5 ms·

You know I hear people say stuff like this a lot. Big catastrophe and we need major changes. But then I don’t see many studying Chinese so they can help negotia

You know I hear people say stuff like this a lot. Big catastrophe and we need major changes. But then I don’t see many studying Chinese so they can help negotiate a global treaty. Or working on effective propaganda to convince the public that nuclear is good. Instead I see a lot of reusable totes, compost bins, and other virtue signaling trivialities. So what should I believe, what people say or what they do?

js8 2y ago
Because Chinese are already ahead of almost everyone in terms of emission reductions and nuclear won't solve anything. That's why you don't see people involved in these activities.
- plemer 2y ago
  Why couldn’t nuclear solve anything?
  - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
    Nuclear is a red herring. It takes way to long and is way too expensive. Keep bringing solar and wind online, and if your nuclear plant ever gets finished, that will be nice too.
    - graemep 2y ago
      > . Keep bringing solar and wind online What happens if you get an extended period of low winds? Cloudy weather? You need a LOT of extra capacity and storage.
  - wdh505 2y ago
    Successful fossil fuel propaganda given 10+ years to build and a single political cycle across that time to keep it closed before ever being "turned on". - source happened to my relatives grids a few times, and they got pretty cynical to the "tax" imposed to get nuclear then no nuclear.
  - js8 2y ago
    I don't think there is enough nuclear fuel for everyone to significantly (more than several times than today) run on nuclear. Yes, there are these breeder ideas, but it's not mature. So (aside from capital costs) it will generate only a relatively small portion of total electricity consumption.
- d0mine 2y ago
  China plans to quadruple their nuclear output from ~50GW (~5% of total) to 200GW by 2030 and even more later 1400GW by 2100. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China
- graemep 2y ago
  Because they want to reduce their reliance on Middle Eastern oil that can be easily blockaded in the event of a war with the US. I think that sets the pattern for emissions reactions: they will happen when people have other reasons to do it as an incidental benefit.
  - js8 2y ago
    No, they are ahead for far simpler reasons - China is going to be extremely affected by climate change due to its geography, and they don't share our irrational belief in the free market. They also don't have fossil fuel incumbents manipulating the public opinion.
MattGaiser 2y ago
Plenty of people already speak Chinese in Western countries and plenty of Chinese speak English, so want of people to translate is not the problem either. And while opposition to nuclear is a challenge in a lot of areas, Canada for example has several places that already have nuclear power plants and are willing to accept more. Plans already have been drawn up. It is just considered too expensive, so it isn't happening.
mlhpdx 2y ago
YC and others could be investing in climate remediation, as the need for it is inevitable. But they aren’t. Elvis had it right: > A little less conversation, a little more action, please
raincole 2y ago
> But then I don’t see many studying Chinese so they can help negotiate a global treaty. Yeah because that's what an average citizen needs to do to participate a global treaty: studying Chinese. There are plenty of people who speak both languages. Hell, there are plenty of people who speak both languages on hackernews alone.
adrianN 2y ago
How about you believe whatever the scientific consensus is?
- financltravsty 2y ago
  Parent isn't saying he doesn't believe in it; he's saying: put your money where your mouth is if you're going to be causing such a fuss about things, and actually put energy into efforts that move the needle -- rather than continuously going on and on about actions that do so little to be more than worthless (e.g. stop oil protests blocking the roads leading to a loss in public favor, or the propaganda around recycling and personal-responsibility which adds onto concern burnout). There is a lack of creativity in climate change activism. Which does beg the question: do people actually care deeply and seriously about this issue? Or are they simply trying to assuage their personal anxieties and other neurotic personality traits? I.e., are they deeply unserious people just doing this for themselves?
  - adrianN 2y ago
    Activists are rarely in the position to introduce effective measures e.g. a carbon tax.
    - bradleyjg 2y ago
      The one true measure of every activist on any issue is effectiveness. If would-be activists are not in a position to effect meaningful change they ought to find something else to do with their time.
yongjik 2y ago
You don't need to observe people around you to know when a storm is coming. Instead you look at barometers, winds, and satellite photos. If a storm is coming and people around you are arguing about how much they should be paid for closing the shops, it doesn't mean the storm isn't coming. It just means someone will end up with broken windows.

