Where Glaciers Melt, the Rivers Run Red(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Where Glaciers Melt, the Rivers Run Red
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/19/science/peru-glaciers-water-pollution.html
85 comments
The election cycle, at least in a small part a function of a human’s expected life span btw, is way too short for governments to be incentivized to do anything about it.
It’s going to be a wild ride for our grandchildren.
It’s going to be a wild ride for our grandchildren.
Meanwhile the most popular politician in Belgium claims that climate activists are overly dramatic and that we should trust technology to save us. Just great.
Which is a inherently insane argument, to trust on the exploration of a labyrinth (research) to uncover ever more powerful hot potatoes, to save you from the hot potatoes you already juggle with. One missed juggling motion and you are stuck in a position you are unlikely to get out of because the failure to juggle reveals the original tribal societies inability to hold it together and propel a scientific society under stress.
That has been humanity forever now though
> we should trust technology to save us
I'd be curious about the actual stats, but I have the feeling it's a widely shared point of view, even in educated circles.
The alternative option which is consuming less in order to pollute less is pretty unpopular.
I'd be curious about the actual stats, but I have the feeling it's a widely shared point of view, even in educated circles.
The alternative option which is consuming less in order to pollute less is pretty unpopular.
It might be able to but that would require getting rid of cheap sources of energy and manufacturing which the deck is stacked so hard against it will never happen. Before humanity will do anything we have to get rid of the current ruling autocracy since acting now would create pain over time, acting later would create pain when most people alive are dead. And maybe put the environment before profits, same problem though.
The problem is that the technology is already ninety percent there, but replacing energy infrastructure costs money. The time of waiting for technology is long over, we know what we need to build, we just have to do it.
There are also a lot of peoples who’s wealth comes from continuing the way things are, and changing over to greener technologies would mean they might end up less wealthy
> The alternative option which is consuming less in order to pollute less is pretty unpopular.
If you frame the problem like that, does it actually surprise you that no one will act on it? One has to either freeze or feel guilty of some kind of moral failing about the heat one consumes?
You might say: No, no, the problem is not consumption, it's the superfluous part of the consumption, the overconsumption that's the problem. Okay, but, then, who exactly stands in judgment of which part of the consumption is the overconsumption? The same moralising types who bemoan the melting of the glaciers?
Reminds me a bit of pre-enlightenment Europe and its juxtaposition of power and catholic moralising guilttripping. What's needed is a humanistic way forward, a way wherein man gets to fundamentally be the hero of the story.
If you come to me and say: Here is a way to reconfigure the economy through technological, economic, and political change, to make it so that one can feel good about consumption again, then I will go to hell and back to make that change happen. If you just tell me "consume less", then don't expect me to do anything.
If you frame the problem like that, does it actually surprise you that no one will act on it? One has to either freeze or feel guilty of some kind of moral failing about the heat one consumes?
You might say: No, no, the problem is not consumption, it's the superfluous part of the consumption, the overconsumption that's the problem. Okay, but, then, who exactly stands in judgment of which part of the consumption is the overconsumption? The same moralising types who bemoan the melting of the glaciers?
Reminds me a bit of pre-enlightenment Europe and its juxtaposition of power and catholic moralising guilttripping. What's needed is a humanistic way forward, a way wherein man gets to fundamentally be the hero of the story.
If you come to me and say: Here is a way to reconfigure the economy through technological, economic, and political change, to make it so that one can feel good about consumption again, then I will go to hell and back to make that change happen. If you just tell me "consume less", then don't expect me to do anything.
Ok, understood. I'm now telling you: "Here is a way to reconfigure the economy through technological, economic, and political change, to make it so that one can feel good about consumption again, then I will go to hell and back to make that change happen".
Just don't spend too much time in hell, we need you to act here :-)
Just don't spend too much time in hell, we need you to act here :-)
Hum... I noticed you aren't telling the actual way.
Name checks out
I have no idea what you're trying to say.
I would presume:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakhanovite_movement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakhanovite_movement
Correct
...and, now I'd like to hear the part of the argument that's not ad-hominem, not a non-sequitur, and not strawmanning my supposed position.
I mean at this point we’re likely looking at the dreaded 2C scenario even if we ceased all carbon emissions and regressed back to the stone age immediately, which obviously isn’t going to happen because I really like my hot showers.
