Hacker News Reader

Comment by mberning | Hacker News Reader

That is a pretty staggering amount of uncertainty. The US for example looks like it could be anywhere from 0.5% to 4.5%. That is something I would like to know with more certainty before undertaking any major public policies.

From a simple triage standpoint it would seem that focusing on developing economies would hold the most promise. China and India are the likely leaders and given the population and current state of development could get much worse.

View on HN

Per-capita emissions are the highest in the US, Canada, and Australia [1]. The US is also the second-largest emitter of CO2. There is much to be gained by focusing on emissions in the US. Unfortunately, most USians would like a large house with yard, 2+ large cars, etc.

Also think about cultural projections -- Hollywood often depicts wealthy people shuttling around in large, inefficient SUVs. These images and aspirations are then transmitted to the rest of the world.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/sc...

Per capita is a BS way to look at it. If US emissions are growing at 0.5% per year then there is nothing to do. It will take 140 years to double and the natural progression of technology will easily solve the problem. Solar and other renewable technologies are advancing so fast that economic factors will take over and there will be much less need for fossil fuels very shortly. On the other hand if a country with a large population is growing emissions at 8% then that is less than a decade to double which is a huge problem.

On another note, why do resent the lifestyle of average people? Not everybody wants to live in an urban hellscape with millions of other people. You speak about it with such contempt.

What is the lifestyle of the average person? It’s certainly not that of a USian

The average salary worldwide is 10k USD.

I agree that many people would like to live in some sort of idyllic rural or suburban setting. Indeed, that is what I prefer myself.

However, with 7 billion of us in this planet, we may have to rethink what is feasible.

From a simple standpoint massive multigigaton reductions are needed in all sectors and countries.

Which was true 10 years ago, 5 years ago, and remains true now with little change. Fracking has been pretty much the biggest net reduction in carbon (nat gas has half the emissions of coal). So far solar, wind, etc has made little dent.

This isn’t a political issue and politicizing it by claiming sudden urgency is an error - merely changing leadership won’t matter. Major changes are needed yesterday, and so far neither party in the US has ever proposed anything resembling the scale of change needed.

> Major changes are needed yesterday, and so far neither party in the US has ever proposed anything resembling the scale of change needed.

No, but at least Democrats proposed and passed something.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Se...

Yes with little actual impact. Something far more courageous is needed

I am not sure how you or I or US can focus on developing economies. We should focus on ourselves. Do our part first and negotiate with the rest of the world second.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com