js8 2y ago

Because Chinese are already ahead of almost everyone in terms of emission reductions and nuclear won't solve anything. That's why you don't see people involved in these activities.

plemer 2y ago
Why couldn’t nuclear solve anything?
- amanaplanacanal 2y ago
  Nuclear is a red herring. It takes way to long and is way too expensive. Keep bringing solar and wind online, and if your nuclear plant ever gets finished, that will be nice too.
  - graemep 2y ago
    > . Keep bringing solar and wind online What happens if you get an extended period of low winds? Cloudy weather? You need a LOT of extra capacity and storage.
- wdh505 2y ago
  Successful fossil fuel propaganda given 10+ years to build and a single political cycle across that time to keep it closed before ever being "turned on". - source happened to my relatives grids a few times, and they got pretty cynical to the "tax" imposed to get nuclear then no nuclear.
- js8 2y ago
  I don't think there is enough nuclear fuel for everyone to significantly (more than several times than today) run on nuclear. Yes, there are these breeder ideas, but it's not mature. So (aside from capital costs) it will generate only a relatively small portion of total electricity consumption.
d0mine 2y ago
China plans to quadruple their nuclear output from ~50GW (~5% of total) to 200GW by 2030 and even more later 1400GW by 2100. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China
graemep 2y ago
Because they want to reduce their reliance on Middle Eastern oil that can be easily blockaded in the event of a war with the US. I think that sets the pattern for emissions reactions: they will happen when people have other reasons to do it as an incidental benefit.
- js8 2y ago
  No, they are ahead for far simpler reasons - China is going to be extremely affected by climate change due to its geography, and they don't share our irrational belief in the free market. They also don't have fossil fuel incumbents manipulating the public opinion.

MattGaiser 2y ago

Plenty of people already speak Chinese in Western countries and plenty of Chinese speak English, so want of people to translate is not the problem either. And while opposition to nuclear is a challenge in a lot of areas, Canada for example has several places that already have nuclear power plants and are willing to accept more. Plans already have been drawn up. It is just considered too expensive, so it isn't happening.

mlhpdx 2y ago

YC and others could be investing in climate remediation, as the need for it is inevitable. But they aren’t. Elvis had it right: > A little less conversation, a little more action, please

raincole 2y ago

> But then I don’t see many studying Chinese so they can help negotiate a global treaty. Yeah because that's what an average citizen needs to do to participate a global treaty: studying Chinese. There are plenty of people who speak both languages. Hell, there are plenty of people who speak both languages on hackernews alone.

adrianN 2y ago

How about you believe whatever the scientific consensus is?

financltravsty 2y ago
Parent isn't saying he doesn't believe in it; he's saying: put your money where your mouth is if you're going to be causing such a fuss about things, and actually put energy into efforts that move the needle -- rather than continuously going on and on about actions that do so little to be more than worthless (e.g. stop oil protests blocking the roads leading to a loss in public favor, or the propaganda around recycling and personal-responsibility which adds onto concern burnout). There is a lack of creativity in climate change activism. Which does beg the question: do people actually care deeply and seriously about this issue? Or are they simply trying to assuage their personal anxieties and other neurotic personality traits? I.e., are they deeply unserious people just doing this for themselves?
- adrianN 2y ago
  Activists are rarely in the position to introduce effective measures e.g. a carbon tax.
  - bradleyjg 2y ago
    The one true measure of every activist on any issue is effectiveness. If would-be activists are not in a position to effect meaningful change they ought to find something else to do with their time.

yongjik 2y ago

You don't need to observe people around you to know when a storm is coming. Instead you look at barometers, winds, and satellite photos. If a storm is coming and people around you are arguing about how much they should be paid for closing the shops, it doesn't mean the storm isn't coming. It just means someone will end up with broken windows.