We’ve been using technology to solve our problems for thousands of years. If that streak stops now, we’re royally fucked.
We’ve been using technology to solve our problems for thousands of years. If that streak stops now, we’re royally fucked.
Seriously, given the way that globally we keep exceeding worst-case predictions... no, we are not looking at 2ºC.
Very seriously, without hyperbole, without exaggeration, we are looking at twice that by the end of the century.
Forget 2º. Think 4º in the lifetime of children alive today.
Next century, we are looking at 6-7º C or more. Possibly as soon as early 22nd century, maybe sooner. We are currently heading for 10ºC increase.
https://medium.com/@samyoureyes/the-busy-workers-handbook-to...
I can't tell you in ºF. I am 57 years old and they stopped teaching that in schools before I was in primary schools where I have lived all my life (Europe and Africa).
Very seriously, without hyperbole, without exaggeration, we are looking at twice that by the end of the century.
Forget 2º. Think 4º in the lifetime of children alive today.
Next century, we are looking at 6-7º C or more. Possibly as soon as early 22nd century, maybe sooner. We are currently heading for 10ºC increase.
https://medium.com/@samyoureyes/the-busy-workers-handbook-to...
I can't tell you in ºF. I am 57 years old and they stopped teaching that in schools before I was in primary schools where I have lived all my life (Europe and Africa).
Yeah, also here I've seen commenters having faith that "some technology will come along and save us!".
It's a different sort of "climate denial"[1].
OK, my faith that we're totally fucked is also based on guesstimate, just in the opposite direction (it can be viewed as a denial of the idea that there's something we can do to rescue this extravagantly luxurious modern life).
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/20/...
It's a different sort of "climate denial"[1].
OK, my faith that we're totally fucked is also based on guesstimate, just in the opposite direction (it can be viewed as a denial of the idea that there's something we can do to rescue this extravagantly luxurious modern life).
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/20/...
What is it to have no faith in humans to make shared sacrifice on a global scale, but at least some hope in mitigation technologies?
Fucking Bart, if that guy kicked the bucket everyone would be better off...
who is the most popular ? BdW ? JLB ?
Delusion is always an easier sell than hard work.
Who is this so if I move to Belgium I turn the TV off when they come on it?
In general very small part of population will choose certain suffering now to avoid uncertain suffering in future.
Actively doing enough against climate change will have very real and likely significant quality of life change now. And if lot of people don't think their quality of life is high enough now, why would they want it to go lower. And sadly rich are always insulated either way.
Actively doing enough against climate change will have very real and likely significant quality of life change now. And if lot of people don't think their quality of life is high enough now, why would they want it to go lower. And sadly rich are always insulated either way.
It's not that they know they're sacrificing their grandchildrens' future for their current quality of life. It's that they'll believe the flimsiest arguments that climate change isn't happening. Cognitive dissonance is undefeated.
They truly won't be. global supply lines will probably be the first casualties that will trigger mainstream realization, and however deep your Hawaiian bunker is, feeding your plumber without those will be difficult.
That's probably why they want AGI and robotics.
AGI and robotics will have the worst supply situation. They depend on expensive GPUs and complicated machinery from across the world.
It’s going to be a wild ride for anyone under fifty.
This makes me wonder if society would be improved by radical life-extension therapies or technologies. Detractors generally say it would result in stagnation, but at least people would have a very good incentive to think long-term if they knew they had a good chance of still being alive in 200 or 1000 years and having to deal with the long-term effects of current policy.
That incentivizes not so much long-term thinking as the politics of the permanent stagnation bunker. You'd get a caste of mortal disposable workers who live in the flood plains, working for a tiny group of immortals who have locked down the top positions and made themselves effective rulers for life.
Think Japanese stagflation but for centuries. Reiwa era 200.
Think Japanese stagflation but for centuries. Reiwa era 200.
This seems to assume that only the very richest people would have access to life-extension technologies.
This makes about as much sense to me as the idea that only the very richest people have access to computers, telecommunications, and software.
This makes about as much sense to me as the idea that only the very richest people have access to computers, telecommunications, and software.
I think it would also allow "careers" to detach from mistakes like papers published on the wrong side of a paradigm as "junior" mistakes.
