38 ms·
I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]
- djaouen 3y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCo3XwTRg9o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCo3XwTRg9o
- nindalf 3y agoWas wondering why that link was grey for me. Yeah, these guys never miss.
- sambazi 3y agodafuq did i just watch?
- TibbityFlanders 3y ago[dead]
- phtrivier 3y agoIt's called "comedy". It has a track record of getting things right that dates back to Aristophanes. Sadly their publications are frowned upon in academic circles because they use less charts than farts.
- sambazi 3y agohas some seinfeld vibes to it but the insecurity is so real and totally kills it for me
- renewiltord 3y agoThere’s nothing much to do. An environmentalist told me that it’s a few big companies that are causing it all but that I was greenwashing it by buying Terrapass so now I’ve stopped. I grew up in the city, too, but apparently that was the problem because you’re surrounded by a concrete jungle so now I’m buying a home in the hills. It’s pretty cool, honestly. I don’t understand why everyone doesn’t just live in the hills since it’s better for the environment.
- nindalf 3y agoWouldn't per capita emissions in a city be lower? Simply because of transport - we're far more likely to use public transport than folks living in rural areas.
- renewiltord 3y agoYeah but per-capita emissions were revealed to me to be a trick that corporations have played on us to make us take responsibility for their sins. It was easier to ebike in the city, for sure. But a GMC Sierra makes the hills all right too. And it’s much better here for the environment because I’m not endorsing the capitalist view that everything should be grey concrete.
- drewcoo 3y ago> per-capita emissions were revealed to me to be a trick that corporations have played As opposed to individually moving to a rural area "since it’s better for the environment?" To be fair, for Zaphod Beeblebrox "per capita" doesn't mean "individually," but . . .
- randomdata 3y agoBut use transport daily. Ironically, at least in the typical North American city, you can’t do anything without a machine to take you over long distances. In the rural area, you maybe travel once a week to stock up but otherwise don’t need transportation at all.
- Whoppertime 3y agoThe bicycle machine emits nothing and can be used pretty easily in cities.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- randomdata 3y ago
- SmokeyHamster 3y ago[flagged]
- notpachet 3y agoWho is "he"?
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoReplying to your comment so I don't have to vouch and unvouch the GP. > 1. Those models have increased accuracy. GP, I've got your 1. https://eapsweb.mit.edu/news/2019/historical-climate-models-accurately-projected-global-warming https://eapsweb.mit.edu/news/2019/historical-climate-models-... : The first result we found is that all of the 17 models correctly projected global warming (as opposed to either no warming or even cooling). While this is so unsurprising to climate scientists that it is not even mentioned in the paper, it may be surprising to non-experts. The second result is that most of the model projections (10 out of 17) published between 1970 and 2000 produced global average surface warming projections that were quantitatively consistent with the observed warming rate. : While comparing global warming rates may seem like a straight-forward “apples to apples” comparison, it sweeps one very important difference between the simulated climate projections and reality under the rug: human behavior. Climate modelers have to guess at plausible future scenarios of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions to feed into the model. Some modelers developed projections meant to be realistic predictions of what society would actually do (e.g. Nordhaus’ 1977 coupled climate-economic model), while others chose to estimate “worst-case” (high emissions) and “best-case” (low emissions) scenarios to bracket all plausible realities. : When conducting our comparison, given this information, it became clear to us that simply comparing the warming rates between simulations and reality could be misleading, if the simulated emissions scenario and historical emissions were dramatically different. To account for differences in emissions between the simulations and reality, we calculated the warming rates with respect to anthropogenic radiative forcing, the rate at which human emissions trap energy at Earth’s surface, instead of calculating them with respect to time. Using this novel metric of the warming rate, we found that the model projections were even more consistent with reality (14 out of 17 models captured this). > 2. Proposed economic responses to climate change do less harm than good. As for 2, how much harm is being caused by more efficient autos, wind turbines and solar power, and battery storage? By feeding cattle a bit of seaweed?
- cynicalsecurity 3y agoOkay, but what now?
- jdietrich 3y agoStop burning stuff. Tell other people to stop burning stuff. Tell your representatives to work on alternatives to burning stuff. Don't invest in companies that burn a lot of stuff. Avoid waterfront property.
- Levitating 3y agoWhat's wrong with waterfront properties?
- T-A 3y agohttps://www.foxweather.com/extreme-weather/study-rising-sea-levels-flood-nearly-650000-oceanfront-properties-us-by-2050 https://www.foxweather.com/extreme-weather/study-rising-sea-...
- sp332 3y agoA lot of them will be flooding on a regular basis.
- Levitating 3y agoWe've started realizing that just now in the Netherlands. My parents live in a neighborhood with waterfront properties. Almost everybody except my parents have water standing in their crawl space. One house has a flooded cellar.
- c22 3y agoJust now?
- javajosh 3y agoMy all-time favorite response to this problem was I think from Ben Shapiro who said that people who experience flooding should just sell their houses and buy somewhere else and it won't be any big deal. Lol.
- maxglute 3y ago[flagged]
- apantel 3y agoYeah this is the irony: whether or not climate change is bad is relative, like everything else. (Tongue in cheek, but there’s a nugget of truth)
- sdwr 3y agoI went to a private talk a long time ago. The main point was "climate change isn't real, but if it is, it's not our fault. And if it is our fault, then it's not that bad."
- j-pb 3y agoSo the Narcissist's prayer: That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was, that's not a big deal. And if it is, that's not my fault. And if it was, I didn't mean it. And if I did, you deserved it.
- maxglute 3y agoMany studies over years that some countries are net winners (i.e. more arable land in higher latitude etc). And sometimes winning is simply your competitors doing worse (i.e. some countries need to divert more resources than others). Competition increasingly > cooperation in geopolitics.
- jijijijij 3y agoDo these studies consider collapsing supply chains and unequal global fossil resource distribution necessary for food security beyond arable land? Because modern agriculture sure won't do without phosphorus supply from Morocco. Is the local fauna and flora diverse and robust enough to adapt to rapidly changing ecosystems? Can those "net winners" build their MRI machines, when lethal wet bulb temperatures close rare earth mines in China? Will they have the means to defend their prosperous islands against billions of refugees and enemy soldiers at their borders? Do reactionary authoritarian governments qualify for "net winning" societies? I presume "net winning" suggests something very misleading here. It certainly won't mean a net gain over the status quo in wealth and welfare.
- ZunarJ5 3y agoAct local, think global: https://effectiveactivist.com/ https://effectiveactivist.com/
- vaylian 3y agoAlso: BBC podcast series "How they made us doubt everything": https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/series/m000l7q1 https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/series/m000l7q1 (10 episodes plus intro) The fossil fuel industry is still heavily invested in preventing real climate action. It is a very hard opponent to overcome.
- InSteady 3y agoYou can typically see their handiwork in every single internet discussion of related topics, including HN threads that get enough traction.
