Hacker News Reader

Comment by rakoo | Hacker News Reader

> “If greenhouse-gas emissions continue at the same level, snow will almost disappear at lower levels by the end of the century,”

A common misconception is that if we reduced our emissions, things would get better. The reality is that a particle of CO2 that is emitted today will statistically be there for 10,000 years before disappearing. Once out there it's going to work against us for this whole period. If we reduced our emissions, things won't get better, they will get a little bit less catastrophic and we will have a little bit more time. What we have emitted so far is in the air and it's too late.

Source (http://hapen.fr/jancovici-pib-ou-co2-il-faut-choisir-science...):

- after 100 years, 40% is still there

- after 1000 years, 20% is still there

- after 10,000 years, 10% is still there

View on HN

Yes, reducing our emissions isn't going to make things "better". It is prevening things getting worse, even catastrophically so. So far, we have not suffered very much from the warming, the bad things are just starting to become visible.

Oh that is not going to go well with the majority of the population.

"You're paying these high taxes and foregoing real meat because otherwise things would've been way worse, trust us!"

Very few will believe that.

I think there would be less mistrust if the environmentalism weren't bundled in all kinds of other radical causes, the more extreme aspects of which are often alienating to the average person. For example, extreme environmentalists are often also extremely pro-immigration; they are utterly conservative in terms of the environment, yet utterly liberal to the point of contemptuous indifference to any societal or cultural damage that might occur as a consequence of unrestricted immigration. People aren't stupid and can sniff these kinds of inconsistencies out.

To elaborate on this point, because you’re being heavily downvoted...

My biggest problem with people being concerned about climate change and at the same time being pro-third world -> first world immigration is that you’re instantly lifting those people’s carbon footprint, dramatically. Isn’t that like, bad? At least as bad as first worlders having children, if not more so? It’s hard for me to take these people seriously when one policy actively works against the other.

> I think there would be less mistrust if the environmentalism weren't bundled in all kinds of other radical causes

Don't know why you're being downvoted but you're spot on with this point. The most off-putting radical cause is people trying to use climate change to push socialism on society.

When the problem comes bundled with a non-negotiable solution, it's reasonable to be skeptical of the messenger.

> A common misconception

Is this really common?

I'm aware there's climate change denial, but amongst those not wilfully ignorant, I would've presumed the fact that we're now working to slow the rate of change is a well-accepted best-case.

Among those who don’t deny it are a bunch who don’t believe there’s anything we can do (or have done) to change the pace in either direction, there’s just too many unknowns. When it comes to legislation, few are going to tolerate forced lifestyle cramping on something that ranges from “no way of knowing” to “overconfidence in our ability to know”.

I'm obviously using anecdotal evidence, but most of the time I see the issue discussed the people who do believe in climate change don't understand the scale of the thing, don't think the situation is that bad and believe that we will just find a technological way (which, at this point, is more magical than anything) to reduce emissions without impacting our overall comfort and way of life, and without massive climate catastrophes and humanitarian crises

This assumes that even if we stopped all emissions today, things will be fine. Like there's some sort of Pause button. Things won't be fine: if we stopped everything today, we'd reach the +2°C at the end of the century. Things are going to get worse even if we stop emitting.

There are ways to remove the CO2 already in the atmosphere: like planting trees. [1] Also, Microsoft just announced that by 2050 they will remove from the environment all the carbon the company has emitted either directly or by electrical consumption since it was founded in 1975. [2]

[1] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/07/how-t...

[2] https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/01/16/microsoft-will-b...

Trees planting is already taken into account. There's just too much CO2 in the air.

Regarding Microsoft's CO2 pumping:

> Solving our planet’s carbon issues will require technology that does not exist today.

This is exactly what I'm saying in my first post. We are waiting for the technology Messiah.

Stopping digging doesn't mean the hole fills up by itself. We should still stop digging though.

> What we have emitted so far is in the air and it's too late.

Why? There could be carbon capture technologies implemented, massive reforestation efforts organized.

Just a point of vocabulary:

- planting trees where there were before: reforestation

- planting trees where there never were before: afforestation

Even with afforestation we won't be able to plant enough trees to fill the hole back. Especially if we use the wood for heating.

> Even with afforestation we won't be able to plant enough trees to fill the hole back.

I thought it was obvious that the ideas I proposed had an implicit AND operator in between them, not an OR. No single solution by itself is enough. Going vegan alone isn't enough. Reducing flying alone isn't enough. Eliminating ICE vehicles alone isn't enough. 100% renewable energy alone isn't enough.

> Especially if we use the wood for heating

So don't use it for heating - use it in construction, furniture, or heck turn it into charcoal and bury it. Why would people use it for heating if clean electricity is made widely available?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com