4 ms·

> The hacker news perspective; the people dying of heat exhaustion in India just need to invest in better A/C. This is your interpretation of my perspective. I

> The hacker news perspective; the people dying of heat exhaustion in India just need to invest in better A/C. This is your interpretation of my perspective. I can do that also; the people dying of heat exhaustion in India should just decouple from the global trade network and go live in caves like in the olden days. > I guess we’ll end up A/C’ing the fields of dying crops too? Maybe? Or engineer heat resistant crops. Or figure out a different way to feed billions of people. If you think the only solution to climate change is net zero emissions on a global level, I'm not jealous of your imagination.

mpweiher 3y ago
Or seed the atmosphere with sulfur dioxide, causing global cooling like that after a volcanic eruption. We've had enough of those with records to know pretty precisely what the effects are and how long they last. This will happen, as it is well within the reach of even smaller state actors (and even sub-state) and once you get a wet-bulb event killing thousands in, say India, that country will not have a choice. And then we'll have to get crackin' building those nuclear power plants (as well as building out solar and wind and geothermal and tidal and storage). Because as another poster pointed out quite correctly: global warming is bad (but manageable), but pre-industrial society is far, far worse.
- myshpa 3y ago
  > pre-industrial society Nobody's talking about that. Your position will get us there.
  - mpweiher 3y ago
    Building out nuclear and (all) other non-fossil energy options in order to keep or possibly even increase available energy for industry and private use will get us to a pre-industrial society exactly how?
    - myshpa 3y ago
      Quickly: > Or seed the atmosphere with sulfur dioxide That's not solving the situation, that's temporarily mitigating some effects with poisons for a short term and at the same time emitting a ton of emissions from a lot of flights. > global warming is bad (but manageable) Warming, or better climate change, is only one of the symptoms of the overshoot. We've managed almost zero, nil, zilch in past 50 years (coal is still at 82%). > but pre-industrial society is far, far worse Calling mitigation strategies return to pre-industrial society ... i don't have words for that. But if we don't start solving it, and fast (yesterday was late), the nature will solve the problem for us. One way is better than the other. If you're interested where else you're wrong, you should really spend some 30 mins here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPb_0JZ6-Rc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPb_0JZ6-Rc
      - mpweiher 3y ago
        >> SO2 seeding > That's not solving the situation, that's temporarily mitigating some effects Yep, I clearly identified this is a temporary mitigating measure to buy us time for the real solution, which is the following: >> And then we'll have to get crackin' building those nuclear power plants (as well as building out solar and wind and geothermal and tidal and storage). But it is a mitigating measure that will work and will allow us to get to the actual solution, which is rapidly building out nuclear power (and others). And of course, if you know that this scenario is possible, then you probably also start to understand why governments aren't as panicky about the whole situation as you seem to be. And yes, the mitigation is for the most immediate short-term effect, the rise in temperature. We will still have to get the Carbon out of the atmosphere, for example to avoid Ocean acidification. But we have more time for that. And it will likely need quite a bit of energy (see the nukes). And no, not going to listen to 30 minutes of someone ranting about the collapse of civilisation. We had the club of Rome with the same message in the 70s, and they were comically wrong. If there is something of actual substance, please make the point yourself here. So far you haven't. In particular, I am still waiting for even a hint of shadow of an argument how building out nuclear power and other non-fossil energy sources, while at the same time mitigating the worst effects of global warming, will get us to a pre-industrial society.
simmerup 3y ago
I'm not jealous of your risk tolerance, that you're willing to bet our world on the on the chance of some magic technical solution appearing. Imagination is after all, all in your head.
- iinnPP 3y ago
  Has the magic social solution done anything? When do we stop pretending that the whole world will fall in lock step? Did the world all agree that child exploitation is wrong yet?(ask the millions of people still participating) All things intelligent exist in one's brain and imagination is how each piece of everyone's understanding of the world began. The social solution requires a removal of freedom. The removal of freedom will involve a war. I would say the risk tolerance isn't black and white.
  - simmerup 3y ago
    Did the covid lockdown require a war? Did everyone say ‘fuck off Id rather have my freedom than help fight the pandemic’? No? Then clearly there’s a path to getting people onboard with fighting climate change, it just requires the right messaging and education
    - iinnPP 3y ago
      I live in Canada, where we invoked the Emergencies Act to handle the loosely coordinated group of people who disagreed with the measures the government was using. In other words, a group of truckers is enough threat to social order(in Canada) to call in a law that replaced the War Measures Act before it. This was over a little needle in the arm. The events are not reasonably comparable in the slightest. It is an incredibly difficult thing to become carbon neutral in today's society. What are you doing right now to fight climate change? I live my words and would consider myself carbon 'negative'. My actions reach outside of myself to positively influence the carbon impact of others. Also, everyone does precisely nothing. There is no single thing in the universe which enjoys unanimous agreement. The idea that the right messaging and communication is going to fix climate change is childish. It ignores reality. It is fantasy. I don't intend this in an aggressive or mean manner, it is my assessment of your proposal.