- ZunarJ5 3y agoThank you. Good link. I posted something similar below and, here's more food for thought: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/04/more-than-1000-climate-scientists-urge-public-to-become-activists https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/04/more-tha... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01461-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01461-y
- jdksmdbtbdnmsm 3y ago[flagged]
- ZunarJ5 3y agoI don't know and frankly, it does not matter. In my day job, I trace ecological changes over time in landscapes by reading a very localised sediment core. Over time, this knowledge builds, piece by piece, to build a complex tapestry of what was. It's like building a functional database that then fuels positive action. If you want to check out the data see: https://apps.neotomadb.org/explorer/ https://apps.neotomadb.org/explorer/ You can only do what you can and when you can, so do it well and realise that the little things do add up. People are busy, and realistically, no one really has the power to stop the giants involved in this rolling disaster as an individual. Society (with a capital S, aka encompassing the social, political, and economic spheres) is a machine we must slow down, do maintenance on and redeploy. Because we are fighting the velocity of the thing, having many people act as another set of "breaks" on the direction trends are headed does matter. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/07/climate-crisis-miracle-technology-wind-water-solar https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/07/climat... We can do a lot, and there is a lot of money involved to tell us differently.
- declan_roberts 3y agoWeird. I used to worry about climate change and now I don’t. I guess the world has a way of finding its equilibrium. I do however worry about the accidental introduction of invasive species and diseases, which seems to be accelerating (see: citrus greening disease).
- Whoppertime 3y agoIt's a lot easier to worry about sulfur dioxide and NOx producing rain compared to worrying about global carbon emissions. Climate Change seems best dealt with at a local level, with the cause of the problem being pollution.
- graemep 3y agoExcept that CO2 emissions also causes acidification of bodies of water. Which cover two thirds of the planet.
- tomtomistaken 3y agoThis is why it is important to know your local super-emitter: https://climatetrace.org/explore https://climatetrace.org/explore
- coalteddy 3y agoThis site looks very interesting but I'm not quite sure what I'm looking at. What is that map for and how does it filter sources, since it seems like it doesn't include all airports.
- tomtomistaken 3y agoThere’s a lot of information there. They literally answer the question “What am I looking at?” in the first popup you get (How to use, top left corner).
- coalteddy 3y ago
- gmuslera 3y agoWhat you don’t know that you don’t know can harm you badly. From time to time you learn something new and realize that, but it always has been there.
- wakawaka28 3y ago[flagged]
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoPlease just stop buying the latest and greatest and get some long term use out of the costly products you've already bought (or at least sell them on in the second-hand market).
- wakawaka28 3y agoI already do that a lot lol. But I do buy new tech, being in the industry.
- paulette449 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Levitating 3y agoThey do it because it works. Many YouTubers experiment extensively with their thumbnails to see what gets most clicks. You can alter a thumbnail after uploading and compare the clickrate.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- anonreeeeplor 3y ago[flagged]
- codeulike 3y agoSabine Hossenfelder is a German Physicist. This is not about your election. Look at her twitter feed - no mention of american politics https://twitter.com/skdh https://twitter.com/skdh
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Proven 3y ago[dead]
- 127361 3y agoIt's taboo to say this, but people worldwide have had far too many children, and I believe that overpopulation is the root of the sustainability crisis, including climate change and pollution. And that taboo is probably rooted in evolutionary psychology, people have a genetically driven tendency to criticize those who advocate having less children? So could there be an instinctual drive behind it? https://www.flashpack.com/solo/relationships/dont-want-kids-choice/ https://www.flashpack.com/solo/relationships/dont-want-kids-... https://www.refinery29.com/en-gb/childfree-by-choice https://www.refinery29.com/en-gb/childfree-by-choice
- BugsJustFindMe 3y agoThere's no such thing as "overpopulation" on its own. There's only population relative to resource abuse. A small fraction of the population using resources at the rate that your common local billionaire or environmentally abusive megacorp uses resources will be just as "over". A much larger population appropriately pricing externalities instead of ignoring them will not be "over". The number of people in India is not why companies like Vedanta Limited, an alumnium, iron, and gold ore mining company pollute so much.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- StanislavPetrov 3y ago>There's no such thing as "overpopulation" on its own. There's only population relative to resource abuse. This is an unfortunate delusion that is widespread, and exploited by governments and industries that seek to ravage what is left of our environment for profit. If you believe and understand that the earth is a finite place, with finite resources (as all intelligent, rational people do), then you believe and understand that this finite place, with finite resources, can only support a finite population. Of course we can debate about what exactly the "sustainable" population is and we can agree that the "sustainable" population depends on how resources are managed, used and maintained, but there can be no disagreement that this number exists, and that if there are too many people our finite resources cannot sustainably support them no manner how efficiently they are distributed. Unfortunately far too many people don't believe this, and don't understand that the earth is a finite place with finite resources. They insist that the earth can support an infinite number of people if only we manage our finite resources properly and impose a strict enough dietary and behavioral regiment on the teeming billions stuffed onto the planet.
- efitz 3y agoTL;DR Climate models are showing that a parameter (ECS aka “climate sensitivity”) has been increasing since 2019. This parameter determines how much temperature increase can be expected if atmospheric CO2 doubles.
- jansan 3y agoI find it very confusing that this is supposed to be new knowledge. Shouldn't the correlation bewtween CO2 concentration and greenhouse effect been researched and simulated to death by now?
- oezi 3y agoTFA explains this. As models got better and CO2 rose more and more it was realized that the old models lacked important aspects of cloud reflectivity.
- jansan 3y agoBut now it is finally settled? Or are we in for large corrections of the models in future?
- peterashford 3y agodid you watch the video?
