4 ms·

If nations don't have national sovereignty over their slice of the atmosphere, then are we saying all air pollution is an international crime? [For clarity I d

If nations don't have national sovereignty over their slice of the atmosphere, then are we saying all air pollution is an international crime? [For clarity I don't particularly disagree with this stance, but my mostly-overlooked point is that:] If people really think this, why is it that (on HN in particular) we overwhelmingly hear this point made in the context of geoengineering, and not for regular old pollution? Isn't that a double standard? The general debate has become extremely irrational, to the point that your intent is all that matters. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34529944 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34529944

yellowapple 4y ago
> The general debate has become extremely irrational, to the point that your intent is all that matters. Worse: if your intent is to externalize costs onto everyone else, that's fine and dandy, but if your intent is to fix those externalities then you're the asshole, because reasons. It does seem to be a common thread - not just on HN, but HN does attract entrepreneurs and aspirants thereof, who in turn tend to skew religiously capitalist, so it's unsurprising that it's a bit more pronounced here. The sort of attitude on display transcends climate denialism and jumps straight to what seems to be climate hostility: "I have a God-given right to harm everyone around me to make a quick buck and fuck you for daring to do anything about it". The reaction to geoengineering is consistent with reaction to ecoactivism: hostile, and demonstrating an absense of self-awareness. Yes, geoengineers and ecoactivists alike can be misguided sometimes; no, that does not mean they're in any way the "bad guys" for daring to at least try to do something about the Cult of Capital destroying the Earth in the name of the Holy Profit.
mrpopo 4y ago
It's also brought up for "regular old pollution". Neighbouring countries of Germany are pushing for Germany to stop polluting the atmosphere with coal. South Korean associations are making efforts in China to stop them from building incinerators on their east coast, outside of Beijing. You probably are just not living in an area of concern.
- iso1631 4y ago
  And of course entire countries are being wiped out due to global (20% US, 11% China, 7% Russia) CO2 emissions
  - concordDance 4y ago
    Entire countries? IPCC projections don't indicate any island nations going underwater in the next two centuries.
    - yellowapple 4y ago
      If Bloomberg is to be believed (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-07/climate-change-linked-to-5-million-deaths-a-year-new-study-shows?leadSource=uverify%20wall https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-07/climate-c...), climate change is killing an Ireland's worth of people every year.
      - concordDance 4y ago
        What's that have to do with sea level rise?
        yellowapple 4y ago
        The only one who mentioned sea level rise was you.
        concordDance 4y ago
        I assumed "wiped out" meant that the country would actually be depopulated. The levels of warming anticipated cannot do that.
    - iso1631 4y ago
      Sure, only 80% of say the maldives by the time my kids are my age. I wonder what Americans would do if other countries worked together to put every single state apart from Alaska and half of Texas underwater in the next generation. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/80-of-maldives-could-be-uninhabitable-by-2050/2412696 https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/80-of-maldives-could-b...
jl6 4y ago
Yes, the atmosphere is fundamentally a commons. Some pollution impacts mostly at the location of emission and can be regulated by local/national law, but a great deal of pollution (notably CO2) has a global impact. Same goes for oceans. There are many international treaties and conventions that recognize this, but they clearly don't go far enough, and we run into the "fear of a world government" issue here.
- yellowapple 4y ago
  I'd be entirely unsurprised if countries eventually start considering disproportionate pollution to be an act of war.
hutzlibu 4y ago
"then are we saying all air pollution is an international crime?" We are maybe not saying that in one voice, but many people, including myself are saying exactly that since quite a while. Same with polluting the groundwater, or the ocean. One has to differentiate, of course and it is scale that matters. One coal fire is neglectible, but powering the economy with (maybe even unfiltered) coal plants is not. Yet most nations still do it, so it will take a while, before this will be seriously considered a punishable crime.
- schiffern 4y ago
  > One coal fire is neglectible, but... ... a balloon releasing under a pound of SO2 is an international outrage? My concern is exactly that we don't have a proper sense of scale on this issue.
  - hutzlibu 4y ago
    But the idea is, that this will be scaled up. But yes, most people are not good at math or basic science, to understand the proportions.
__alexs 4y ago
Do you not consider anthropogenic climate change an air pollution issue?
mc32 4y ago
I don't think they do. They have sovereignty over their airspace but not atmosphere and certainly not the cone into infinity.

