Hacker News Reader

Comment by jseliger | Hacker News Reader

The cheapest, easiest and safest way to fight climate change is to stop emitting CO2

Which is absolutely true, but no one (basically) is doing it. And the U.S. is moving in the right direction in some metrics (solar, wind) but the wrong in many others (urban planning (https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/8/22/1617782...), nuclear (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603647/meltdown-of-toshib...), and politics (Trump, Cruz, etc.)).

So while I agree with the proposed solution, no one else does, and even then we have to deal with China and India joining the developed world and what that means for CO2 emissions.

View on HN

> Which is absolutely true, but no one (basically) is doing it.

The UK continues to meet its reduction targets set in Kyoto in 1990, and its reductions are so massive that it now uses less CO2 per capita than it did in 1900. The UK also has had one of the highest per capita economic growth rates over that time period in the developed world, higher than the US for example. France really has no need of cuts, because its per capita CO2 emissions were already so small (about 4/5th lower for each individual than in the US or Australia). This blanket statement is incorrect.

>even then we have to deal with China and India joining the developed world and what that means for CO2 emissions.

Evidence disagrees. Chinese coal consumption is declining ever so gradually (~1% annually) despite their economy growing as normal. In fact their overall co2 emissions are slowly falling as well. Its an open question whether this is going to continue or if this is just a false peak, but if their commitment to renewable and green energy is a predictor then they may fall below the us emission level relatively soon.

Serious question: how reliable are the figures from China? How can we trust they aren't fudging the numbers, either at the local level or the national level?

What is there to gain from fudging these numbers?

Continued economic growth at the increased rates that non-renewable energy sources provide, without the external disapproval/sanctions that come with them.

Its based on energy use etc and I believe satellite spectrometetry, so there are massive margins of error but the general trends are pretty hard to hide.

So while I agree with the proposed solution, no one else does, and even then we have to deal with China and India joining the developed world and what that means for CO2 emissions.

Don't forget Africa!

What about animal agriculture?

agriculture isn't even the majority of methane production even in the US (which has as many cattle as China, but 4.5x fewer people). The single largest source of methane is from natural gas leaks.

Enteric fermentation is still a big problem, but it's a problem for another day- the only reason to solve it now is if it truly is as simple as feeding cows seaweed. That seems highly suspect but I have yet to see anyone accuse it of failing the sniff test.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com