- paulmd 3y agoit’s a complex system and you can’t experimentally test the effect of changing specific values, so everything is tremendously confounded. and it turns out that by building in a strong preference towards the null hypothesis, science has tended to dramatically understate both the amount of emission, the amount they matter, and the feedback loops that can amplify this further. like yea it has been simulated to death but everyone wanted to whistle past the graveyard and so those simulations had drastically optimistic assumptions built into them such that we are likely to crash through what was only a decade or two ago considered the “worst case scenario” by a decent sized multiple. And frankly the root cause is really the people who go “I find this very confusing, don’t you have this all figured out by now? wasn’t it supposed to be global cooling in the 70s???”, the process was built around appeasing you so you didn’t dismiss the whole thing as alarmist and it turns out the process was built in a way that produced (unsurprisingly) over-optimistic results. The models missed low largely because royal-you wanted to play skeptic 30 years ago. (And no, “global cooling” was never a thing and the idea that it was is more fossil-fuel propaganda and marketing. Even noaa is uncharacteristically blunt about this.) https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- kkfx 3y agoMy personal take, witch I call a rational one: - I choose for MANY reasons, climate is one of them, not the topmost but still one of them, to leave a big city toward the mountains, choosing a place locally hydrogeologically stable (meaning no landslide can reach my home, no flood as well, nothing tall enough to fall onto it and so on); - I still IGNORE both the climate change and the climate "deniers" narrative because I consider both PROPAGANDA. I mean I do not care if actual climate change, I see well (meaning it exists no extra proof needed for me), is due to anthropic activities or natural cycles or both in various percentage simply because even if the cause is 100% anthropic and we can cease now all relevant activities this would not produce significant results in less than SOME centuries, simply no matter the causes we need to ADAPT; Now the biggest issue: both parties the "climate scared" and the "climate deniers" spit emotions but reject rationality. Most climate scared gossip about adding rooftop solar (typically while they live, in apartments), need to ditch cars for walking or cycling nearby in 15' cities (typically refusing the argument that anyone eat, in cities and in countryside, but in cities live many so there is a big need of food and no production, meaning that for allowing people to live in 15' cities a big and typically not green logistic much bigger than the countryside is needed) while most climate deniers state we can go on classic diesel for 500+ years rejecting tha claim that banally we experience raw materials issues since some years with less and less new big discovery an year after another an even if we have still much oil changing away from it take decades. Long story short people do not want any real change, so one act as classic reactionaries, other as classic futurists who dream a future, but refuse to really think and design it to make it real. My take is simple: we need to relocate an enormous mass of humans from some now inhabited areas to some others, not tomorrow morning but also not for the next century, and such big change means typically wars, disasters, famine and so on, planning and moving calmly a cohort at a time means SOME chances to get it done without enormous amount of spilled blood. Very little is done in that sense. The probable result is that nothing change until the immediate emergency level where things get done in a rush, some profit very much, many starve and die. The best I can is try to be as much as I can aside. I do not have a personal space station, fully autonomous and capable of rebuild itself when needed to watch from the orbit so... There is no point wasting nerve energy for a fact I can't deal with more than that. There is no point in trying convincing a mass of Lebonian crowd (cfr. Gustave Le Bon writing on the crowds) who is actually already polarized in two opposite groups, already fighting each others.
- SebFender 3y agoI never worried about it, but do worry about science lacking the knowledge of millions of years of climate change being put into a few hundred.
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoI don't quite get your point? Assuming I'm interpreting it correctly: https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/ https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-an... : The oldest continuous ice core records to date extend 123,000 years in Greenland and 800,000 years in Antarctica. Ice cores contain information about past temperature, and about many other aspects of the environment. Crucially, the ice encloses small bubbles of air that contain a sample of the atmosphere – from these it is possible to measure directly the past concentration of atmospheric gases, including the major greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. And fossil records go back further with respect to more general climate conditions capable of sustaining various species. But regardless, changing the climate status quo in a short time will have various impacts, only some of which we can accurately predict and model.
- SebFender 3y agoThat's exactly my point. Having studied it - what you're telling us represents about 0.025%. Never would I take a stance at such a low percentage - it isn't representative. Even after millions of years, it isn't a significant portion of what climate is and was.
- defrost 3y agoMillions of years of past tracking of a baseball (assuming one could last that long) has little bearing on the trajectory when thrown yesterday. We're informed by past conditions and responses - but the most recent conditions (climatic parameters steady state wrt decadal means for past several thousand years + most recent hundred years of atmospheric change) are what matters now wrt AGW.
- julienreszka 3y agoI never worry because fear and anxiety shrinks the brain and makes you stupid. If you rely on intelligence for your work why would you ever allow something to make you anxious.
- speedgoose 3y ago- "I’m anxious" - "Don’t be anxious" - …
- julienreszka 3y ago> What is stoicism
- graphe 3y agoI've never seen anyone successfully beat anxiety with stoicism. How does it work?
- julienreszka 3y agoBe mindful of where you focus your attention. Focus on what’s actionnable right now, be prepared but never anticipate nor procrastinate. Don’t worry about that which you can’t control. Be humble about what you think you control. This is just a tribute to the stoic philosophy. I recommend reading the classics. You can start with this article. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/
- imtringued 3y agoWhy would anyone trust their survival instincts? They must be really dumb.
- julienreszka 3y agoIt's not a secret that propagandists hijack survival instincts for psychological manipulation: - emotional appeal - us/them - simplifications of complex issues - repetition and consistency - perceived threads Don't let your primitive instincts take over
- maxdo 3y agoLots of people yelling with very poor audio quality :(
- jwilk 3y agoDirect link to the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S9sDyooxf4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S9sDyooxf4
- dang 3y agoWe eventually changed the URL to that above. Thanks!
- alexvoda 3y ago@dang Is it just my impression that HN is drifting rigtwards on this topic? I remember HN being more in favour of proactive action against anthropic climate change. This thread feels dominated by attitudes reflecting inaction.
- tonyedgecombe 3y agoIt feels orchestrated, just like every recent post on EV's.
- johnchristopher 3y agoHmm. I think a lot of people who were silent about their positions on this topic are much more inclined to say them out loud now, even on websites like HN. Not that they are right though. As for the reasons why I have (like anyone else) two or three ideas. And whatever it is, it ain't making me feel optimist about what's to come.
- alexvoda 3y agoThose are my feelings as well.
- tonyedgecombe 3y ago>Hmm. I think a lot of people who were silent about their positions on this topic are much more inclined to say them out loud now, even on websites like HN. I'm not sure, HN has always been welcoming to contrarian views unless it is something particularly nasty like racism. If I could point to anything it would be the fact that we are getting close to an election in the US.
- konschubert 3y agoIm not dang but I would like to share a hypothesis why this maybe isn’t so terrible. The thing that always stood between the world and climate action was the fact that fossil fuels were the best energy source. Since a few years, the tables have turned and solar seems to be marching towards absolute dominance. So there isn’t much to do in terms of political climate action, since the incentives are now mostly economical. I agree though, the extend to how people are happy to just roll over and accept that the world will go down with them is surprising.
- pk-protect-ai 3y agoI no longer worry. I'm extremely pessimistic about the impending climate change. I believe Sabine isn't pessimistic enough about what to anticipate. Consider the tundra methane emissions and the explosive release of methane-hydrates from the oceans, along with water vapor, a potent greenhouse gas. The disaster looming over all ecosystems (a mass extinction event) that will happen in decades and the doom-phase could last for 200,000 years. The chances of humanity surviving are incredibly slim, IMO. We can't colonize Greenland or Antarctica due to the lack of fertile soil, and it would take thousands of years to develop it. Without saying so, we don't have this amount of time.
- jhoechtl 3y agoI am glad that I survived oil outage, sour rain, the Ozone hole, mass famine because of overpopulation. All in a lifetime. I must have had sheer luck.
- adrianN 3y agoThere was massive concerted effort to stop acid rain and ozone depletion. Maybe we should try that for the climate crisis if we want similar success at preventing catastrophe.
