Antarctica: Ice shelves shrinking 'with no sign of recovery(dw.com)
dw.com
Antarctica: Ice shelves shrinking 'with no sign of recovery
https://www.dw.com/en/antarctica-ice-shelves-shrinking-with-no-sign-of-recovery/a-67084109
148 comments
The UK government has just stopped off-shore wind turbine growth for the next decade, delayed their ban on internal combustion engine cars another five years, cancelled the High Speed 2 (HS2) railway extension and said they’ll put that money into roads instead.
Great.
Great.
It is unfortunate, but there are paths to success without UK policy encouraging it. Viking Link [1], a 1.4GW electrical interconnector between Great Britain and Denmark, comes online by end of year (it has already been added as an asset in the ENTSO-E electrical market transparency platform). At the same time, their last coal fired generator [Drax North Yorkshire] will be retired within the next year [2] (I emailed Drax to get a rough closure date, reply pending). Less than a million vehicles a year are built in the UK and about 2 million vehicles a year are sold in their market, compared to a global market of ~80M units/year. Importantly, those coal generators need to be demolished as soon as possible after decommissioning to prevent turning them back on (advocacy call to action: if you live near a decommissioned coal generator, push to have it demo'd unless there are very firm plans to convert them to high efficiency fossil gas generation).
Therefore, you would only need to find economic linchpins or similar points of leverage in the UKs fossil gas supply, automative supply chain and marketplace, and petroleum supplies to force a more rapid transition despite neglected policy. The rest of the global market will drag the UK, as California does in the US with regards to automative fuel efficiency standards.
A successful EV future depends on the continuing rapid expansion globally by Tesla and BYD [3] (as well as smaller players of course, if they can ramp expeditiously), not politicians or older constituents who could not care less about a future they won't exist in.
(also important is deploying as much inexpensive low carbon energy generation as possible as fast as possible, but is a topic for another thread [4])
[1] https://www.viking-link.com/
[2] https://www.drax.com/press_release/drax-ends-half-a-century-...
[3] https://www.statista.com/chart/30758/most-popular-plug-in-el...
[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37502924
Therefore, you would only need to find economic linchpins or similar points of leverage in the UKs fossil gas supply, automative supply chain and marketplace, and petroleum supplies to force a more rapid transition despite neglected policy. The rest of the global market will drag the UK, as California does in the US with regards to automative fuel efficiency standards.
A successful EV future depends on the continuing rapid expansion globally by Tesla and BYD [3] (as well as smaller players of course, if they can ramp expeditiously), not politicians or older constituents who could not care less about a future they won't exist in.
(also important is deploying as much inexpensive low carbon energy generation as possible as fast as possible, but is a topic for another thread [4])
[1] https://www.viking-link.com/
[2] https://www.drax.com/press_release/drax-ends-half-a-century-...
[3] https://www.statista.com/chart/30758/most-popular-plug-in-el...
[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37502924
>The UK government has just stopped off-shore wind turbine growth for the next decade
Any links? Last time I check they have huge amount of work going on in that area.
Any links? Last time I check they have huge amount of work going on in that area.
(I can't find where I got "decade" into my head). They didn't announce a policy change on the matter, but they have auctions for companies to bid for guaranteed electricity prices every couple of years, the most recent one this year. The government were warned that their guaranteed price is too low considering recent inflation and supply chain increases and no bids were expected for offshore wind power, they did nothing, no companies bid in the last auction, so there won't be any new offshore wind power built this round. The next auction date doesn't seem to be announced, there is an announcement that they might become annual so it could be next year. (Having companies' offshore skills idle the next year or two seems likely to lead to knock-on delays if future auctions are bid for and won).
From https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66740920 - "Dan McGrail, the chief executive of industry group RenewableUK, told the BBC: "Industry has highlighted to government on several occasions that this auction has been set up in a way which is very unlikely to secure the capacity we need to stay on track to meet the government's own target of 50 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2050 [up from 13.66GW now]." and also "Labour's shadow energy secretary Ed Miliband told the BBC: "This is just the latest episode in the Tories' 13 years of failed energy policy. They broke the onshore wind market by banning it, they undermined the solar industry by removing the feed-in tariff, and they caused chaos in the home insulation market with their failed schemes."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66749344 - "the lack of offshore wind will be a blow to the pledge to deliver 50 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind by 2030 compared with 14GW today."
So you can either think that was incompetent or malicious. And when trying to decide you can look at the mentioned de-facto onshore wind power block the Tories put in since 2015 ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66715141 ) and the previously announced ban combustion cars by 2030 which they pushed back to 2035 while talking about a new ban on solar panels on farmland ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66863110 ). Or maybe their Return to Office policy ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61145692 and https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/get-back-work-office-britai... ) which.
And you can see https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-redirects-hs2-funding-... about the HS2 rail, and wonder to yourself why the "Spiralling HS2 costs" were something the government could not cope with, but the "faster journey times, increased capacity and more frequent, reliable services across rail, buses and roads" are something they will be able to deliver. When part of the HS2 plan was to move intercity trains off the local lines and freight off the roads, leading to more frequent reliable road and bus journeys. "billions to fix potholes on the country’s roads" - first, we know what causes potholes; heavy vehicles moving frieght". And this is more reliable bus journeys from the government which brought us "Buses in 'crisis' as 3,000 routes reduced or scrapped" in 2018 ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-44681974 ) and killed off 20% of bus services in the last year ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66442599 ).
From https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66740920 - "Dan McGrail, the chief executive of industry group RenewableUK, told the BBC: "Industry has highlighted to government on several occasions that this auction has been set up in a way which is very unlikely to secure the capacity we need to stay on track to meet the government's own target of 50 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2050 [up from 13.66GW now]." and also "Labour's shadow energy secretary Ed Miliband told the BBC: "This is just the latest episode in the Tories' 13 years of failed energy policy. They broke the onshore wind market by banning it, they undermined the solar industry by removing the feed-in tariff, and they caused chaos in the home insulation market with their failed schemes."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66749344 - "the lack of offshore wind will be a blow to the pledge to deliver 50 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind by 2030 compared with 14GW today."
So you can either think that was incompetent or malicious. And when trying to decide you can look at the mentioned de-facto onshore wind power block the Tories put in since 2015 ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66715141 ) and the previously announced ban combustion cars by 2030 which they pushed back to 2035 while talking about a new ban on solar panels on farmland ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66863110 ). Or maybe their Return to Office policy ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61145692 and https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/get-back-work-office-britai... ) which.