To play the devil's advocate, imagine if politicians (US senators / House members) could live for and hold their positions for a thousand years... I don't know if that is a good thing.
Or Xi of Mainland China...
Or Xi of Mainland China...
>could live for and hold their positions for a thousand years... I don't know if that is a good thing.
I think it's a good thing: if the people continue to elect them, then obviously the people want those politicians to continue representing them for that long. Why should they be deprived of that? Objecting to this seems like objecting to democracy.
If this produces bad results long-term, that's the fault of the voters. Democratic systems are only as good as the voters who choose its leaders. When the voters are idiots, you get bad leaders. If the people don't like their 1000-year-old senator, they should vote for someone else. As we've seen in the USA, people don't have much trouble voting for a new President when they're mad at the current one for whatever reason (and the US also switched many seats in Congress in that same election).
>Or Xi of Mainland China...
Unfortunately, that's a possibility too, but by the same token, if Deng Xiaoping had been immortal, he could have stayed in that position and Xi might never have gained power and things in China (and worldwide in things related to China) would be a lot better right now.
Basically, your objection is one I usually see raised when the idea of immortality or radical life-extension comes up, but I honestly don't see how it'd be that much different either way.
I think it's a good thing: if the people continue to elect them, then obviously the people want those politicians to continue representing them for that long. Why should they be deprived of that? Objecting to this seems like objecting to democracy.
If this produces bad results long-term, that's the fault of the voters. Democratic systems are only as good as the voters who choose its leaders. When the voters are idiots, you get bad leaders. If the people don't like their 1000-year-old senator, they should vote for someone else. As we've seen in the USA, people don't have much trouble voting for a new President when they're mad at the current one for whatever reason (and the US also switched many seats in Congress in that same election).
>Or Xi of Mainland China...
Unfortunately, that's a possibility too, but by the same token, if Deng Xiaoping had been immortal, he could have stayed in that position and Xi might never have gained power and things in China (and worldwide in things related to China) would be a lot better right now.
Basically, your objection is one I usually see raised when the idea of immortality or radical life-extension comes up, but I honestly don't see how it'd be that much different either way.
Birth rates are dropping faster than predicted, which means both fewer grandchildren to suffer and fewer grandchildren to produce carbon. A lot of environmental issues just go away with fewer people around. We'll have to adapt the current ponzi scheme of government pensions but that seems a small price to pay.
https://x.com/_alice_evans/status/1849668492951220483
https://x.com/_alice_evans/status/1849668492951220483
This just means less people to handle the consequences of the last two decades of reckless exponential growth. It'll matter for their grandchildren, maybe.
Not quite. A big issue with global warming is we have been taking carbon out of the ground and putting it into the atmosphere. We have the technology to stop doing that, but not the technology to capture carbon already in the atmosphere. Fewer people means more vegetation that will capture some of that carbon.
While I agree this works (we have very good evidence in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event), the timescales for that to matter are two orders of magnitude too long assuming we figure out the scale and genetics.
These are all natural cycles, noooothing to worry about... :-/
(Sorry, sarcasm... I've had immense battles with deniers...)
(Sorry, sarcasm... I've had immense battles with deniers...)
We are going to be THAT generation that dropped the ball.
Assuming that the government is to a large part motivated by the electorate. Some governments certainly aren’t (e.g. the US).
Enough people run for office who want to do something about climate change. But a plurality of the population seems to be mainly concerned with being angry about immigrants and wanting lower taxes.
Food riots is a thing. It is hard to govern when everyone is upset that it costs too much to live. To do something about climate change we need to do somethings 10 times worse than the pandemic for 10 years. No more visiting grandma who lives 5 hours away.
If you are interested in a prescient look at how climate change will impact geopolitics:
https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Wars-Fight-Survival-Overheats...
The author intersperses nonfiction summaries (from 2011, so a bit dated) with fictional accounts of geopolitical conflict.
Super scary but eye opening.
https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Wars-Fight-Survival-Overheats...
The author intersperses nonfiction summaries (from 2011, so a bit dated) with fictional accounts of geopolitical conflict.
Super scary but eye opening.
A bit more recent. Soylent Green was set in the year 2022, and was about how humans and climate killed the ocean as the world's largest food source. In the film, they are always sweating and it's 90 degrees F at night.