- refurb 3y agoAmazing how the ozone hole repaired itself despite China releasing thousands of tons of CFCs. https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/23/china-factories-releasing-thousands-of-tonnes-of-illegal-cfc-gases-study-finds https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/23/china-factorie...
- styfle 3y agoThe article doesn’t seem to support your claim. “After the ban came into force, global concentrations of CFC-11 declined steadily until about 2012. However, last year scientists discovered the pace of that slowdown slowed by half between 2013 and 2017. Because the chemical is not naturally occurring, the change could only have been produced by new emissions.” “If emissions do not decline, it will delay the recovery of the Antarctic ozone hole, possibly for decades”
- Version467 3y agoThere’s a new book from Hannah Ritchie called „Not the end of the world“, that argues for optimism, without denying the reality of the situation. It’s a fantastic book and I highly recommend it.
- whoknowsidont 3y agoThe whole premise of the book is a multi-layered hail mary, or a hail mary that continually plays out like a jackpot based on vibes and misconstruing the forces that are causing climate change. Not sure why you'd call this "fantastic" other than it's a feel-good book without any evidence to support it. >Carbon emissions per capita are actually down [1] It takes maybe 2 minutes, maybe upwards of 10, to realize why this is completely silly. I would expect most highschoolers in stats to rip this apart. Does anyone need to devote time to debunk this? Why? You can ask ChatGPT. >Average figures can mask significant inequalities within countries. In many countries, a small percentage of the population may be responsible for a large portion of emissions, while the majority have very low carbon footprints. If you don't understand why this negates your comment out right should I start quoting 2Pac?
- ChatGTP 3y agoUnfortunately you’ve done very little to refute the claims yourself.
- mycologos 3y agoAs you've observed, averages can be misleading because they're not robust to outliers. However, this seems most relevant to something like income, where we're interested in "most people" and don't care so much about the one ultra-rich person in the sample. This appears to be less true for something like emissions, where the overall total is most relevant -- unless you're arguing that it's masking an "unfair" situation where improvements are coming from one group and should be coming from the other?
- Version467 3y agoYou're free to dislike the book, but I can't really follow your criticism. The book is clearly not "based on vibes". It's chock full of data to support the authors claims. Now you might argue that the data either doesn't support the claims made, or you might doubt its legitimacy, but instead of providing a reason you just told me that it should be obvious why the book is nonsense. That doesn't really give me a lot to engage with and I'm not going to try to make your arguments for you. For me the Book had its intended effect. It argues that the climate movement, as it gained mainstream popularity, also lost its ability to convey nuance in favor of projecting a strong "we are heading towards certain doom" message. This helped grow the movement, but is also responsible for a lot of young people feeling completely hopeless. That's certainly something I could heavily relate with before reading the book. The book then goes on to highlight areas where the world has made much bigger progress than I would have thought. For me this turned a feeling of intense hopelessness into one of motivation. So was the Book meant to make me feel good? Sure. In that sense I guess you can call it a feel-good book. Were the claims unsubstantiated and "without any evidence to support" them? Certainly not.
- pvaldes 3y agoUntil the war is over, we can't know if exploding things non stop for two years is having a part in making the last years warmer. The models could be incomplete, or obsolete
- lacrimacida 3y agoWhich war? Or wars?
- crucialfelix 3y agoThe amount of energy accumulating in the oceans is equivalent to detonating five Hiroshima atomic bombs per second, every second over the past 25 years. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00376-020-9283-7 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00376-020-9283-7
- pvaldes 3y agoThis does not change what I said. We had past long time ago the question if is happening or not. What I'm discussing is the "how fast" part. The sub-question is if the war or wars if you prefer (You all know what I'm talking about) are causing the current wave of claims "I'm worried now but I was not worried yesterday" I assume that the war is making it faster, but the effect of this particular factor could be temporal. Artifacts happen in science all the time. We don't know if war is a modifier (and in that case if would be a temporary or permanent modifier). I personally suspect that it has an impact. I could be wrong.
- crucialfelix 3y agoCertainly explosions and fighter jets result in a lot of GHG emissions. You seem to be suggesting that it might be significant enough to explain recent accelerated warming. That's how your comment reads. My comment was mean to point out that the scale of warming is far more intense than two conflicts would produce. I really hope the recent acceleration in warming can be traced to industrial methane emissions that could be stopped.
- 3y ago
- Vecr 3y agoWhat country is going to take the hit and start the high altitude sulfur spraying? If we even could get the forcing back to what it already was in the recent past that would be a great help.
- _y5hn 3y agoHow long would that temporary measure help? What would that do to acidic rain, global dimming, ecology and agriculture. Masking the problem will only make it come back harder when measures don't scale up anymore. Then there'll be no time to do much more.
- deepsummer 3y ago> How long would that temporary measure help? As long as you do it. > What would that do to acidic rain, global dimming, ecology and agriculture. Well, it's a trade-off. Is sulfur worse than global warming? > Masking the problem will only make it come back harder Geo-engineering is not an opportunity to stop phasing out fossils, but a way to get more time for better technology to spread.
- goatlover 3y agoAs long as is needed to transition away from burning fossil fuels. You can always put more in high altitude. If half the comments here are right and climate change is truly an apocalyptic threat, then acid rain and global dimming would be worthwhile tradeoffs. If climate change isn't extremely bad, then maybe it's not worth it. But at some point, if it becomes existential, then all options are on the table.
- Vecr 3y ago> Masking the problem will only make it come back harder when measures don't scale up anymore. If (e.g.) China stops the US can start, or if a small country can't scale up enough more countries can join in. The whole "termination shock" thing is highly overrated, it's solvable with next to no communication at all. Decision rule: if not enough is being sprayed according to your models, make up the difference yourself.
- 3y ago
- fsdfasdfsf 3y agoAmong all religions, worship of the weather god is the worst. It's a literal death worship; and death for the sake of death at that.
- cies 3y agoI used to worry about climate (80s), now I dont (20s). Why? 1. Too many lies. In the 80s the water level was rising, but it didn't. Then acid rains would kill all, but did not. Then ... 2. I cannot change it. Using fossils (or other tech with big "environmental" impact) is a great way to scale business. The "economy God" is to important to actually go an fix the problem. That why we see no real solutions being implemented and climate agreements being ignored/ not signed. 3. The focus on CO2 is stupid. There are worse problems: fine dust, pollution, disruption of ecosystems. But we now totally focus on CO2 (or CO2-equevalents). I do have a solution. Remove (gradually) all taxation, in favor tax on pollution and usage of particular scarce resources (e.g. land, water, fossils, radio frequencies, etc.) This way the market will solve the problem. Housing and labour (two examples of wholesome things that are currently heavily taxed) will become a lot cheaper, and polluting will become expensive.