And you can see https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-redirects-hs2-funding-... about the HS2 rail, and wonder to yourself why the "Spiralling HS2 costs" were something the government could not cope with, but the "faster journey times, increased capacity and more frequent, reliable services across rail, buses and roads" are something they will be able to deliver. When part of the HS2 plan was to move intercity trains off the local lines and freight off the roads, leading to more frequent reliable road and bus journeys. "billions to fix potholes on the country’s roads" - first, we know what causes potholes; heavy vehicles moving frieght". And this is more reliable bus journeys from the government which brought us "Buses in 'crisis' as 3,000 routes reduced or scrapped" in 2018 ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-44681974 ) and killed off 20% of bus services in the last year ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66442599 ).
Interesting. I have a few friends working inside the industry and UK government on the exact issue. Will likely bring this topic up next time I meet them. Because this paints a very different picture to what I have been told.
What's the UKs storage plan for renewables? For pretty much every country building renewable, they've all been super quiet on the storage side.
I haven't heard or looked for anything, and I don't think any such technology exists at reasonable prices to do grid scale storage for an entire country (but maybe it could! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32197012 ).
Browsing around on OpenInfraMap I have seen some grid scale battery storage, e.g. https://openinframap.org/#9.74/51.6119/-2.1051/L,P,S Minety 150MW battery down as 266MWh storage capacity so there are some around.
There's independent company Octopus Energy which pays ordinary people with solar / battery / wind turbines to export energy to the grid, and if you're an interested geeky customer you can download the half-hourly pricing so you can tune your system to import cheap power and export at peak times; they do this to encourage rollout of renewables - https://octopus.energy/press/octopus-energy-doubles-payments...
Browsing around on OpenInfraMap I have seen some grid scale battery storage, e.g. https://openinframap.org/#9.74/51.6119/-2.1051/L,P,S Minety 150MW battery down as 266MWh storage capacity so there are some around.
There's independent company Octopus Energy which pays ordinary people with solar / battery / wind turbines to export energy to the grid, and if you're an interested geeky customer you can download the half-hourly pricing so you can tune your system to import cheap power and export at peak times; they do this to encourage rollout of renewables - https://octopus.energy/press/octopus-energy-doubles-payments...
Lithium batteries unfortunately aren't storage for a grid, they're...capacitors. They add buffer to stabilise the grid and allow transition between sources.
Without any form of meaningful storage (eg pumped hydro) the UK grid will be in trouble.
Without any form of meaningful storage (eg pumped hydro) the UK grid will be in trouble.
Dinorwig in Wales is pumped hydro and stores 9.1GWh
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station
Cruachan in Scotland stores 7GWh
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruachan_Power_Station
Ffestiniog in Wales stores 1.4GWh
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ffestiniog_Power_Station
Foyer at Loch Ness exists, can’t quickly see how many Wh it stores.
Coire-Glas is proposed and could double the existing electricity storage apparently, which would make it huge, but not yet approved https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-650...
Still, powering a country though a cold dim calm winter is a lot of power; the UK uses around 800GWh/day of electricity, not counting gas/energy for heating. To store a week or a month or a winter of that is not a solved problem.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station
Cruachan in Scotland stores 7GWh
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruachan_Power_Station
Ffestiniog in Wales stores 1.4GWh
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ffestiniog_Power_Station
Foyer at Loch Ness exists, can’t quickly see how many Wh it stores.
Coire-Glas is proposed and could double the existing electricity storage apparently, which would make it huge, but not yet approved https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-650...
Still, powering a country though a cold dim calm winter is a lot of power; the UK uses around 800GWh/day of electricity, not counting gas/energy for heating. To store a week or a month or a winter of that is not a solved problem.
https://www.tutorialspoint.com/difference-between-battery-an...
You are fundamentally incorrect and either do not understand what a capacitor is or are unwilling to use the correct language in an attempt to prove a point...which unfortunately undermines it. Additionally, smart grids are already capable of transitioning between sources and solar or wind with battery storage are more cost effective than fossil fuel generation today: https://cleantechnica.com/2023/04/15/wind-solar-power-now-th...
You are fundamentally incorrect and either do not understand what a capacitor is or are unwilling to use the correct language in an attempt to prove a point...which unfortunately undermines it. Additionally, smart grids are already capable of transitioning between sources and solar or wind with battery storage are more cost effective than fossil fuel generation today: https://cleantechnica.com/2023/04/15/wind-solar-power-now-th...
Sorry I should have said LIKE a capacitor in terms of function. You are correct they are not a capacitor in terms of design and function. I'd have expected people here be able to understand that.
Fundamentally, at a grid level, lithium batteries can't provide what the average person considers "storage", that is running the grid from said storage. When people hear lithium battery, they think of a phone or laptop - the battery is the sole source of power for 6-12 hours.
On a grid however, lithium batteries provide very short duration stabilisation from "noisy" supply, absorb spikes in generation and boost troughs.
You cannot cost effectivly power the grid from lithium batteries on a still night. Pumped hydro etc are needed to cover prolonged periods of low supply (and absorb prolonged periods of oversupply).
Fundamentally, at a grid level, lithium batteries can't provide what the average person considers "storage", that is running the grid from said storage. When people hear lithium battery, they think of a phone or laptop - the battery is the sole source of power for 6-12 hours.
On a grid however, lithium batteries provide very short duration stabilisation from "noisy" supply, absorb spikes in generation and boost troughs.
You cannot cost effectivly power the grid from lithium batteries on a still night. Pumped hydro etc are needed to cover prolonged periods of low supply (and absorb prolonged periods of oversupply).
Is this really what we want? Is this really going to work? What will be the consequences? Have they been discussed?
2030-2049 all remaining airports close all shipping declines to zero, no flying for 2050, and after electric planes may fly.
https://i.imgur.com/hLJAqGQ.png
2030-2049 all remaining airports close all shipping declines to zero, no flying for 2050, and after electric planes may fly.
https://i.imgur.com/hLJAqGQ.png
Populism at work, no surprise since Brexit was tze same thing.
Tories are a disgusting bunch, they found out being against ULEZ was a vote winner so now they've gone "We love cars!", naked manouvering in hopes of winning those votes and staying in power.
Just like Brexit, the fuckwit Goehring but dumb Nigel Farage was going to steal Tory votes, so dumb dumb Cameron promised the Brexit vote to keep those votes. And he was too chickenshit to ignore the results of the referendum although the government was allowed to do so (again, for the price of electoral annihilation).
Just like Brexit, the fuckwit Goehring but dumb Nigel Farage was going to steal Tory votes, so dumb dumb Cameron promised the Brexit vote to keep those votes. And he was too chickenshit to ignore the results of the referendum although the government was allowed to do so (again, for the price of electoral annihilation).
