and has been abundant in our atmosphere for hundreds of millions of years. rising CO₂ levels is a long term issue, to deal with over centuries and millenia, not a short term one. pollution has been killing people for centuries now. edit: to answer your question, there are many policy decisions that differentiate the two. what to tax, what to incentivize, what to regulate, what to evangelize, etc. we should be characterizing the externalities caused by each pollutant and then applying a tax or market-based solution (or whatever else) to address them. [0]: to be precise, "more people", since our ecology inadvertently kills people all the time, throughout history.

lordswork 4y ago

>the focus on climate change is fashion, but with a little tweak we can actually address impactful environmental problems instead. Strongly disagree. Climate change is a much bigger threat in the short and long term than pollution itself. See my sibling comment for more on that. That said, it feels like a silly thing to argue about. We should be making efforts to reduce both general pollution and CO2 emissions. Fortunately, a lot of solutions in one area will benefit the other.

clairity 4y ago
no, see, that's exactly the problem. CO₂ is a mediopolitical wedge issue designed to trap us in partisan gridlock, not bring meaningful change to the global population. that's why it's so fickle and formless, perfect for sowing discord, because it can be shaped in any number of desired directions. and it's clearly not threat to anyone living today and probably not for many generations to come, no matter what the 'trust the science' rhetoric claims. pollution, however, has been and will continue to kill millions of people every year. it has the potential to unite all sorts of factions (something vested interests fear) and actually make meaningful progress. CO₂ and climate change is a sideshow, but it's been brought front and center because it serves a powerful purpose for those vested interests. anyone jumping on the climate change train is only furthering those interests, rather than solving real problems. instead, we should focus on the actual problems like pollution, and discard the chosen mediopolitical narrative.
- lordswork 4y ago
  >and it's clearly not threat to anyone living today and probably not for many generations to come I am not sure how to respond to this in productive way. You clearly deny the impact of climate change, and it is unlikely I will convince you otherwise, so I don't know if it's worth anyone's time. If you're open minded and want to have a conversation, maybe start by responding to the well understood impacts of climate change today, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Impacts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Impacts
  - clairity 4y ago
    the productive conversation is to compare that to millions of deaths per year from pollution.
    - lordswork 4y ago
      Deaths linked to pollution and climate change are both on the order of millions per year. Are there particular solutions you advocate for investing in that don't tackle both issues?
      - clairity 4y ago
        you've been lied to. climate change has not killed millions of people[0]. pollution has. the core problem with the climate change mediopolitical narrative is the focus on CO₂, which as i've noted before, is among the least important and most nebulous environmental issues, and therefore among the most attractive for political distraction and do-nothing gridlock. you see the effectiveness of this narrative all over hn, via the casuistry with which climate change is discussed. in contrast with pollutants, which have squarely been introduced relatively recently by human industry, CO₂ is a gas on which life depends and has been abundant in our atmosphere for hundreds of millions of years. rising CO₂ levels is a long term issue, to deal with over centuries and millenia, not a short term one. pollution has been killing people for centuries now. edit: to answer your question, there are many policy decisions that differentiate the two. what to tax, what to incentivize, what to regulate, what to evangelize, etc. we should be characterizing the externalities caused by each pollutant and then applying a tax or market-based solution (or whatever else) to address them. [0]: to be precise, "more people", since our ecology inadvertently kills people all the time, throughout history.