4 ms·

Climate depression is understandable and I'm not sure what's going on with the replies - is HN a hub for climate change denialism now? Human-caused climate cha

Climate depression is understandable and I'm not sure what's going on with the replies - is HN a hub for climate change denialism now? Human-caused climate change is as much an established fact as is possible in this field. Alternative "theories" are as much as an established non-fact as is possible in this field. Here are 428 references on the subject which will need to be disputed in order to change that fact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#References https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#References (not actually 428 because there's multiple references to the same paper but in different locations, etc. You get my point.) Despite actions like UK declaring a climate emergency, the Paris Agreement, etc, it's not clear to me that the world is going to take the actions necessary to prevent massive climate-change related disasters. When those disasters take root and trigger refugee crises the likes of which human society has never encountered, any green-energy and green-material initiatives are probably out the door as nations turn to the cheapest, fastest, shortest-term energy and materials solutions possible to either handle the influx of refugees or the war materials needed to turn them away. What are you seeing that makes you think this won't be the case? Are you seeing improvements in green technology and believe those will be deployed quickly enough to curtail climate change? I'm skeptical: we had a huge reduction in emissions lain at our doorstep by COVID and for many industries work continued unabated as we did our jobs from home, but irrational established mentalities are forcing emissions back up by making people come into the office at threat of firing. If green energy, green materials, or sustainable practices offend established sensibilities in the same way, why would they take root?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
the_doctah 3y ago
You linked a wikipedia reference section about climate change, suggesting people need to argue those points, and then immediately devolved into doomsaying with a theoretical war with refugees after theoretical "massive" climate-change-caused disasters.
- komali2 3y ago
  I demonstrated that in order to dispute human-caused climate change, someone certainly has their homework set out for them! :) Then I shared why many of my generation don't believe we can turn away from this, not because of our technology, but because of our sociology, our politics. Similar to how people believe AI will "free people from labor" despite improvements in technology almost never reducing labor loads but instead just getting people fired.
  - the_doctah 3y ago
    Remember when the ozone layer was what everyone was freaking out about? How'd that whole thing go?
    - defrost 3y ago
      A significant portion of the world took the threat seriously. Coordinated action was taken. The risk still persists. * A significant reduction in the consumption of ozone-depleting substances (ODS) has been achieved globally since 1986. This reduction has largely been driven by the 1987 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Montreal Protocol. * The largest historical extent of the ozone hole — 28.4 million square kilometres — occurred in September 2000. This area is equivalent to almost seven times the territory of the EU. * The 2023 ozone hole has been larger compared to 2022. https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/topics/in-depth/climate-change-mitigation-reducing-emissions/current-state-of-the-ozone-layer https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/topics/in-depth/climate-change-... You can answer your own rhetoricals you know.
      - the_doctah 3y ago
        I'm just helping you to realize these problems are in fact solvable and the wild disaster predictions aren't exactly productive.
        FrustratedMonky 3y ago
        That is a fine line to walk. Since a lot of people that say it is 'solvable', and we'll 'adapt', seem to also be the same people saying we don't need to do anything, or argue against 'solving' the problem. Actually trying to block solutions. It goes like this, 'the problem is solvable', 'so we don't need to try and solve it'. Basically arguing for kicking the can down the road. 'Surely someone will solve this, so I don't have to, and furthermore, I'd really appreciate not being bothered with this anymore.'
forgotmyinfo 3y ago
Now? Read any comment section about climate change here, and a solid portion are just covert denial or people looking down on science and scientists. Some of it is people thinking they're smarter than they are, some of it is cognitive dissonance, and some of it is selfishness, because tackling climate change probably involves limiting some of the wanton excess that the capital class (or aspiring capital class) desperately craves.
add-sub-mul-div 3y ago
> we had a huge reduction in emissions lain at our doorstep by COVID Before covid I lived in a city and took public transportation every day. Now that I work from home I live in the suburbs and I drive every day. Projecting WFH as the solution for every problem is silly.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

the_doctah 3y ago

You linked a wikipedia reference section about climate change, suggesting people need to argue those points, and then immediately devolved into doomsaying with a theoretical war with refugees after theoretical "massive" climate-change-caused disasters.

komali2 3y ago
I demonstrated that in order to dispute human-caused climate change, someone certainly has their homework set out for them! :) Then I shared why many of my generation don't believe we can turn away from this, not because of our technology, but because of our sociology, our politics. Similar to how people believe AI will "free people from labor" despite improvements in technology almost never reducing labor loads but instead just getting people fired.
- the_doctah 3y ago
  Remember when the ozone layer was what everyone was freaking out about? How'd that whole thing go?
  - defrost 3y ago
    A significant portion of the world took the threat seriously. Coordinated action was taken. The risk still persists. * A significant reduction in the consumption of ozone-depleting substances (ODS) has been achieved globally since 1986. This reduction has largely been driven by the 1987 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Montreal Protocol. * The largest historical extent of the ozone hole — 28.4 million square kilometres — occurred in September 2000. This area is equivalent to almost seven times the territory of the EU. * The 2023 ozone hole has been larger compared to 2022. https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/topics/in-depth/climate-change-mitigation-reducing-emissions/current-state-of-the-ozone-layer https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/topics/in-depth/climate-change-... You can answer your own rhetoricals you know.
    - the_doctah 3y ago
      I'm just helping you to realize these problems are in fact solvable and the wild disaster predictions aren't exactly productive.
      - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
        That is a fine line to walk. Since a lot of people that say it is 'solvable', and we'll 'adapt', seem to also be the same people saying we don't need to do anything, or argue against 'solving' the problem. Actually trying to block solutions. It goes like this, 'the problem is solvable', 'so we don't need to try and solve it'. Basically arguing for kicking the can down the road. 'Surely someone will solve this, so I don't have to, and furthermore, I'd really appreciate not being bothered with this anymore.'

forgotmyinfo 3y ago

Now? Read any comment section about climate change here, and a solid portion are just covert denial or people looking down on science and scientists. Some of it is people thinking they're smarter than they are, some of it is cognitive dissonance, and some of it is selfishness, because tackling climate change probably involves limiting some of the wanton excess that the capital class (or aspiring capital class) desperately craves.

add-sub-mul-div 3y ago

> we had a huge reduction in emissions lain at our doorstep by COVID Before covid I lived in a city and took public transportation every day. Now that I work from home I live in the suburbs and I drive every day. Projecting WFH as the solution for every problem is silly.