We won't save ourselves.
It's just not cost effective to do so.
It's just not cost effective to do so.
They are shrinking at an alarming rate here in Iceland as well. This is causing sandstorms and possibly increased volcanic activity.
Y'all need to get some trees planted to stabilise the soil. I know some people in Iceland are attempting to do that.
There's been plenty of effort put into that but it's not easy. Iceland is very windy and the temperature fluctuates a lot but the main problem is the sheep which are allowed to run around where they like.
It's also difficult to find good places to plant them. We don't want to destroy moors and wetlands that bind more CO2 than trees ever will or the bird habitats.
It's also difficult to find good places to plant them. We don't want to destroy moors and wetlands that bind more CO2 than trees ever will or the bird habitats.
It is the end of the recent ice age, those glaciers are set to melt anyway. With human contribution they melted slightly faster.
We should be at the end of the current inter-glacial, temperatures should be going down, not up and glaciers should be growing, not shrinking. If you are talking about the Wurm/Winsconsin glaciation, it has been pretty much over for 12000 years and the climate has been pretty stable since.
Sure seems like we ought to be more aggressive about this whole anthropogenic climate collapse problem
Like maybe problems like vast swaths of the world becoming both less livable and less arable all at once is somewhat to blame for all the refugee crises?
Not to be "political" or whatever
Like maybe problems like vast swaths of the world becoming both less livable and less arable all at once is somewhat to blame for all the refugee crises?
Not to be "political" or whatever
Just wait for the refugee crises yet to come. We have seen nothing so far.
This is a human problem, nobody bothers until they face the issue.
My expectation would be that unfortunately after a certain point it would stop being a refugee crisis and start being a border enforcement crisis. I personally expect things to get quite ugly once the temp difference hits a more significant value.
Yes, it sure seems it could go that way.
https://archive.is/QO7jd
An aside:
Why bother submitting paywalled articles? Why bother upvoting paywalled articles? > 95% of readers probably don't have access.
Not being facetious, I genuinely want to know. Do people upvote without reading? Will almost everyone take the effort to throw the link into a paywall buster? Do many HN readers subscribe to paywalled sources?
An aside:
Why bother submitting paywalled articles? Why bother upvoting paywalled articles? > 95% of readers probably don't have access.
Not being facetious, I genuinely want to know. Do people upvote without reading? Will almost everyone take the effort to throw the link into a paywall buster? Do many HN readers subscribe to paywalled sources?
99% of the time the top comment is an archive link.
FWIW it wasn't pay walled here. I just had to press "Show full article" and could read on. Perhaps it's based on geo location (I'm not their market) or how much one's read them lately?
If you google "Where Glaciers Melt, the Rivers Run Red" the first hit is the nyt article, if you click on this link you'll find the article non-paywalled!
Edit: if it doesn't work try again in a private/incognito tab to make sure it's all fresh cookies
So depending on the http-origin header the article is paywalled or not.
This is a trick I always use, it works for many newspapers.
Edit: if it doesn't work try again in a private/incognito tab to make sure it's all fresh cookies
So depending on the http-origin header the article is paywalled or not.
This is a trick I always use, it works for many newspapers.
Nope, I still get the paywall. I noticed this for some time, the trick to go "Incognito" does not work any more for some sites.
It's not a big deal, I can use the archive link or just not read it, all those articles are merely of the "mildly interesting" category anyway. Not to mention that they are 90+% fluff and the core message could usually be summarized with a few sentences.
I am curious though, given that this is HN, does anyone know how they are doing that paywall tracking these days? It is not just NYT where the fresh incognito window no longer works to get around the restriction. Washington Post too, for example, at least for me.
It's not a big deal, I can use the archive link or just not read it, all those articles are merely of the "mildly interesting" category anyway. Not to mention that they are 90+% fluff and the core message could usually be summarized with a few sentences.
I am curious though, given that this is HN, does anyone know how they are doing that paywall tracking these days? It is not just NYT where the fresh incognito window no longer works to get around the restriction. Washington Post too, for example, at least for me.
Oh right, that actually makes a lot of sense, thanks..!
I was prompted to create a free account to keep reading.