They had a super easy way out of it: another referendum voting for options, or a referendum on any deal. Nobody could agree on what leaving meant and giving the choice to the electorate would have a) been more democratic and b) probably have kept the UK in the EU as every other option got discussed.
>The UK government has just stopped off-shore wind turbine growth for the next decade
surely the power companies can just build them if wind is so cheap
surely the power companies can just build them if wind is so cheap
You need permitting to do anything in a developed country.
Power companies won’t build anything unless the government guarantees them a profit. Privatise the profit, socialise the losses. Yay capitalism, right?
I think many people care, but these same people have to work and feed their families. They have to care about climate change more than they care about those things for them to change.
Fixing Climate Change needs to be like the World War II Mobilization Effort. Nothing short of that will fix anything.
For example, I am currently homeless living in a minivan. I know my carbon footprint is way lower than most people. (Solar for my power, no heat, no ac, etc). But I would love to live in a tiny house close to town with solar. But no one will build them, and they can't even build them because of all the regulations.
And then you have people who would be against all this because they think their "freedom" is worth more than children's future.
So I am left being a positive nihilist. I know it will all fail but I act the way I do because it is the right thing to do.
Fixing Climate Change needs to be like the World War II Mobilization Effort. Nothing short of that will fix anything.
For example, I am currently homeless living in a minivan. I know my carbon footprint is way lower than most people. (Solar for my power, no heat, no ac, etc). But I would love to live in a tiny house close to town with solar. But no one will build them, and they can't even build them because of all the regulations.
And then you have people who would be against all this because they think their "freedom" is worth more than children's future.
So I am left being a positive nihilist. I know it will all fail but I act the way I do because it is the right thing to do.
> violence (in the short term) is the only thing that can stop the car going over the cliff.
nah that’s just what ideologues say because they care more about their top-down control agenda. If climate change was fixed tomorrow, they’d be disappointed because they wouldn’t be able to exact control over others in the name of climate concern.
Plant more trees. Invest in renewables.
nah that’s just what ideologues say because they care more about their top-down control agenda. If climate change was fixed tomorrow, they’d be disappointed because they wouldn’t be able to exact control over others in the name of climate concern.
Plant more trees. Invest in renewables.
> Plant more trees. Invest in renewables.
I do not know how people can be convinced those things will do anything to mitigate the changes we are seeing and will see for years even if we stop all carbon output now.
What his needed is shame, for people to be shamed, but we have no religion anymore so no one cares about shame.
I do not know how people can be convinced those things will do anything to mitigate the changes we are seeing and will see for years even if we stop all carbon output now.
What his needed is shame, for people to be shamed, but we have no religion anymore so no one cares about shame.
Nah, leave shaming in the era of the Salem witch trials. We don't need that. Here's what we need:
- global amount of co2 emissions per year
https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissi.... - average co2 sequestered per tree - 25-45 kg depending on species (google for estimates)
https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2015/03/17/power-one-tree-ve... 37 billion metric tons / 25 kg = ~1.48 trillion
Amount of land available for reforestation as of 2019 is enough for 1.2 trillion native saplings.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aax0848
Given the above, we could plant this many trees in a year or two if we really tried. Couple that effort with more renewables, more investment into fusion and co2 sequestration machines, more electric cars, etc, and it's taken care of. I would question the character of any person who wants to be the one doing the shaming or thinking we need shaming for this. This is an engineering problem.
- global amount of co2 emissions per year
https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissi.... - average co2 sequestered per tree - 25-45 kg depending on species (google for estimates)
https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2015/03/17/power-one-tree-ve... 37 billion metric tons / 25 kg = ~1.48 trillion
Amount of land available for reforestation as of 2019 is enough for 1.2 trillion native saplings.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aax0848
Given the above, we could plant this many trees in a year or two if we really tried. Couple that effort with more renewables, more investment into fusion and co2 sequestration machines, more electric cars, etc, and it's taken care of. I would question the character of any person who wants to be the one doing the shaming or thinking we need shaming for this. This is an engineering problem.
The carbon credit contingency says otherwise. You can actually get carbon credits by planting trees.
Trees give shade, shade reduces energy demand.
This. I don’t believe the environmentalists actually care about the environment. They love the power it gives them. It’s why they are against technological solutions that will make the problem go away. My litmus test is nuclear. If an environmentalist doesn’t like nuclear they aren’t a serious person.
Aren't we already at the whim of "ideologues" who care about their top-down control agenda? Isn't that necessarily what, like, a given nation's government is in our world?
Even by this logic, I'm gonna go with the guys who've put themselves behind the mitigate-climate-disaster agenda.
Even by this logic, I'm gonna go with the guys who've put themselves behind the mitigate-climate-disaster agenda.
I care enough that I limit my own carbon footprint (easier in Holland where you can bike to most places) and always vote for the party that is most eager to tackle climate change. Sadly it looks like it will take many years before a voting majority goes that way...
I'd love to vote Green for environmental stuff, but up until the war in Ukraine, the UK Green party wanted to pull out of NATO and effectively disband the military.
They also have views around rent control and alternative medicine that are off putting for some (and me).
I've a bicycle (found in trash) as my vehicle, no fridge, no heating, no AC, no hot water, almost nothing in my tiny apartment (14m2) with a rice cooker, I even cut my beard with scissors, and have can't understand why people even use electric toothbrush, ridiculous low electricity usage, I carry my own food trash (vegetable) and bury it somewhere quiet, my footprint may be less than 0.05% of the average person in France. I eat very rarely fish or poultry/eggs, my food is very local (foraging figs June-October, persimmons then, oranges, medlars in spring), local markets (collecting what's thrown away/very ripe), and some rice for winter
100% agree with you, why is it still allowed to build personal swimming pools? those insanely large cars, oversized houses, widespread ignorance and disrespect for the environment
100% agree with you, why is it still allowed to build personal swimming pools? those insanely large cars, oversized houses, widespread ignorance and disrespect for the environment
I read "no fridge, no heating, no AC" and immediately realized something.
Like, I applaud the dedication, and I hope you find this life fulfilling, but you can't expect _everyone_ to be able to live like that. And not even from a "but some people _neeeed_ sports cars" or other indefensible position, but I mean just from a purely practical position.
You very clearly live in a climate that allows for that. There are _billions_ of people who don't, or won't, shortly, no matter what we do. Heck, you might not live in a climate that will allow for that in the near future.