yellowapple 4y ago

> The general debate has become extremely irrational, to the point that your intent is all that matters. Worse: if your intent is to externalize costs onto everyone else, that's fine and dandy, but if your intent is to fix those externalities then you're the asshole, because reasons. It does seem to be a common thread - not just on HN, but HN does attract entrepreneurs and aspirants thereof, who in turn tend to skew religiously capitalist, so it's unsurprising that it's a bit more pronounced here. The sort of attitude on display transcends climate denialism and jumps straight to what seems to be climate hostility: "I have a God-given right to harm everyone around me to make a quick buck and fuck you for daring to do anything about it". The reaction to geoengineering is consistent with reaction to ecoactivism: hostile, and demonstrating an absense of self-awareness. Yes, geoengineers and ecoactivists alike can be misguided sometimes; no, that does not mean they're in any way the "bad guys" for daring to at least try to do something about the Cult of Capital destroying the Earth in the name of the Holy Profit.

mrpopo 4y ago

It's also brought up for "regular old pollution". Neighbouring countries of Germany are pushing for Germany to stop polluting the atmosphere with coal. South Korean associations are making efforts in China to stop them from building incinerators on their east coast, outside of Beijing. You probably are just not living in an area of concern.

iso1631 4y ago
And of course entire countries are being wiped out due to global (20% US, 11% China, 7% Russia) CO2 emissions
- concordDance 4y ago
  Entire countries? IPCC projections don't indicate any island nations going underwater in the next two centuries.
  - yellowapple 4y ago
    If Bloomberg is to be believed (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-07/climate-change-linked-to-5-million-deaths-a-year-new-study-shows?leadSource=uverify%20wall https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-07/climate-c...), climate change is killing an Ireland's worth of people every year.
    - concordDance 4y ago
      What's that have to do with sea level rise?
      - yellowapple 4y ago
        The only one who mentioned sea level rise was you.
        concordDance 4y ago
        I assumed "wiped out" meant that the country would actually be depopulated. The levels of warming anticipated cannot do that.
  - iso1631 4y ago
    Sure, only 80% of say the maldives by the time my kids are my age. I wonder what Americans would do if other countries worked together to put every single state apart from Alaska and half of Texas underwater in the next generation. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/80-of-maldives-could-be-uninhabitable-by-2050/2412696 https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/80-of-maldives-could-b...

jl6 4y ago

Yes, the atmosphere is fundamentally a commons. Some pollution impacts mostly at the location of emission and can be regulated by local/national law, but a great deal of pollution (notably CO2) has a global impact. Same goes for oceans. There are many international treaties and conventions that recognize this, but they clearly don't go far enough, and we run into the "fear of a world government" issue here.

yellowapple 4y ago
I'd be entirely unsurprised if countries eventually start considering disproportionate pollution to be an act of war.

hutzlibu 4y ago

"then are we saying all air pollution is an international crime?" We are maybe not saying that in one voice, but many people, including myself are saying exactly that since quite a while. Same with polluting the groundwater, or the ocean. One has to differentiate, of course and it is scale that matters. One coal fire is neglectible, but powering the economy with (maybe even unfiltered) coal plants is not. Yet most nations still do it, so it will take a while, before this will be seriously considered a punishable crime.

schiffern 4y ago
> One coal fire is neglectible, but... ... a balloon releasing under a pound of SO2 is an international outrage? My concern is exactly that we don't have a proper sense of scale on this issue.
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  But the idea is, that this will be scaled up. But yes, most people are not good at math or basic science, to understand the proportions.

__alexs 4y ago

Do you not consider anthropogenic climate change an air pollution issue?

mc32 4y ago

I don't think they do. They have sovereignty over their airspace but not atmosphere and certainly not the cone into infinity.