- jongjong 3y ago[flagged]
- cies 3y ago> Government money printing has created a huge number of bullshit jobs. I dont know if there is a causal relation, but both are rampant. For me the worst is how hollow the word "science" has become. I refer to the old law-based science as "natural or hard science" nowadays. And all climate models (on a highly complex open system that is the earth) are not hard science. Also virology side-stepped Koch's postulate on isolation and transmittability. So according to "science" a treatment is "safe and effective" and in a few months turns out to be neither safe nor effective: but barely anyone can reflect on that because all are too invested in their own story. That's not science (nor hard nor soft), that's a cargo cult.
- jesterson 3y agoIt’s just a part of proliferating corruption and stupidity into all areas of life, science included.
- 3y ago
- jokoon 3y agoI live in the south of france, and I really need to move to a cooler region in france. Summer are very long, nights are hot, makes it hard to sleep well. I don't have enough money to install AC. Mobile AC is too noisy. I have been postponing for 4 years now. I am reading The Ministry Of The Future, it's a great book. India will be the first to suffer from this.
- Qem 3y ago> Summer are very long, nights are hot, makes it hard to sleep well. I don't have enough money to install AC. Mobile AC is too noisy. Did you try sleeping in hammocks already? It's a solution that works reasonably well for me.
- sgt 3y agoHammocks - the poor man's AC?
- Qem 3y agoYes. Works very well in hot climate. Doesn't heat up like a mattress, and is thin enough that the airflow from a fan in the room can help cool both topside and underside at the same time. But beware it may take some time to get used sleeping in it. When installing the hooks to set it up in the walls, the separation between them must be large enough such as the person is not too bended while sleeping, otherwise you may get back pain in the morning. The best position to sleep is semi-crossed in relation to the axis between hooks (~45 degrees), that allows you to lie almost straight.
- graphe 3y agoIt's the fan after the shower for me.
- badpun 3y agoAC could be cheaper than the cost of a move, not to mention you wouldn't have to uproot your life?
- 3y ago
- lynx23 3y agoI was always pro-environment and pro-more-industry-regulations, since I can think. Then came Greta and the doomsayers. Realising there is really nothing more I can do--I am already walking to work and don't even own a car--I stopped supporting apocalypse-loving-movements and went back to living my life as I used to do. I was developed an aversion for the climate apocalypse movement since. I wonder, if they managed to alienate people without a car and very low CO2 footprint, what demographic is actually left to cater to? BTW, this phenomenon is very old. Thausands of years ago, religious nuts already announced the end of the world. Soem religious movements like the 7th day adventists even were born out of a failed waiting for the end. That was, IIRC, in the 19th century, at a time when people didn't even know what polution will be. We have a built-in tendency to predict our own downfall. A sort of built-in mental illness that needs to be worked against.
- graphe 3y agoI'm the same. I'm a quiet greenish person. I don't own a car I walk and I hate these death cults whose sole nihilism is that you shouldn't exist, you were born into Original Sin™ for being the wrong sex/gender/race/country, and when you aren't busy killing off things you enjoy, you yourself can only be green when you die. The logistical thing to these cults is suicide to prevent global warming, so they mentally circle the drain constantly.
- latentcall 3y ago> you were born into Original Sin™ for being the wrong sex/gender/race/country Which world do you live in? It can’t be Earth. Go outside and talk to people and please realize spending all your time online is bad for your health. What you’ve described here doesn’t exist.
- graphe 3y agoI'm not part of them. But they do exist. Original Sin ™ is a powerful concept, for example see the eagle and the condor prophecy, a radical lefist group that seeks to use south Americans as leverage, taking selfies with them at the border and luring them north. https://blog.pachamama.org/the-eagle-and-the-condor-prophecy https://blog.pachamama.org/the-eagle-and-the-condor-prophecy https://preprints.apsanet.org/engage/api-gateway/apsa/assets/orp/resource/item/5f7564b85c1dab00193d2dfb/original/border-support-networks-migrant-caravans-us-activism-and-social-network-analysis.pdf https://preprints.apsanet.org/engage/api-gateway/apsa/assets... The rise of asylum seekers is due to this cult which believes in many of these sins. I am just as alarmed that it exists. They are the same political activists who failed to stop the pipeline have put their efforts here. Those caravans are NOT organic.
- sschueller 3y agoSome stupid hacker just deleted over 2 Peta Bytes of Russian climate research data dating back decades. Data that was collected from satellites around the world for decades for processing. This affects us all if we don't have data. We are rapidly going back to the stone age...
- t_tsonev 3y agoHere’s some new data for you: Russia is flaring over 4 mil cubic meters of natural gas per day.
- netsharc 3y agoBy this logic, assuming you're American, one is free to do anything to your property, justifying it with calling out some bad thing the US government is doing, e.g. supplying bombs that are being dropped indiscriminately on Gaza.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- MLH6ft1 3y agoHmmm....this post has stayed on top on hackernews (while I didn't visit the link shared in this post) AND the video shared in this post also shows up on top on youtube. Same has also happened with this hackernews post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39162856 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39162856 (I didn't visit the link shared in this post either) and looks like this post didn't get 'as much' traction on HN as compared to the above one. However, the video shared in this post also came up on top on youtube. Looks like HN is a good place to boost your content on YT, if it gets pushed to the top!
- aaa_aaa 3y ago[flagged]
- layer8 3y agoThe right thing to do for your kids is to have them research for themselves and draw their own conclusions.
- josho 3y agoYou are right. Americans will be fine. We’ve got enough money to fortify cities from rising waters. Well maybe not some poor areas. But we’ve never cared about the poors, so they can suffer. The border will be where the American crisis exists. Droughts will cause the poor and hungry to flee their homes. We’ll see a refugee crisis at the border that makes today look tiny. Oh and refugee crisis’ that are left unsolved lead to criminal activities. So we are likely to see a resurgence of ISIS. If we are really unlucky we’ll see a few strong men take over power in these countries. Combine both and we’ll have regional conflicts. Maybe some of those will bleed over to terrorism in the US. But yeh, you are right for Americans it isn’t an existential crisis. For millions of others however it will be.
- grecy 3y agoI think you need to look more closely at the wildfires in the western USA, and wet bulb temps high enough to kill people just sitting in the shade drinking water.[1] A power outage there will cause a very large number of deaths. [1] https://thehill.com/homenews/nexstar_media_wire/4074341-extreme-threat-large-swathe-of-southern-us-at-dangerous-wet-bulb-temperature/amp/ https://thehill.com/homenews/nexstar_media_wire/4074341-extr...
- cubefox 3y agoDid you watch the video? What you say is like saying: "It doesn't matter if something bad happens to me as long as it doesn't outright kill me."
- bananaflag 3y agoI no longer worry about climate because of AI. I think AI will either save us all or doom us all before the climate doom really starts.
- skitout 3y agoWe have a lot of existing stuff ("political stuff" like cabron pricing, or "technological" stuff like double glazing or heat pump) that already make sense economically that we don't use fully. How AI deeply impact it ?
- bananaflag 3y agoBy removing agency from humans.
- Alifatisk 3y agoIs the link correct? It leads me to a channel named RDCWorld? But it doesn’t match the title?
