Hacker News Reader

Comment by guelo | Hacker News Reader

So basically: I know better than all the scientists that have studied the issue deeply and who keep sounding the alarm more and more urgently.

View on HN

What, exactly, do you want to do about it?

What, exactly, do you want to do about it, that's politically viable?

Should we tell a billion people in China, and another billion in India to shut down their coal-fired plants? Back to the farms and rural poverty?

Do you want to convince rich westerners to stop eating meat in such large quantities? Tell them to stop driving so much?

Both sets of suggestions are politically unpopular positions and forcing them on their respective populations would lead to strife and lives lost far beyond what we'll see with climate change.

We push for incremental changes in the US, but even their proponents admit they won't make much of a difference in a global context.

The Earth is warming. Almost everyone is on board with that now. Absent a global totalitarian government that can constrain carbon emissions by fiat, what can we do that will make a difference?

It seems like the answer is "not much," so the revealed preference of most of the world's citizens seems to be rolling the dice that the change won't be catastrophic, hope for a tech breakthrough that obviates the problem, and assume that we'll deal with the disruptions as they come. It's not an inspiring message, but it's where we're at.

There is plenty that can be done. First off, stop denying there is no climate change and start educating people on what they can do to help stop it. You would be amazed at what social conscience can do. While doing that, start making industries pay for the CO2 they emit. Incentivize companies to do a better job at lower their C02 foot print and companies that are better at this will do better in the market place.

Me personally? I'm no economic policy expert but they do exist. Some kind of carbon tax/credit, and cap and trade, seem to be popular recommendations among economists. The first step is to have the political will to make it happen. Admittedly, going by the last 30 years of denial and propaganda, it doesn't like we're ever going to achieve it. The denialists have won, I believe humanity is doomed. Our grandkids will curse our names.

Throwing your hands in the air because it's 'too hard' is not an acceptable reaction. What is popular is rarely what is good. I'd venture to suggest that what is popular is often vapid, self-serving and short-sighted.

The longest journey starts with a single step. The man who moves a mountain begins by carrying away small stones. Many hands make light work. There is precedent for accomplishing great things by 'just starting and keeping at it until you get there'. Start local. Start small.

Waiting for a 'tech breakthrough' is akin to waiting for 'the rapture'.

It may not be acceptable to you, but it's a decent description of what's happening today.

Do you believe that the opinion of older citizens who, if climate change is happening and they wont have to live with its effects, should be somewhat disregarded?

Pretty much nailed it.

The linked book is a classic of the genre. It's by an honorary PhD (Vahrenholt) with ties to the oil industry and, this is key, seemingly zero peer-reviewed publications to do with climate (but a couple of English-language op-ed pieces -- https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=frit...).

What's the point (I ask myself) of even engaging with junk comments like that?

There is a huge difference between science (research) and panic (person belief systems). The parent comment avoided bias by avoiding both, but you jumped right into stereotypes and accusations.

This comment could be used to support everything from the geocentric model to the four humors.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com