Again, not to shit on what you're doing, it's honestly interesting and like another commenter said, if you have a blog (maybe solar powered on some upcycled laptop-turned-server?), I'd be interested to read it. But all your choices are personal choices, and they are _really_ low-impact in the grand scheme of things. Even personal swimming pools aren't really moving any appreciable needle, we need broad, sweeping, systemic changes to really make an impact.
Somehow passing regulation to get a large industry to clean up its energy usage or reduce its waste by even 1% is likely going to do more than somehow convincing everyone in the world to give up electric toothbrushes. Please don't feel like I'm telling you to give up on what you're doing! But if you feel like you have any extra energy to try to change public opinion on things, well, I'd prefer if we could get around to the high-impact stuff first, is all.
Like, I applaud the dedication, and I hope you find this life fulfilling, but you can't expect _everyone_ to be able to live like that. And not even from a "but some people _neeeed_ sports cars" or other indefensible position, but I mean just from a purely practical position.
You very clearly live in a climate that allows for that. There are _billions_ of people who don't, or won't, shortly, no matter what we do. Heck, you might not live in a climate that will allow for that in the near future.
Again, not to shit on what you're doing, it's honestly interesting and like another commenter said, if you have a blog (maybe solar powered on some upcycled laptop-turned-server?), I'd be interested to read it. But all your choices are personal choices, and they are _really_ low-impact in the grand scheme of things. Even personal swimming pools aren't really moving any appreciable needle, we need broad, sweeping, systemic changes to really make an impact.
Somehow passing regulation to get a large industry to clean up its energy usage or reduce its waste by even 1% is likely going to do more than somehow convincing everyone in the world to give up electric toothbrushes. Please don't feel like I'm telling you to give up on what you're doing! But if you feel like you have any extra energy to try to change public opinion on things, well, I'd prefer if we could get around to the high-impact stuff first, is all.
> dedication
There's no effort, I simply don't need all of that
I've no desk, no fork/spoon, just sticks for the rice, simplicity. and I'm still a remote developer when possible
Also I believe on hard work and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox, meaning that every effort, even small count. Regulations is one way, but also with inflation I think these minimal lifestyles will naturally spread, there are many advatanges to it (better quality of life)
There's no effort, I simply don't need all of that
I've no desk, no fork/spoon, just sticks for the rice, simplicity. and I'm still a remote developer when possible
Also I believe on hard work and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox, meaning that every effort, even small count. Regulations is one way, but also with inflation I think these minimal lifestyles will naturally spread, there are many advatanges to it (better quality of life)
> but you can't expect _everyone_ to be able to live like that.
Not even if the alternative would mean millions and millions of deaths due to heath, draught, fires, flooding and wars due to people try to move to livable areas?
I bet you could accept no fridge, no ac, no car, if the alternative would be sudden death…
Not even if the alternative would mean millions and millions of deaths due to heath, draught, fires, flooding and wars due to people try to move to livable areas?
I bet you could accept no fridge, no ac, no car, if the alternative would be sudden death…
There's no way I'm living in a world without AC.
trees are natural AC (+air purifier & humidifier), so actually much better than artificial ACs
and if you're healthy (not overweight, low BMI), you can endure heat below 40°C just fine
and if you're healthy (not overweight, low BMI), you can endure heat below 40°C just fine
Yeah. The air is so much cooler in a forest on a hot day
Do you have a blog or anything? Sounds like an interesting life!
I wish, but I spend much time outside, I hope the blog will be in the eyes of children who see this strange guy having fun riding his bike and inspire them at some point
You might take a look at this:
https://earlyretirementextreme.com/
This isn't the poster you replied to, but someone with a similar point of view of trying to live simply.
https://earlyretirementextreme.com/
This isn't the poster you replied to, but someone with a similar point of view of trying to live simply.
yes, maybe Robin Greenfield too (note I didn't start this lifestyle trying to copy someone, for me it happened after some depression, I stopped spending money besides housing rent, and gradually enjoyed this new lifestyle, now sometimes I buy food, but still very minimal)
Because they have resources and you don't, so you have no leverage. We don't live in a moral age where people in general are impressed by the example of others.
that's what I hope will change, I hope someone in a Ferrari will look stupid in the close future, and someone on a cheap bike will look respectable
It won't. Societies revolve around money and power (for which money is a loose proxy), and we live in highly centralized and connected societies. You are naive to think otherwise. It's not that your view is wrong (indeed I largely share it) but that your hope of your own belief becoming a norm is hopelessly unrealistic - if anything, the trend is running in the opposite direction. Were it otherwise, social media influencers wouldn't be a growth market.
You are expressing your low-cost lifestyle, and that's great. But I'd also like to hear about the benefits of life you are experiencing within that lifestyle.
I think I'd kill myself if I had to live like that.
read about minimalism, it's actually a door to another level of happiness, but it requires a real shift
This is a wonderful satire / trolling. Well done :')
this is true, but maybe hard to believe? I've no desk, no chair, no vessel/fork/spoon, simplicity to the max
I'm guessing you also have no partner.
As a male, I can relate to living simply, but as a male living with my gf, there's no way I'd be in a relationship too long without some investment in modern luxuries!
As a male, I can relate to living simply, but as a male living with my gf, there's no way I'd be in a relationship too long without some investment in modern luxuries!
no partner, but if I had one she'd be more like me rather than a conumerist princess, I also don't really feel the desire and the time to be in a relationship
> deep down they know violence (in the short term) is the only thing that can stop the car going over the cliff
Passing a carbon fee and dividend[1] would help a lot, though I guess it's uncertain whether something on that scale could be enforced without violence.
[1] https://citizensclimatelobby.org/get-loud-take-action/energy...
Passing a carbon fee and dividend[1] would help a lot, though I guess it's uncertain whether something on that scale could be enforced without violence.
[1] https://citizensclimatelobby.org/get-loud-take-action/energy...
There’s also active manipulation by fossil fuel companies, following the exact scheme as tobacco companies. They invest billions per year into this with great success: easily 40% of westerners are in some kind of denial compared to less than 10% in southern countries.
And lobbyism too: 7T$ of FF subsidies per year, while a global energy transition has been estimated at 7T$. So in one year of subsidies we could solve a big part of the problem.
And lobbyism too: 7T$ of FF subsidies per year, while a global energy transition has been estimated at 7T$. So in one year of subsidies we could solve a big part of the problem.
> Nobody cares.
Yep, too busy boosting my lines of code for an unskilled BS manager. I don't even have time for my family, let alone the environment.
Yep, too busy boosting my lines of code for an unskilled BS manager. I don't even have time for my family, let alone the environment.
> Nobody cares.
this is so untrue! Channeling a sense of futility is some kind of coping? Large numbers of people, specialists, researchers, university people, clergy.. Elementary school walkouts around the world on the same day?
