Hacker News Reader

> This is also the tragedy of the commons. If I emit less, others will feel they can emit more. I refuse to be "the sucker" that loses this game theory problem.

The whole point in the tragedy of the commons is that if everyone follows their own self interest (as you are doing) then everyone loses. That is why it is called a tragedy.

Saying you are going to avoid losing by taking what you want completely misunderstands what the problem is.

> come live in hundred-degree Texas summers without it and then tell me to give [air-con] up [...] we will adapt to a hotter earth if need be

Are you sure about that? It seems like we'd adapt by using more power, deepening the problem.

> It seems like we'd adapt by using more power, deepening the problem.

Not if it is solar/wind power as is the case for 50% of the power already (in my country). With 100% renewables you can waste as much energy as you like.

> With that said, I don't emit that much (all things considered)

Cool, how much? IIRC, sustainability would require an individual average below 2 teqCO2/year.

> Besides, would money not be better spent curing cancer?

Look at what the world would look like if climate change is not prevented: https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/what-the-world-will-look-l.... Think of the consequences in famines (whole countries transformed into deserts), flooding, and the mass migrations and wars that would ensue. So no, cancer is not the priority, not when people will die by the hundreds of millions before reaching the age for getting cancer.

> I'm not sure that I believe the "impending doom" stuff about global warming.

Then you are in denial, and need to be exposed to more science. Again, sorry for being blunt.

> Humans are the most remarkably adaptable species on the planet; we will adapt to a hotter earth if need be.

Yeah sure, we can't individually give up on our beef sandwich, but we will have no problem adapting collectively to most of our current living spaces becoming uninhabitable.

You repeatedly crossed into personal attack in this thread. That's not ok, regardless of how right you are. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN as intended when posting here?

> https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/what-the-world-will-look-l....

I could not see any graphics/media (the website is a mess. It tries to load a dozen 3rd party resources). But the article is pretty optimistic:

> Now is the time to buy property in Greenland – before it too turns green...

> Yeah sure, we can't individually give up on our beef sandwich

I'm sure there will be cities in these new deserts. And people in these cities will still eat beef sandwiches.

If somebody talks like that, my impression is always that it's more about restriction and reduction than about saving the world.

> Cool, how much? IIRC, sustainability would require an individual average below 2 teqCO2/year.

Cool, is there a CO2 calculator somewhere?

I used this one: https://www3.epa.gov/carbon-footprint-calculator/

I found one with metric measurements. I consume about 12 tons Co2 per year. Is a little more than average (12 hours flight this year).

Dividing household total (according to the EPA calculator: https://www3.epa.gov/carbon-footprint-calculator/) number of people, about 5.7 tons/person/yr. This is less than the American average. This is also considering that people in said household are required to drive long distances for work (I'm talking 300-mile distances several times per month). We do, however, drive mostly diesel. None of us are willing to give up our jobs. Transportation is most of our emissions; AC is the runner-up.

How about you?

> Look at what the world would look like if climate change is not prevented

I think global warming is over-exaggerated by alarmists who seek to push a political agenda. I'd say it's reasonable to say there's an issue, but certainly not of the magnitude many pretend. I hear 97% quoted a lot, but believe many are simply afraid to contradict the narrative blasted at every one from all major media outlets. 97% it may be, but it wouldn't be the first time the "scientific consensus" was wrong.

> You are in denial

Nope, see above

> we can't individually give up on our beef sandwich

I don't want to, and even if I do, someone else will feel like he is now able to emit more. As I said, tragedy of the commons. And I just don't buy the idea that our living spaces will "become uninhabitable". Why the predictions of a global desert? Greenhouses tend to be damp and flourishing.

I read this comment yesterday and I keep coming back to it because it depresses me at a fundamental level. "I don't wanna change and even if I was going to I reckon _they_ wouldn't so I still won't" is the tragedy of the commons yes. But that's not a _defence_ of your actions, it's an admission of your culpability.

The "I'm not in denial, I'm just denying the science" is just cream on the top.