Comment by Recurecur | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Recurecur | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"I'm doing my part, no kids, and I won't be having any. Unfortunately human nature isn't going to change, and we're not going to get out of this one with our civilization intact; we're probably cooked."

Utter nonsense (other than you not having kids, that's your choice).

Market forces will in fact solve the "problem" (to the extent it is one) of excess CO2 output. If it is finally determined that CO2 based warming is problematic, the solution will be advanced technology, including high-intensity energy sources like nuclear power. In the absolute worst case, orbital sunshades or other mitigations will be used to decrease insolation.

The laughable thing about this article is the idea that any amount of spending by the Australian government to "take decisive action on climate change" would help. If Australia completely stopped producing CO2, it would have no measurable effect on water temperatures around the Great Barrier Reef, especially since the argument is that current CO2 levels are causing the problem. Then there's the fact that Australia is a minor contributor to global CO2 emissions...

What's needed on "climate change" is a lot more rational thought, and a lot less hysteria.

You seem to think that I:

1.) Believe a solution still exists

2.) Believe that Australia of all the small populations on Earth would somehow matter if such a solution existed (no offense Australia, you matter in general)

3.) Believe that "thought" matters at this point. You might as well be telling people marching to the gallows to cheer up, nothing good can come of being all depressed. You might be right, but at least stop pretending that it's going to change the actual outcome.

1) No, -I- believe a solution still exists.

2) My comments about Australia addressed the generally fuzzy thinking on this topic.

3) Again, there is no reason to think that the outcome is definite at this point. Clearly, in the worst case, technology should provide a solution. If the gloomiest projections turn out to be incorrect, for which there is mounting evidence, no mitigation may be needed at all.

You believe that a solution exists, although you also believe that there is no need for one, but if there was "technology" would be that solution. Is that about right?

I believe that a solution exists, if in fact CO2 induced global warming is sufficient to warrant it. The latest IPCC report has a range of possible warming which is innocuous at the low end. It's also not clear what the error bounds are on the published warming estimates.

I gave the concrete example of orbital sunshades, which are absolutely feasible given current engineering techniques. Another possible CO2 mitigation are iron-induced ocean algae blooms. Many other approaches have been suggested including nuclear powered CO2 sequestration in the Antarctic. I'm sure that many other innovative, technology based mitigations will be proposed over time.

I hope that clears things up for you.

You started by stating that market forces are the solution, but conclude that rational thought is the solution. Now I'm very confused.

I did not say that "rational thought is the solution", although it is true that rational thought will provide the means for market forces to do their work. I didn't expound on how markets are changing as much as I probably should have.

I did state that market forces are the solution, and the reason for that is cleaner and ultimately cheaper technologies are displacing combustible fuels - primarily solar, nuclear and wind. Coal is already being displaced by cheaper natural gas, and advances in CO2 free technologies will make them the least expensive of all in the end. Proponents of new modular nuclear reactor designs believe they'll generate electricity for 3 to 5 cents per KWH, for instance.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com