This kind of public defeatism is exactly why under-25 leaders is required -- how about that idea?
this is so untrue! Channeling a sense of futility is some kind of coping? Large numbers of people, specialists, researchers, university people, clergy.. Elementary school walkouts around the world on the same day?
This kind of public defeatism is exactly why under-25 leaders is required -- how about that idea?
Under 25 seems a bit young, and I say this as a 22-year-old. There isn't enough life experience there to understand the complexities of the real world.
But we do need younger people in politics. UK parliament is overwhelmingly old, rich, eurosceptic people. Funny how there's no diversity where it really matters.
But we do need younger people in politics. UK parliament is overwhelmingly old, rich, eurosceptic people. Funny how there's no diversity where it really matters.
And the ones that didn't make that choice are unwilling to change things because deep down they know violence (in the short term) is the only thing that can stop the car going over the cliff.
You’re fearmongering in an attempt to incite violence. I half suspect this to be a closet Greenpeace account.
You’re fearmongering in an attempt to incite violence. I half suspect this to be a closet Greenpeace account.
> You’re fearmongering in an attempt to incite violence. I half suspect this to be a closet Greenpeace account.
You're already under a form of violence - your kids will wonder why you never did anything about it.
You're already under a form of violence - your kids will wonder why you never did anything about it.
People care, but there needs to be balance between environmentalism and social mobility. The “haves” are the ones telling everyone else to continue being “have nots”. Current environmentalist attitudes are becoming religious and self righteous.
There are haves and then there are haves. The super rich have a much higher per person impact and they can afford to do things efficiently rather than cheap and polluting. Then global middle class also have a higher per person impact than the global lower class. So what if some people are unfairly targeting the “have nots”? We don’t have to let them drive the conversation and distract from real issues.
I will give up flying coach when billionaires give up private jets.
What convinces you violence is the only possible solution? You’ve ruled out technological solutions?
I prefer the electric SUV powered by offshore windmills and refrigerated, 1000 miles from consumption site vegan salads so I can pretend at least to care about the environment whether or not the decisions are actually environmentally sound. Because I am invested with Blackrock and my ESG scores are off the charts I also get to brag to my friends while flying my personal jet to Davos ;)
/s
/s
simpaticoder(5)
Declining Antarctic sea ice further drives global warming, a little discussed topic.
>The discussions of the remarkable September global warming have noted that much of the warming is associated with an extreme warming anomaly over Antarctica, with the suggestion that this warming is a weather effect that will disappear. While it is true that Antarctic temperature fluctuates greatly from month to month, we note that there is a latent southern Hemisphere polar amplification of warming that has long been dormant, as Southern Hemisphere sea ice cover has been relatively constant for several decades. The recent decline of sea ice area may be an indication that, averaged over weather, Antarctica will become a more important contributor to global temperature change.
The above is from James Hansen's latest newsletter. Another one of those pesky self-reinforcing feedback loops.
>The discussions of the remarkable September global warming have noted that much of the warming is associated with an extreme warming anomaly over Antarctica, with the suggestion that this warming is a weather effect that will disappear. While it is true that Antarctic temperature fluctuates greatly from month to month, we note that there is a latent southern Hemisphere polar amplification of warming that has long been dormant, as Southern Hemisphere sea ice cover has been relatively constant for several decades. The recent decline of sea ice area may be an indication that, averaged over weather, Antarctica will become a more important contributor to global temperature change.
The above is from James Hansen's latest newsletter. Another one of those pesky self-reinforcing feedback loops.
"Annual mass budget of Antarctic ice shelves from 1997 to 2021"
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adi0186
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adi0186
FTA:
> Scientists found 68 of Antarctica's 162 ice shelves experienced a "statistically significant" reduction in mass between 1997 and 2021.
> Another nine ice sheets saw smaller losses over the same period, while 29 gained mass and 62 did not change significantly.
Missing a key piece in this summary: What was the net change? Was it an increase or decrease?
> Scientists found 68 of Antarctica's 162 ice shelves experienced a "statistically significant" reduction in mass between 1997 and 2021.
> Another nine ice sheets saw smaller losses over the same period, while 29 gained mass and 62 did not change significantly.
Missing a key piece in this summary: What was the net change? Was it an increase or decrease?
This comment from "50 days ago" absolutely rocked me then and continues to provide a sobering and depressing real life metric to the climate crisis. I've showed anyone who will listen this chart.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37257643
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37257643
[deleted]
Those headlines or observations are so obvious, why do we even do them? We can even feel the temperature rise year after year, October temperature are like August
A new study has found that almost half of Antarctica's ice shelves are shrinking. This could increase ice loss from glaciers and affect the ocean's ability to absorb carbon
Welp, if you know about our planets history & cycles then this is not necessarily of concern. The planet goes through cycles, read about the great year or about the ice core samples form Greenland which tell a fascinating story
How long till my deep in land home to have a coastline?
IPCC projections are typically 1-2m (scenario dependent) for end of the century, with up to 50+m worst case scenario in 1-2 millennia
A while, it'll almost certainly happen long after you'll be dealing with
food insecurity, and millions of refugees whose coastline land is now underwater.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Plant a tree. Today. Before it's too late.
Trees do not affect CO2 levels, over long time. The basic reason is explained by why it is also called "carbon cycle". Plants grow, temporarily storing carbon, then die, releasing the carbon back to atmosphere either by burning or by decaying or by being consumed and literally breathed out as CO2 back.
Rather than planting a tree, you can actually help the atmosphere more by cutting a tree and building a house out of it and not letting it rot for a really long time. By cutting the tree and building the house, you are sequestering the carbon for probably longer than the tree would live (depending on what would be its future) and also making space for new trees to grow.
If you are looking to actually affect the long term outcome, you need to do one of two things:
1) stop emitting CO2
2) sequester the atmospheric CO2 somewher, for a really long time.
Rather than planting a tree, you can actually help the atmosphere more by cutting a tree and building a house out of it and not letting it rot for a really long time. By cutting the tree and building the house, you are sequestering the carbon for probably longer than the tree would live (depending on what would be its future) and also making space for new trees to grow.
If you are looking to actually affect the long term outcome, you need to do one of two things:
1) stop emitting CO2
2) sequester the atmospheric CO2 somewher, for a really long time.
Trees are great carbon sinks. Especially the ones that live for hundreds of years. If more trees get planted, then soon they’d be giant carbon sinks for hundreds of years. That’s more than enough time for artificial co2 sequestration tech to catch up with more effective permanent solutions.