For me (NYT non-subscriber, US, blocking most js), only the first 4 paragraphs are visible. That's fairly common for web sites to do (# of visible paragraphs varies, obviously). And usually shows enough to convince me that the article is worth no more of my time.
I share your annoyance. I've convinced that the sites themselves are doing this to attract subscribers.
Every time anyone complains you get the backlash of "if you want good journalism you have to pay for it", yet few can afford to subscribe to more than one or two publications and yet we have to suffer paywalled links from all of them. For me, the one UK publication I pay for is enough (and that one is, ironically, not even paywalled).
Every time anyone complains you get the backlash of "if you want good journalism you have to pay for it", yet few can afford to subscribe to more than one or two publications and yet we have to suffer paywalled links from all of them. For me, the one UK publication I pay for is enough (and that one is, ironically, not even paywalled).
It's a distribution and friction problem.
We solved it for music. We need the same for journalism.
Microtransactions never took off, so that leaves one option: journalism companies need to stop having their own websites and instead publish to an aggregator (or aggregators) that handle payment and monetization. Spotify or Netflix for news.
But perhaps that would turn them into an even lower margin business with no ownership of their own audience relationship. Doesn't seem like a fun business to be in.
Nevertheless, it's still a distribution and friction problem.
We solved it for music. We need the same for journalism.
Microtransactions never took off, so that leaves one option: journalism companies need to stop having their own websites and instead publish to an aggregator (or aggregators) that handle payment and monetization. Spotify or Netflix for news.
But perhaps that would turn them into an even lower margin business with no ownership of their own audience relationship. Doesn't seem like a fun business to be in.
Nevertheless, it's still a distribution and friction problem.
Apple News+ is kind of that, but has the basic issue that paid articles are still stuffed with ads, which makes it pretty pointless.
The model does not work. Nobody wants to subscribe to read one article in a blue moon, so we "pirate" it using archival sites. Piracy gave us DRM and streaming, archival will give us something new eventually, when they realize it doesn't work.
That already happened, except Reddit, Facebook, and Hacker News don't pay for the content they aggregate. People dodge paywalls in the comments, and many don't even bother to read the story. What would a paid solution offer over that?
My cool idea would be an aggregator that charges people a subscription fee to participate and read stories. $100/month and extremely heavy (paid) moderation that forces people to engage with the articles. The price point helps get rid of anyone who is unwilling to participate constructively. Revenue-sharing for commenters as well.
Make it the place where real discussions happen. People are social creatures and want to join exclusive clubs.
My cool idea would be an aggregator that charges people a subscription fee to participate and read stories. $100/month and extremely heavy (paid) moderation that forces people to engage with the articles. The price point helps get rid of anyone who is unwilling to participate constructively. Revenue-sharing for commenters as well.
Make it the place where real discussions happen. People are social creatures and want to join exclusive clubs.
> Why bother submitting paywalled articles?
They are explicitly permitted, as long as there are workarounds.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html#:~:text=Are%20payw...
Though I wish submitters would provide the workaround (or gift link) too when submitting (I try to do so). It’s often someone else who does it. Though in fairness I guess someone may forget something is paywalled when they’re paying for it and have access.
They are explicitly permitted, as long as there are workarounds.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html#:~:text=Are%20payw...
Though I wish submitters would provide the workaround (or gift link) too when submitting (I try to do so). It’s often someone else who does it. Though in fairness I guess someone may forget something is paywalled when they’re paying for it and have access.
If people just marked the title with a (paywall) it would already be an improvement.
Sounds like that should be done automatically, like HN auto adds [pdf] or [video] for certain URLs. You can suggest [paywall] by emailing [email protected].
Save yourself the angst and give this userscript[1] a go. It adds some nice quality of life improvements for posts that link to paywalled articles.
[1] https://github.com/MostlyEmre/hn-anti-paywall
[1] https://github.com/MostlyEmre/hn-anti-paywall
I subscribe to 4-5 paywalled sources. Rest, I rely on others to give me the archive links.
Available without paywall https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/where-glaciers-melt-river...
So upriver ph guard station with lime? and methan flaming of drones?
A glacier that normally melts a meter in thickness each year and gains it back during winter, has melted 4 meters.
We've lost 20 glaciers here the last decade.
It's scary.
https://www.nrk.no/klima/breforsker-sjokkert-over-hvor-mye-i...