mpweiher 3y ago

Or seed the atmosphere with sulfur dioxide, causing global cooling like that after a volcanic eruption. We've had enough of those with records to know pretty precisely what the effects are and how long they last. This will happen, as it is well within the reach of even smaller state actors (and even sub-state) and once you get a wet-bulb event killing thousands in, say India, that country will not have a choice. And then we'll have to get crackin' building those nuclear power plants (as well as building out solar and wind and geothermal and tidal and storage). Because as another poster pointed out quite correctly: global warming is bad (but manageable), but pre-industrial society is far, far worse.

myshpa 3y ago
> pre-industrial society Nobody's talking about that. Your position will get us there.
- mpweiher 3y ago
  Building out nuclear and (all) other non-fossil energy options in order to keep or possibly even increase available energy for industry and private use will get us to a pre-industrial society exactly how?
  - myshpa 3y ago
    Quickly: > Or seed the atmosphere with sulfur dioxide That's not solving the situation, that's temporarily mitigating some effects with poisons for a short term and at the same time emitting a ton of emissions from a lot of flights. > global warming is bad (but manageable) Warming, or better climate change, is only one of the symptoms of the overshoot. We've managed almost zero, nil, zilch in past 50 years (coal is still at 82%). > but pre-industrial society is far, far worse Calling mitigation strategies return to pre-industrial society ... i don't have words for that. But if we don't start solving it, and fast (yesterday was late), the nature will solve the problem for us. One way is better than the other. If you're interested where else you're wrong, you should really spend some 30 mins here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPb_0JZ6-Rc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPb_0JZ6-Rc
    - mpweiher 3y ago
      >> SO2 seeding > That's not solving the situation, that's temporarily mitigating some effects Yep, I clearly identified this is a temporary mitigating measure to buy us time for the real solution, which is the following: >> And then we'll have to get crackin' building those nuclear power plants (as well as building out solar and wind and geothermal and tidal and storage). But it is a mitigating measure that will work and will allow us to get to the actual solution, which is rapidly building out nuclear power (and others). And of course, if you know that this scenario is possible, then you probably also start to understand why governments aren't as panicky about the whole situation as you seem to be. And yes, the mitigation is for the most immediate short-term effect, the rise in temperature. We will still have to get the Carbon out of the atmosphere, for example to avoid Ocean acidification. But we have more time for that. And it will likely need quite a bit of energy (see the nukes). And no, not going to listen to 30 minutes of someone ranting about the collapse of civilisation. We had the club of Rome with the same message in the 70s, and they were comically wrong. If there is something of actual substance, please make the point yourself here. So far you haven't. In particular, I am still waiting for even a hint of shadow of an argument how building out nuclear power and other non-fossil energy sources, while at the same time mitigating the worst effects of global warming, will get us to a pre-industrial society.

simmerup 3y ago

I'm not jealous of your risk tolerance, that you're willing to bet our world on the on the chance of some magic technical solution appearing. Imagination is after all, all in your head.

iinnPP 3y ago
Has the magic social solution done anything? When do we stop pretending that the whole world will fall in lock step? Did the world all agree that child exploitation is wrong yet?(ask the millions of people still participating) All things intelligent exist in one's brain and imagination is how each piece of everyone's understanding of the world began. The social solution requires a removal of freedom. The removal of freedom will involve a war. I would say the risk tolerance isn't black and white.
- simmerup 3y ago
  Did the covid lockdown require a war? Did everyone say ‘fuck off Id rather have my freedom than help fight the pandemic’? No? Then clearly there’s a path to getting people onboard with fighting climate change, it just requires the right messaging and education
  - iinnPP 3y ago
    I live in Canada, where we invoked the Emergencies Act to handle the loosely coordinated group of people who disagreed with the measures the government was using. In other words, a group of truckers is enough threat to social order(in Canada) to call in a law that replaced the War Measures Act before it. This was over a little needle in the arm. The events are not reasonably comparable in the slightest. It is an incredibly difficult thing to become carbon neutral in today's society. What are you doing right now to fight climate change? I live my words and would consider myself carbon 'negative'. My actions reach outside of myself to positively influence the carbon impact of others. Also, everyone does precisely nothing. There is no single thing in the universe which enjoys unanimous agreement. The idea that the right messaging and communication is going to fix climate change is childish. It ignores reality. It is fantasy. I don't intend this in an aggressive or mean manner, it is my assessment of your proposal.