Civilisation emits more new (coming from oil and coal) carbon to the atmosphere every 10 years than is contained in the entire Earth's biomass.
Even if you planted every single place on Earth that could accept a tree, you would not double Earth's biomass. If you did this and then somehow managed all those trees from dying, the only thing you would achieve is you would delay the entire proces by roughly 7 to 8 years. And if you can't prevent trees from dying or getting burned, you only get about 5 years.
From my point of view, planting trees is a huge distraction. There is absolutely no way planting trees will get us out of our problems, it is much better to start thinking about something actually productive.
Even if you planted every single place on Earth that could accept a tree, you would not double Earth's biomass. If you did this and then somehow managed all those trees from dying, the only thing you would achieve is you would delay the entire proces by roughly 7 to 8 years. And if you can't prevent trees from dying or getting burned, you only get about 5 years.
From my point of view, planting trees is a huge distraction. There is absolutely no way planting trees will get us out of our problems, it is much better to start thinking about something actually productive.
Source? I think you need to check your math. To sequester all of the co2 that gets emitted per year, you’d need about 1.6 trillion new trees. This assumes no other improvements in anything. This is because 37 billion metric tons (global co2 emissions) divided by an average of 22 kg of co2 sequestered by the average tree gets us around 1.6 trillion trees.
Trees are a great co2 sink and large reforesting would result in a lot of runway, on the order of hundreds of years of runway, for technological co2 sequestration to develop further.
Trees are a great co2 sink and large reforesting would result in a lot of runway, on the order of hundreds of years of runway, for technological co2 sequestration to develop further.
The word "sequester" implies that the CO2 is being removed from the cycle.
You are misusing this word, by suggesting that planted tree is a sequestered form of CO2. That's not the reality, in reality trees die or burn.
Your logic is faulty.
You see, you can bind all CO2 we emit per year with 1.6 trillion trees. True. But you can only do this ONCE, and it takes many years.
And then you are left with the Earth's landmasses all covered with trees that need to be actually sequestered (like buried deep underwater) to create space for a new batch of trees that have to be planted all over again.
You are misusing this word, by suggesting that planted tree is a sequestered form of CO2. That's not the reality, in reality trees die or burn.
Your logic is faulty.
You see, you can bind all CO2 we emit per year with 1.6 trillion trees. True. But you can only do this ONCE, and it takes many years.
And then you are left with the Earth's landmasses all covered with trees that need to be actually sequestered (like buried deep underwater) to create space for a new batch of trees that have to be planted all over again.
The fact that it won't live forever doesn't change the fact that a tree pulls CO2 out of the air. Nothing lasts forever. There are no silver bullets. Don't only plant trees, but plant trees nonetheless.
Yeah, trees will only remove the CO2 from the cycle for a century or so.
That's why "invest on renewables" was right next to it on the OP. I'd invert the order, and invest on artificial capture too. But the comment is quite right.
That's why "invest on renewables" was right next to it on the OP. I'd invert the order, and invest on artificial capture too. But the comment is quite right.
Trees would be replanted as they die, and the dead trees would be used for products. It's a constant process or cycle, not a one time thing. Also, by the time you plant enough trees to cover the entire landmass hundreds of years will have already passed and by then we're sequestering co2 with technology and firing it into space or using it for something else, with large reforestation projects ongoing because it's beautiful to have trees.
From a climate concern point of view, trees as carbon sinks work.
From a climate concern point of view, trees as carbon sinks work.
Do you have literally any sources for your claim because what you’re saying goes against everything I’ve learned about climate change.
Google these things:
- global amount of co2 emissions per year
https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissi....
- average co2 sequestered per tree - 25-45 kg depending on species (google for estimates)
https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2015/03/17/power-one-tree-ve...
37 billion metric tons / 25 kg = ~1.48 trillion
Amount of land available for reforestation as of 2019 is enough for 1.2 trillion native saplings.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aax0848
- global amount of co2 emissions per year
https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissi....
- average co2 sequestered per tree - 25-45 kg depending on species (google for estimates)
https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2015/03/17/power-one-tree-ve...
37 billion metric tons / 25 kg = ~1.48 trillion
Amount of land available for reforestation as of 2019 is enough for 1.2 trillion native saplings.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aax0848
So, we plant 1.2 trillion trees for offsetting a single years worth of emissions?
It actually is closer to 5 years by my estimation, but that's pretty much it.
If you start with completely empty land, at first you will have increase in biomass, but after some time for new trees to grow you will need to have some other ones to die. The trees might keep exchanging CO2 to O2, but you will also get steady increase in emitted CO2 either through forest fires or microorganisms or animals eating and decomposing and literally breathing the CO2 back to atmosphere.
When things are in balance, forests do not actually remove any CO2 because any CO2 removed is balanced out by new CO2 emitted. Only planting a new forest on a new land binds some new CO2, and that only temporarily until the forest matures.
If you start with completely empty land, at first you will have increase in biomass, but after some time for new trees to grow you will need to have some other ones to die. The trees might keep exchanging CO2 to O2, but you will also get steady increase in emitted CO2 either through forest fires or microorganisms or animals eating and decomposing and literally breathing the CO2 back to atmosphere.
When things are in balance, forests do not actually remove any CO2 because any CO2 removed is balanced out by new CO2 emitted. Only planting a new forest on a new land binds some new CO2, and that only temporarily until the forest matures.
They offset that much co2 each year. It’s not a one time thing. Over the average tree’s lifetime, it will store 25-45 kg of co2 per year. So it’s not just a single year of co2. It would be decades to hundreds of years. Throw in renewables, fusion, nuclear, electric cars, co2 sequestration machines, etc, and it’s definitely a game changer.
That's 200 trees for every single person on the planet, each year, again and again. And they need to live long enough to become average trees, so you need to plant more than that because quite a few won't make it.
Where do you find the space for that, and the labour?!
Where do you find the space for that, and the labour?!
Amount of land available for reforestation as of 2019 is enough for 1.2 trillion native saplings.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aax0848
We could also set aside more land for reforestation as well.
Finding labor is easy.
This is an easy problem to solve, we just need to build up the knowledge that it is possible and then execute on it. Right now most people have never even considered things this way because they’re only exposed to doomer talk whenever climate change gets discussed. :(
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aax0848
We could also set aside more land for reforestation as well.
Finding labor is easy.
This is an easy problem to solve, we just need to build up the knowledge that it is possible and then execute on it. Right now most people have never even considered things this way because they’re only exposed to doomer talk whenever climate change gets discussed. :(
Room for saplings is not the same as room for average sized trees. And it's only for a single year, we'd need to do this in perpetuity.