- sumanthvepa 3y agoSomething is wrong. The video link is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S9sDyooxf4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S9sDyooxf4
- pk-protect-ai 3y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S9sDyooxf4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S9sDyooxf4
- jjackson5324 3y agoLmfao I think this is the actual video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S9sDyooxf4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S9sDyooxf4 Somehow OP must've linked to the RDCWorld video by mistake and somehow this still got to the top of HN? I guess HN just upvotes without clicking the link?
- pk-protect-ai 3y agoThe video link was correct at the start. I believe that OP has decided to change it due to rate of doomism and rising depression levels.
- jjackson5324 3y agoOh... I didn't realize you could change the link like that? Uhh isn't that a big flaw with HN if you can? (for example, link to a blog post that would be popular with the community to get upvotes, then switch it up for your own company blog or something to get the traffic)
- dang 3y agoNo, it was a mod error (copy-paste failure or something like that - see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39170137 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39170137). Submitters can't change URLs once they've submitted.
- hiAndrewQuinn 3y agoI never worried particularly much about climate change, but just to hedge my bets for my kids I moved to northern Europe. For the most part it's just equated to milder (= bearable) Winters and nicer summers up here. I guess we also spend a fair bit on moving to renewables up here - Finland achieved energy self sufficiency last year thanks to a good combination of nuclear + solar + hydro. If I were an ideologue in either direction I'd probably say "that's the real reason I moved" or "can't believe they're waiting my tax money on this", but I'm not, I'm just a guy who likes hedging his bets. The nuclear is especially nice because cheap electricity is the true backbone of society, and we've seen the market prices go straight up _negative_ a few times due to overproduction. Self recommending! Come to Finland and help us build a stronger democracy, whatever that means to you.
- johnchristopher 3y agoIs Finland self sufficient for food ?
- LightBug1 3y ago"Self recommending! Come to Finland and help us build a stronger democracy, whatever that means to you. " How are you finding life as an enviromental migrant?
- hiAndrewQuinn 3y agoGreat! Much nicer than Boston.
- ejb999 3y agohow were you able to permanently move from the states to Finland - were you already a citizen there? (I assume you mean Boston Mass, unless you are talking about another Boston already in the EU)
- chasd00 3y agoThis. Immigrating to Finland isn’t as easy as just showing up and wading across a shallow river like in the US.
- ZephyrBlu 3y agoAn RDCworld video on HN, never thought I'd see the day.
- Nevermark 3y agoNot to add more pessimism icing to the anxiety cake, but ... I have not seen any discussion on a particular Venn diagram of worries. 1. Climate change as a biological and human ecosystem catastrophe. 2. A potential ecosystem threat to humans from GAI. We might anticipate AI (and initially its wealthiest owners) would be less biosystem dependent, and more of a "Let's extract ALL the rare elements from the bottom of the ocean and not clean up the mess later", "Non-degradable plastic? Its still the future!", and "Fossil fuel reserves are a horrible thing to waste" kind of constituency. It might be prudent to think about how different impending risks might have unfortunate "alignment".
- mgaunard 3y agoWhy would anyone worry about things they have no control on? People that overestimate the value of their opinions, maybe.
- toastercat 3y agoBecause they can vote.
- and0 3y agoThere's a narcissism that lends to every generation thinking theirs is the end of history, but I don't think it entirely explains anxiety over climate change.
- perlgeek 3y agoBut you have partial control. You can vote for candidates that take climate change seriously. You can decide to buy or lease an EV instead of an ICE one. You can raise the bar for when you book a flight. And so on...
- zb3 3y ago[flagged]
- Jaxan 3y agoYou can give money to charity so that poor people also get solar panels. (Or vote for a government which cares.)
- anonuser123456 3y agoThe crux of the problem is this; The people that believe in climate change don’t understand how to solve the problem. And the people that know how to solve the problem don’t really consider it a problem worth solving at this point.
- JackSlateur 3y agoWell, the only meaning full to do is kill yourself, so you are right : everybody is in control, somehow
- baryphonic 3y agoThe only existential risk that worries me is nuclear weapons proliferation. It's the only one I have nightmares about.
- huppeldepup 3y agoWhy was the link changed? 3 hours ago it linked to this: https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2024/01/i-used-to-not-worry-about-climate.html https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2024/01/i-used-to-not-worr... Now it links to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCo3XwTRg9o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCo3XwTRg9o
- Corrado 3y agoDang, the new video is NOT the original Sabine video and is some weird, stupid thing. Please change it back to Sabine's video.
- kristofferR 3y agoIs Dang trolling us?
- joshxyz 3y agoim not pissed i find it hilarious
- iandanforth 3y agoThe new video is however a spot on commentary on people who didn't worry about climate change but now do. Very sharp swap, IMO.
- Unfrozen0688 3y agoI saw a few seconds of people yelling and turned it off. What is this crap?
- MPSimmons 3y agoTry listening to what they were saying. It's a skit, but with some biting truth.
- 3y ago
- bilsbie 3y agoI used to worry but living through 30 years of catastrophic predictions not happening has made me question the messenger instead. Some examples(1): 1989: Rising seas to ‘obliterate’ nations by 2000 2008: Al Gore warns of ice-free Arctic by 2013 (1) https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/ https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-poca... Don’t get me wrong. I still think it’s an area of concern. I’m actually a raging environmentalist but I just think we should spend our limited political capital on air pollution, heavy metals, microplastics, and expanding national park access.
- peterpost2 3y ago>but living through 30 years of catastrophic predictions not happening has made me question the messenger instead. Have you seen what's been happening the last couple of years? There are catastrophic predictions actually happening, sure some of them were wrong but the planet is in a pretty fucked up state right now.
- bilsbie 3y agoDo you have an example or two that’s not open to interpretation? I’ve seen a lot of things blamed on climate that are debatable. Wild fires, hurricanes, freak high tides, etc. If it’s a true crisis we shouldn’t be grasping at normal climate events and trying to argue they’re slightly worse.
- timmg 3y ago> There are catastrophic predictions actually happening, sure some of them were wrong but the planet is in a pretty fucked up state right now. Can you be more specific?
- gttrew 3y agoPress X to Doubt It couldn't be an attempt to make white people accept poverty by the big corps who sponsor politicians and control research grant monies ?
- lonjil 3y ago
- xnx 3y ago"I used to not worry about climate change, but now I really want the clicks."
- thevania 3y agoreminds me of sacking of rome by barbarians but this time we must defend better not to have another "dark age" sure sad for the millions of displaced people, but for civilisation to prevail there is no way to save them, quite a no-brainer
- sufimalang 3y agoshe said lives of hundred of millions, i guess she is only counting western white lives. the very same ones who caused this in the first place :)
- blackbear_ 3y agoComments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes. Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That tramples curiosity. Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- j4yav 3y agoWhat happened to this link, it’s now a video of some people yelling?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- zb3 3y ago[flagged]
- lukan 3y agoSorry, but that sounds like a starting a suicide cult. Life will go on.
