Comment by candiodari | Hacker News Reader

Comment by candiodari | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I don't get this reasoning. Global warming has been self-reinforcing since before my dad was born, so a 100% reduction in human co2 emissions will not stop climate change, just slow it down. It's also an exponential process and we're not in the early stages, so it won't even slow it down that much. Imagine the effect of a 5% change now, which is a completely unrealistic goal to boot. It's nothing.

https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/08/why-positive-climate-feedba...

We don't need miracle technology, we have the technology to take control of the climate, and we'll be forced to use it, whatever other measures are used.

So lifestyle choices are great and all, but please stop saying they're for the climate. They're insignificant, even if 100% implemented.

The proverbial raindrop you're talking about matters very little if the reason for the flood is a dam breaking. Great attitude on the part of the raindrop to not make the situation worse. But all the raindrops together only make the situation 0.1% worse than it was before the rain ...

> So lifestyle choices are great and all, but please stop saying they're for the climate. They're insignificant, even if 100% implemented.

This is false.

> That’s why the late 2018 IPCC report stood out that reducing meat consumption by 90% is the single biggest way to reduce global warming. Some studies also show that without meat and dairy consumption, global farmland use could be reduced by over 75%. In this way, reducing your meat consumption is also a big step to stop not only deforestation but also global warming on a larger scale.

https://e-csr.net/definitions/what-is-definition-deforestati...

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02409-7

Or better yet: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/08/Fullreport-1... (search for "meat" and "diet")

> Some studies also show that without meat and dairy consumption, global farmland use could be reduced by over 75%

But reducing farmland by over 75% is not enough by itself to counter climate change. And, if we can plant enough trees outside of farmland the reduction of farmland is not even neccessary.

It seems, we agree that we need more trees. But you want to get there by eating less meat. Yes, there is a connection between meat and trees, but why not just plant trees?

Edit: reduced the quote to relevant part

>Global warming has been self-reinforcing since before my dad was born, so a 100% reduction in human co2 emissions will not stop climate change, just slow it down.

Just like death, I guess we shouldn't bother with trying to slow that down.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com