It would probably use land that's currently in use for agriculture, in a time when huge areas of old growth rain forest are cleared to make more space for agriculture. One country deciding to turn pasture into forest would probably cause more forest to be lost in Brazil, of a type that stores _way_ more CO2 per hectare.
I think we should start with getting better at preventing and fighting huge forest fires, and to stop considering wood pellet burning as "renewable energy".
Any further focus on planting trees only distracts from real solutions, imo.
It would probably use land that's currently in use for agriculture, in a time when huge areas of old growth rain forest are cleared to make more space for agriculture. One country deciding to turn pasture into forest would probably cause more forest to be lost in Brazil, of a type that stores _way_ more CO2 per hectare.
I think we should start with getting better at preventing and fighting huge forest fires, and to stop considering wood pellet burning as "renewable energy".
Any further focus on planting trees only distracts from real solutions, imo.
> Civilisation emits more new (coming from oil and coal) carbon to the atmosphere every 10 years than is contained in the entire Earth's biomass.
That's absolutely false. Most of the world's biomass is stored in peatlands and burning that much peat in 10 years would increase the atmospheric CO2 by hundreds of ppm very quickly - significantly more CO2 than humans have produced in our entire history combined.
That's absolutely false. Most of the world's biomass is stored in peatlands and burning that much peat in 10 years would increase the atmospheric CO2 by hundreds of ppm very quickly - significantly more CO2 than humans have produced in our entire history combined.
For the purpose of ecology, peat is not biomass. Biomass is living things. Trees. Bugs. Fish. Microbiota. Not peat.
Why is this important is that living things form a carbon cycle of which our atmosphere is a part. Peat is sequestered for an unknown amount of time and is at the very least temporarily removed from the cycle.
Why is this important is that living things form a carbon cycle of which our atmosphere is a part. Peat is sequestered for an unknown amount of time and is at the very least temporarily removed from the cycle.
[deleted]
With climate change, they probably won't live hundreds of years. They'll die in a drought or forest fire or flood some time in the next decades, or be cut down for firewood.
Planting a tree makes a carbon sink that lasts at least a century. During that time we can try to fix the rest of the mess.
Where did oil come from?
The oil came from small microorganisms that fell out of carbon cycle by getting themselves in places where they could not rot or get burned. The same story is behind coal, except it is not possible to generate any more coal deposits naturally.
The reason we have coal is some hundreds of millions of years ago there were huge plants that would topple but there was nothing on Eearth yet that could completely digest plant matter. So the biomass would basically stay where it fell and new plants would grow on top of dead ones. This explains the shape of coal deposits.
Some time later I think fungi evolved that could digest cellulose and any plant afterwards would rot rather than get burried. This explains why ALL coal deposits in existence are older than something like 600M years.
The reason we have coal is some hundreds of millions of years ago there were huge plants that would topple but there was nothing on Eearth yet that could completely digest plant matter. So the biomass would basically stay where it fell and new plants would grow on top of dead ones. This explains the shape of coal deposits.
Some time later I think fungi evolved that could digest cellulose and any plant afterwards would rot rather than get burried. This explains why ALL coal deposits in existence are older than something like 600M years.
> The same story is behind coal, except it is not possible to generate any more coal deposits naturally.
New coal is being made every day somewhere on the planet.
> This explains why ALL coal deposits in existence are older than something like 600M years.
Of course coal is old, because it's preceded by peat and lignite.
I think the point of the questions you were responding to is that cool is also renewable, just like trees are.
We just don't refer to it as such, because that renewability requires a really long time.
New coal is being made every day somewhere on the planet.
> This explains why ALL coal deposits in existence are older than something like 600M years.
Of course coal is old, because it's preceded by peat and lignite.
I think the point of the questions you were responding to is that cool is also renewable, just like trees are.
We just don't refer to it as such, because that renewability requires a really long time.
As I understand it, that's no longer the prevailing theory regarding coal.
what is the prevailing theory currently?
Steve Mould (a credible science YouTuber) says coal came from trees https://youtu.be/b34al8YmQSA
wrong, they do, but on a long timescale (million years), through hydrocarbures
of course obviously, people shouldn't extract and buy fossil fuel and all those derived products (plastics)
of course obviously, people shouldn't extract and buy fossil fuel and all those derived products (plastics)
Most trees are cut with gas powered chain saws. Leave them up.
Again... planting trees is pointless.
We need to recover lands and grow forests.
Trees are not carbon pumping units, they are part of ecosystem.
The moment we will start to understand this, we will make a giant step in the right direction.
We need to recover lands and grow forests.
Trees are not carbon pumping units, they are part of ecosystem.
The moment we will start to understand this, we will make a giant step in the right direction.
A tree is a local air conditioning, air purifier, air humidifier, so always better than nothing, it hosts so much life like insects that are vital to other lifeforms and trees indirecly
Stanford shows otherwise
https://earth.stanford.edu/news/growing-carbon-offsets-trees
https://earth.stanford.edu/news/growing-carbon-offsets-trees
You certainly want to stop cutting trees. I think it’s 10 million cut each days. Then invest time and money in ecosystem preservation and adaptation. Many scientific reports available, let you google that.
We're talking billions of tons of ice. A single tree won't hold that back. Plus, it's Antarctica! The tree will die in that cold!
the 1st part of your comment makes me think of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox
[deleted]
Do it for free at mptr.ee
https://www.thissongplantstrees.com/
> You can plant trees for free using Spotify.
> We made a second audio clip where all the revenue goes to planting trees
> Sounds too good to be true. How does this work?
> Everytime you listen to a song on a streaming service it earns a tiny bit of cash for its creator.
> We use that money to plant trees.
Neat!
> You can plant trees for free using Spotify.
> We made a second audio clip where all the revenue goes to planting trees
> Sounds too good to be true. How does this work?
> Everytime you listen to a song on a streaming service it earns a tiny bit of cash for its creator.
> We use that money to plant trees.
Neat!
I can’t put my finger on why but this seems like stealing
You probably can’t put your finger on why because it’s not.
They are earning royalties for the amount of times people listen to their audio. And use the royalties to pay for trees.
If anyone is stealing anything, it’s Spotify. Most artist are paid pennies for their music even when a lot of people listen to it. Spotify is great for consumers, but not so great for most musicians.
They are earning royalties for the amount of times people listen to their audio. And use the royalties to pay for trees.
If anyone is stealing anything, it’s Spotify. Most artist are paid pennies for their music even when a lot of people listen to it. Spotify is great for consumers, but not so great for most musicians.