- zb3 3y agoHow was my comment related to suicide? I was talking about the process that will take place - and since it will - then at THAT time it still shouldn't be painful. Life might or might not go on, but I don't see any reason to make our lives more miserable just to make sure even more people can experience those miserable lives. That's why I don't care about preserving resources or living conditions for "future generations".
- lukan 3y ago"because I'll die anyway. What remains now is to make that process as painless as possible" The most efficient way to achieve it, would be a overdose of pain killers.
- zb3 3y agoHowever this requires the person to a) know that this is the time and b) be able to act.
- RGamma 3y agoThinking that reducing living standards to more ecosphere-compatible levels (at current technological sophistication no less) would result in "miserable lives" is an unfortunate consequence of the consumerist programming of the late 20th century. We're consuming a lot of pointless shit that could be cut without much consequence. Stop ads and you will find out what some of that is. Another big problem being throwaway culture. Even in 2024 people still change smartphones like their underwear (I mostly see this with Android users though, not that I'm surprised).
- vegetablepotpie 3y agoYou can do something about this. I got involved in climate advocacy in 2021. Since then I’ve successfully lobbied my local government to start an energy resources study, which will look at ways for my community to quickly transition to renewables. A small thing. But if we all do small things, it will add up! Still though. My state, Arizona has really terrible people writing awful laws. This legislative session they’re proposing a 12.5% tax on purchasing solar if you’re not a utility, and a bunch of other regressive, anti-free market, pro-fossil fuel legislation [1]. We’re going to vote these people out of office this November and remove barriers to using our states abundant solar resources. And since HN is a startup and technology forum, we need cheap utility scale energy storage as soon as we can get it. It exists, but solar+storage is just a bit too expensive for most regions of the country. If it does become cheaper than methane, that makes the move away from fossil fuels much easier. If you want to work on this, do it. But also, citizens engagement is crucial. If you live in a regressive state like mine. It’s super important to get involved. If you live in a place that is going in the right direction, engage on the implementation details, there are so many ways good climate policy can get derailed in bureaucracies. There are a ton of groups that you can work with on this [2] [3] [4]. [1] https://legiscan.com/AZ/bill/HB2281/2024 https://legiscan.com/AZ/bill/HB2281/2024 [2] https://citizensclimatelobby.org/ https://citizensclimatelobby.org/ [3] https://www.sierraclub.org/ https://www.sierraclub.org/ [4] https://www.environmentalvoter.org/ https://www.environmentalvoter.org/
- kylebenzle 3y agoI disagree, strongly. I think the next phase will be people like me, not climate change deniers but climate change doomers. The US could go carbon neutral tomorrow and it wouldnt make a dent because of China, India and Russia. 3 Billion people pumping pollution into the the air like their is no tomorrow vs. a couple hundred million reducing their footprint isn't going to make a lick of difference. I think people have always had a hard time understanding things at scale, especially a global scale. The ONLY answer, live your life like there's no tomorrow because chances are is there isn't going to be.
- ianai 3y ago
- hkon 3y agoI don't worry Why is this on the frontpage? Weird
- noobermin 3y agoMy guess is the video is too long because absolutely none of them are about the content of the video
- cubefox 3y agoNone of the comments.
- skymast 3y ago[dead]
- dsign 3y agoWe need a phase transition in our thinking about climate change, because our current way of thinking is taking us nowhere. - All human activities, in different degrees, contribute to climate change. Don't believe me? Say that you bike to the office everyday. You enjoy your commute, you never develop a heart condition, and in the course of your long prosperous life you have three kids and nine grandchildren, own several dogs and get a bigger house. In other words, your climate footprint all of the sudden is greater than if you had used a polluting car and died of a heart attack when you turned forty. By definition, humanity thriving means humanity growing, and with that its footprint on the entire planet. - But in the aggregate, humanity is what we are. There is a price to pay for climbing that hill, but there is an even greater price for not climbing it. Critters in the Serengeti don't compose poetry, nor make Youtube videos; they are too busy surviving. So are people in places where material scarcity reigns supreme. My father, who never wanted to leave his homeland, is dying at home, and my mother won't hire a nurse not for lack of money, but because she doesn't trust that young people will work for just the money and won't rob them blind. We have the knowledge, the technology and the means to live in domes in the vast deserts of this planet, to go to the moon or to live in space habitats anywhere in the solar system.
- cloogshicer 3y ago> We have the knowledge, the technology and the means to live in domes in the vast deserts of this planet, to go to the moon or to live in space habitats anywhere in the solar system. This is incorrect. Please stop saying we have the technology to live anywhere else other than on Earth, it's false: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9YdnzOf4NQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9YdnzOf4NQ
- wolverine876 3y ago> our current way of thinking is taking us nowhere. What some people are doing is obstructing us from going anywhere. We need to stop acting helpless, stand up for what we believe, fight (peacefully), stop the post-truth nonsense that supports these people, and vote them out of office. > All human activities, in different degrees, contribute to climate change. It's kinda true, because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (and ignoring activities that actively reduce climate change, like installing insulation or voting certain people out of office), but meaningless. Riding a bike and riding a private jet both contribute to climate change, but that's a pointless statement. > Say that you bike to the office everyday. You enjoy your commute, you never develop a heart condition, and in the course of your long prosperous life you have three kids and nine grandchildren, own several dogs and get a bigger house. In other words, your climate footprint all of the sudden is greater than if you had used a polluting car and died of a heart attack when you turned forty. That's restating the Second Law, in a sense. But we can do all those things, and still prevent climate change by using different technologies. > We have the knowledge, the technology and the means to live in domes in the vast deserts of this planet, to go to the moon or to live in space habitats anywhere in the solar system. What do you conclude from that?
- zug_zug 3y agoJust a contextual note -- one thing Sabine says is: AI won't help because we know the exact solution, we just aren't willing to do it. Presumably she's referring to her first proposal -- a carbon tax. It's my understanding that there's nearly consensus among economists that a carbon tax is the most efficient solution to global warming, but political consensus that it would never happen when framed as a tax. If you don't know what a carbon tax is, or why it's orders of magnitude more efficient a solution than "eat less meat" I'd encourage you to look into it a bit. Essentially if you create a system where what is best for the planet is also the cheapest course of action (for individuals and businesses), you no longer have to rely on convincing every single individual to change their morality/beliefs.
- AndrewKemendo 3y agoA global tax requires global enforcement No sovereign is going to agree to subordinate itself without all others doing the same Classic prisoners dilemma
- neilk 3y agoThat’s too pessimistic. Dozens of countries have some kind of carbon tax right now. Important and influential jurisdictions like California, also have them. Even oil-producing regions have them. They are universally rather timid in their scope, and politically fragile. So maybe they aren’t going to get us there, at least not in their current form. But it’s going too far to say they just don’t exist or can’t exist. We have plenty of treaties that inhibit states. Nuclear weapons, slavery, pollutants. Enlightentment and enlightened self-interest isn’t out of the question.
