Hacker News Reader

No matter which side of the climate politics your beliefs are on, you probably support the proposed solutions that apply to your choice. This is because the human mind works backwards from the solution to the problem, finding logic to justify what is desired. Unless you are one of the rare people whose belief in the validity of "there is human-caused warming we can fix or partially avert" is in disagreement with your belief in the validity of "income redistribution is proper", the failings of the human mind likely apply.

To be extra clear: no matter which side you are on, this DOES NOT just apply to the other team.

>I am loathe to support the attempted destruction of capitalism based on unreliable computer models.

That's a whopper. Have you worked with modelled climate data for any length of time? Or at all? In a past life, I became intimately familiar with the A1B1 data from half a dozen institutions. Collectively they did NOT present a pretty picture. IIRC by about 2050 climate change will really start to bite and make life miserable for us humans. But even if those models are hopelessly wrong (which I doubt), isn't it worth taking a conservative tack anyway with regard to the environment? Or should we just gamble with the future and hope that our energy intensive ways do not result, for example, in systemic crop failure that, in turn, leads to capitalism's self-immolation.

> The problem isn’t the science as much as the proposed solutions. The more extreme solutions are more about income redistribution rather than actual science. Whether or not climate change is unequivocally human caused, there are those that would use “climate” as a means to enact economic proposals they favor regardless of the climate impact. https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-failed-c....

a link to an opinion piece in the toronto sun isn’t enough evidence imo (sorry just calling it like i see it, please feel free to provide more evidence)

> For example, what about nuclear? If we are “serious” about climate change, nuclear is the best choice for large scale electrical production, but nuclear faces opposition from those that scream loudest about the danger of fossil fuels.

what about it? there are serious problems with nuclear, for example what to do with the waste (we already saw the disaster waiting to happen at fukushima), what about proliferation of potentially refinable nuclear materials (weapons)? i agree compared to coal it’s a potential short term option, but why do nuclear when we have high powered solar (molten salt) stations [1] that cost a fraction of nuclear stations [2] to say nothing of traditional wind and hydro electric generation

again, i’m not 100% against nuclear but there are much faster, agile and cleaner alternatives already in production

> What about the Paris climate meeting? The local airport was filled to the brim with private jets.

1.) i think this argument is a bit of a nit pick, and 2.) how do you know every private jet was for each person meeting there? and even if so, their hypocrisy is no excuse to do nothing...

> To normal people like me, why should I set my thermostat to a higher temperature in summer when my energy use is just a blip compared to some “Climate official’s” own carbon footprint. Why should poor people have to pay a higher percentage of their income for energy taxes while the limousine liberals keendoing their thing? They aren’t personally consuming less or suffering the impact of their proposals.

that’s a very important point and gets to the real root of the issue: most greenhouse gas is emitted from power generation, farming, deforestation, cars/trucks (lack of public transport being a huge contributor) and industrial processes [3]

these are all systemic and industrial problems that have to be solved at those levels (system and industry), “you and me” barely contribute to that but simple things like not leaving the air on or tv or lights on (esp on large american-style houses) is reasonable imo (to say nothing of it being common sense to reduce your power bill).

> Buying “carbon credits” is a cop out — unless they are actually reducing their own energy consumption, they are still spitting CO2 into the air, no matter how much they pay for the privilege.

this may be true, but it’s a deep sign that our “market based” thinking is not working, and we need to just start passing laws and be done with it... todays politicians are paralyzed by industry and capital, that’s why they will do almost anything to shift the burden to you and me...

> To me, if the situation were so dire, there’d be a lot less hypocrisy. If the “experts” aren’t flying commercial or video conferencing, then clearly the problem isn’t a grave as they suggest. There is absolutely no rationale for climate officials taking a Gulfstream to a climate conference. The concern over the climate rings hollow compared to the bigger goals of redistributing the means of production.

is that “climate officials” or just al gore? and again, why should we let their hypocrisy stop us from doing the right thing? it’s entirely besides the point (and i would agree with you about the gulf stream point, just to be fair)

> Al Gore becoming a billionaire because of the climate industry also creates some skepticism since he and other like him have a vested financial interest in propagating his opinions. His Inconvinient Truth movie was full of blatant inaccuracies and the forecast FUD never materialized.

firstly, who cares about al gore, and secondly, how about some evidence? and what are the FUD that never materialized?

> We constantly hear things like “in 12 years the world will end” yet, here we are, not too much different than we were in 2000. In fact, it might be argued that the climate changes with or without human intervention. The “settled” science isn’t very settled to me, otherwise the predictions wouldn’t be so consistently wrong.

are you sure about that? [4]

> I am loathe to support the attempted destruction of capitalism based on unreliable computer models. Those of us skeptical of climate politics — we live here too. It isn’t like we are genuinely interested in destroying the planet; but some of us don’t have a lot of trust in power that they are actually altruistic.

who said anything about destroying capitalism, and why are you so concerned about that?

and sure, those in power don’t deserve much trust i’ll give you that, but that’s because they get their source of funding not from us, but from industry... we should be pushing for politicians that take no corporate and pac money as a start and hold them more and more accountable... and the second point is, those in power also include the financial sectors and heavy industry... do you have the same mistrust of them as well?

> Remember, Eugenics was “settled science” too and we saw how horribly that turned out.

completely different time periods, “sciences”, and cultures... this does not follow imo

——

[1] https://inhabitat.com/revolutionary-new-solar-plant-generate...

[2] https://www.synapse-energy.com/sites/default/files/SynapsePa...

[3] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...

[4] https://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-overestimate-global-warmin...

The opinion article you linked is from a right-rated source [0]. The main suggestion in it,

> That would start with the federal government imposing a national, revenue neutral carbon tax of about $200 per tonne of emissions, immediately (not $50 in 2022 under Trudeau’s plan) and then returning all the money raised back to Canadians in dividend cheques.

has pretty wide support on the left. I'm not sure how that differs from being wealth redistribution, which is what the opinion piece is against. It also doesn't describe what the current scheme is nor how it is wealth redistribution.

As far as party support for nuclear, [1]. Democrats care more about wind/solar. Neither party has majority support for emphasizing nuclear. I don't think people that care about CO2 would rule nuclear out if it were the only option.

Jets vs. thermostat type problems are tragedy of the commons. I don't appreciate private jets ferrying around political leaders, but I doubt they'll be flying commercial. That doesn't seem practical from a security nor time perspective. But, millions of people adjust their thermostats. If everybody tolerated just a liiiiittle bit less than their ideal temperature, how much would that save? Consumption is a tragedy of the commons problem.

I'd like evidence that limousine liberals are the problems w.r.t. taxes. I agree that there is hypocrisy. I disagree about how it rings hollow compared to redistributing the means, especially since "redistributing the means" doesn't even really make sense in that block of text.

Lastly, studies aren't full of blatant inaccuracies nor FUD. The world isn't ending outright, but it's getting a lot worse in a lot of ways in a lot of areas. The Syrian civil war was partially exacerbated by the worst drought ever recorded [2]. The science is settled. Exxon Mobile predicted [3] exactly what would be happening today [4] back in 1982. The conclusion of their summary is that serious adverse problems are not likely to occur until the late century, and that the time should allow for coming up with solutions. That time is now, and globally, we are doing very little, because doing what needs to be done would be economically detrimental to established interests.

[0]: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/toronto-sun/ [1]: https://news.gallup.com/poll/182180/support-nuclear-energy.a... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War [3]: https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/... [4]: https://twitter.com/UNFCCC/status/1125085040768167937