[deleted]
Deutsche Welle. Not very trusted source
Could we do controlled volcanic eruptions to bring the temperatures down?
Honestly these kinds of problems need insane out of the box thinking, because trying to change human behavior is one of the hardest things in the world. It doesn't work unless you're okay living under fascists/communists (no thanks).
I'd much rather we explore unorthodox "organic" "all-natural" attempts like dropping some JDAMs into a volcano. Who knows, it might work. People certainly will not stop burning fossil fuels or being selfish.
Honestly these kinds of problems need insane out of the box thinking, because trying to change human behavior is one of the hardest things in the world. It doesn't work unless you're okay living under fascists/communists (no thanks).
I'd much rather we explore unorthodox "organic" "all-natural" attempts like dropping some JDAMs into a volcano. Who knows, it might work. People certainly will not stop burning fossil fuels or being selfish.
Stratospheric aerosol injection is one of the proposed approaches https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/07/05/sun-blockers-us-sc...
It’s called geo engineering and problems would include:
1) ocean acidification
2) a sky white rather than blue
3) severely alerted rain patterns
4) a very sharp positive climate transient if for some reason you stop doing it
5) etc etc
Also most climate scientists we simply cannot control a system that chaotic
Also, injecting sulphuric acid at large scale in the atmosphere might not be such a great idea.
But yeah, chemtrails would work.
1) ocean acidification
2) a sky white rather than blue
3) severely alerted rain patterns
4) a very sharp positive climate transient if for some reason you stop doing it
5) etc etc
Also most climate scientists we simply cannot control a system that chaotic
Also, injecting sulphuric acid at large scale in the atmosphere might not be such a great idea.
But yeah, chemtrails would work.
> Could we do controlled volcanic eruptions to bring the temperatures down?
Is it even possible? If so which volcano?
Is it even possible? If so which volcano?
NIMBY!
You cannot trust any establishment site when it comes to talking about any item or topic that is supported as a important narrative by the establishment. Anything goes as far as that's concerned because the establishment rewards anyone who supports a narrative that is under siege, as is the climate change narrative obviously
Honest question. How do we morally differentiate human-caused climate change from natural climate change (I.e: Ice ages naturally come and go)
I get that that human-led climate change means that humans are mucking things up (which sucks). But if humans cause large swings in climate that would happen naturally, then it’s not like what we’re causing is unique right? It’s just natural phenomenon from unnatural causes.
It seems to me, that humans are rightfully worried about existence. But even large-mass-scale extinction is a natural repeating phenomenon. So I say long live the next species (which I can only assume is sharks with freakin’ laser beams attached to their heads https://youtu.be/INFavIUmhcE)
I get that that human-led climate change means that humans are mucking things up (which sucks). But if humans cause large swings in climate that would happen naturally, then it’s not like what we’re causing is unique right? It’s just natural phenomenon from unnatural causes.
It seems to me, that humans are rightfully worried about existence. But even large-mass-scale extinction is a natural repeating phenomenon. So I say long live the next species (which I can only assume is sharks with freakin’ laser beams attached to their heads https://youtu.be/INFavIUmhcE)
Sure... earth's climate has naturally fluctuated throughout its history. However, the current rate of change is unprecedented in human history... The key difference between natural climate change and human-induced climate change is the speed at which it's happening. Natural climate changes, like ice ages, occur over thousands of years, giving ecosystems time to adapt. Climate change we're experiencing now is happening over years leaving little time for adaptation. The question of morality isn't about whether climate change is unique to human activity, but about our responsibility as stewards of the planet. Our actions are causing harm to ecosystems, wildlife, and our own communities at a rate that is far from normal. The planet might have experienced similar changes in the distant past, the rapidity of current changes and the harm they're causing is what makes this a moral (and our) issue...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37882129
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37882129
What does morality have to do with it? If the climate is changing in a way that's bad, we need to do something about it. We'd need to do something about it even if it were natural. The problem with climate change is not moral, it's that it will make it harder for people to live and kill people and so on.
Speed. This climate change is happening faster than any other climate change event short of a volcanic eruption or a meteor, both of which also generally result in mass death. (Krakatoa is associated with years of famine.)
It is easier to adjust over hundreds of years than decades or less.
It is easier to adjust over hundreds of years than decades or less.
The moralizing is from people using shame as a strategy to affect public policy and/or gain power, I don’t think it’s much deeper than that. Shame can be very effective as most people are hard wired to respond to shame. The issue is that shame can be shunted into minor things to resolve it, buying a carbon neutral Apple Watch, Tesla or recycling can dissipate the shame for an individual leaving us with a problem and no real solution.
I personally think we will survive the climate catastrophe. It might be a Black Death type event, horrific and painful for everyone. But a wiser breed of humans will emerge on the other side.
I personally think we will survive the climate catastrophe. It might be a Black Death type event, horrific and painful for everyone. But a wiser breed of humans will emerge on the other side.
> But if humans cause large swings in climate that would happen naturally, then it’s not like what we’re causing is unique right?
It is unique in several ways. In a moral sense it is unique in that we knowingly caused it and failed to take action. In a historical sense, extinctions on this scale are so rare they are almost unique. What is unprecedented however is the rate of change. This is important because species aren't able to adapt anymore when the climate changes so rapidly.
It is unique in several ways. In a moral sense it is unique in that we knowingly caused it and failed to take action. In a historical sense, extinctions on this scale are so rare they are almost unique. What is unprecedented however is the rate of change. This is important because species aren't able to adapt anymore when the climate changes so rapidly.
It's like pushing someone down a staircase he was walking down anyway. Same thing right?
It's the insane speed of human caused climate change that's causing the mass extinctions.
It's the insane speed of human caused climate change that's causing the mass extinctions.
Climate change isn’t really the root cause of the extinctions. It’s far more caused by habitat destruction.
> large-mass-scale extinction is a natural repeating phenomenon
Most people consider the death of their descendants and loved ones a poor outcome that they would like to prevent...
Yes things are self correcting in the sense that if we muck things up badly enough our society will collapse and something else will come after. But that kind of mass destruction will be horrifically bad for an awful lot of people.
Most people consider the death of their descendants and loved ones a poor outcome that they would like to prevent...
Yes things are self correcting in the sense that if we muck things up badly enough our society will collapse and something else will come after. But that kind of mass destruction will be horrifically bad for an awful lot of people.
Most have decided they prefer SUVs, cheap burgers and flying to Greece twice a year for 50 quid over the Amazon being a thing or co-existing with wildlife.
And the ones that didn't make that choice are unwilling to change things because deep down they know violence (in the short term) is the only thing that can stop the car going over the cliff.