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago“Enlightened self interest” is randian nonsense. That’s how we got here in the first place Ask Lybia how nuclear disarmament went Go count all the slaves supplying the global market for chocolate, cobalt, mica, vanilla etc... How about prisoners in the US making .20-.50c/hr making license plates or literally picking cotton on a former slave plantation in alabama. Or how about slave labor in the form of migrant children working in factories for Hyundai in the US south The concept of self-interested Neoliberalism has utterly failed and it is turning into a global catastrophe The earth cannot sustain 8 Billion people each living at millionaire consumption standards
- based-nerd 3y ago[flagged]
- andrewclunn 3y agoShe is typically a very "anti-establishment" accessible science educator. When she talks about climate change she puts the onus on herself to actually make the arguments rather than just "pushing the consensus." This is very important. As somebody who is anti-academia myself, I am so annoyed at being told I am anti-science as well for being as such. Hearing the evidence laid out by somebody also willing to call out academia, but who does believe in climate change is WAY more effective than one more bludgeoning tool from a boot licking sycophant. Want to have your discussion regarding "What to do?" regarding climate change? You need to stop treating people who want to know your arguments and see your data with respect first. Sabine is a great ACTUAL science educator and not merely a grifter, and (I suspect) just a modest honest person. She legit deserves clicking that subscribe button.
- eximius 3y agoIt's extremely frustrating to watch our world deteriorating because politicians aren't willing to actually do their jobs and govern. I'd go even stronger and, for the US, pass regulations that all emissions of all kinds must be captured or the company will be fined double the cost of environmental remediation as executed by contractors employed by the government (scaling from 1% of the fine to 100% of the fine over X years).
- croes 3y agoIf they do, people vote parties who don't.
- apitman 3y agoYou say that as though politicians appear out of thin air. The root problem is that the average person isn't motivated to do anything, including voting in politicians who will do something. That and misinformation isn't helping.
- eximius 3y agoAverage American, perhaps, with our "rugged individualism" and apparent lack of empathy.
- PeterisP 3y agoArguably the job of democratically elected politicians is to represent the interests of their constituents - so when there's internationally a "prisoner's dillema"/"tragedy of commons" scenario where there is a lack of global coordination and taking on unilateral commitments would hurt their people but not really solve the issue, it can make all sense for an effective, honest politician doing their job to "defect" and put the interests of their people above the interests of the rest of the world.
- tsss 3y agoThey are governing according to the will of the people (to some degree). Fact is that outside the western intelligentsia nobody really gives a shit about climate change and why would they? For people without children, certainly it is not their problem. The world's resources are plenty enough for this generation and even the next. Everyone else would be stupid to sacrifice their own wealth for an absolutely minuscule chance of improvement without an enforcible promise that their neighbours will do the same. They will just end up doing it all for nothing. It's a typical tragedy-of-the-commons dilemma.
- boringuser2 3y ago[flagged]
- dnlzro 3y agoThe video in the post addresses points 1, 3, and 4 quite well, in my opinion. Did you watch it? Also, if we granted your fourth point, it would be impossible to establish the first point; you can't say both things at the same time. Regarding point 2, if the "hot" models are accurate, then climate change is something that will effect us maybe one or two generations from now, if it isn't already (it's a little hard to tell whether we are in a particularly hot period right now and will regress to the mean). Even if you are completely selfish, anti-natalist, and atheist, you should probably still be concerned.
- boringuser2 3y agoYes, but I'm not going to do your homework for you. I won't address an argument you don't make. >Also, if we granted your fourth point, it would be impossible to establish the first point; you can't say both things at the same time. Please elaborate. There isn't a formal fallacy here so I'm assuming you have some esoteric implicit "own". >Regarding point 2, if the "hot" models are accurate, then climate change is something that will effect us maybe one or two generations from now, if it isn't already (it's a little hard to tell whether we are in a particularly hot period right now and will regress to the mean). Even if you are completely selfish, anti-natalist, and atheist, you should probably still be concerned. They aren't. Anyways, again, if you're talking about immediate threats to your physical self, it's obvious that only a very deluded individual would rank "climate change" anywhere reasonable. The threat model is just laughable. It fails too many conspiracy sniff tests and reeks of the same psychology that enables doomsday cults (vague predictions that constantly fail and are re-made).
- dnlzro 3y agoI asked if you had watched the video because you didn't raise any specific objections to the evidence provided. I'm not going to restate everything said in the video, but if there's something specific you disagreed with, we could talk about it in more detail. I assume that by "slow burn," you mean to say that climate change takes place on a time scale that goes beyond just one or two decades. If that's true, then how can we possibly judge the accuracy of the newer "hot" models except by looking at how well they predict past climate data? And by that metric, some of them do just as well as the older, less "hot" models that we've been basing climate policy on for decades. Is there some other metric you're using to dismiss the new models? I hope it's clear why I think you're contradicting yourself, but maybe you have some other way of telling whether a climate model is accurate. I think there is some validity to what you say about risk assessment, and I have the general feeling that there is some real hysteria among younger generations w.r.t. climate change. There may be more pressing issues, but again, if it is the case that we can expect to see much hotter temperatures than previously predicted, then everyone, regardless of wealth or location, should be concerned for their own wellbeing in the near future.
- Timber-6539 3y agoSo when exactly is "my part of the earth" going to start melting away? I need a time frame in order to care about it.
- hackernoteng 3y agoStop being afraid. Stay away from climate change cults.
- EnigmaFlare 3y agoI think the reason everyone just has a "worry" or an opinion and there's so much disagreement is because nobody knows, even in the slightest what effect climate change will have on people's quality of life. We have predictions of some effects like temperature extremes, sea level rise, storm severity (or so I've heard, I can only find hand-waving in IPCC reports), mass migration, etc. but no credible and terrible predictions of numbers of deaths, financial cost or other more direct impacts on people. Maybe the climate will be radically different but we'll adapt just fine? Who knows? Nobody! So people invent their own beliefs and we end up with doomsdayers imagining the worse possible outcome and neverminders imagining the best possible outcome and they all want to control each other's behavior according to their own imagination. Now it becomes political and people hate each other because they see them working against each other's believed fantasy. Even in this video, I couldn't find any quantified predictions of actual effects on people, so it just continues to support everyone's own fantasy, whichever way that goes.
- martin82 3y ago[flagged]
- mpalmer 3y agoDo you have a substantial counter to the claims she's supporting, or are you content to merely imply that you are even smarter and more level headed?
- devaiops9001 3y ago[flagged]
- collyw 3y agoI used to now I don't. After over 3 decades of hearing about it, none of the catastrophic predictions have come true. The sea level hasn't risen by any perceptible amount (I live on the coast). And I see no reason why it's considered a bad thing if it gets slightly warmer.