Hacker News Reader

Comment by thetrumanshow | Hacker News Reader

>> And it’s hard to read Republican’s sudden enthusiasm for tree planting as anything other than a cynical effort to dampen growing calls for the sorts of regulations and taxes required to bring about those changes.

Rather than going scorched earth on common-ground, why not see it as a stepping-stone, an opportunity to draw the other side toward your way of seeing things... and maybe even suggest more small, achievable steps for the other side to move in your direction rather than pulling out a cudgel?

View on HN

Perhaps because the “other side” has spent thirty years fighting tooth and nail to stop even the most modest attempts to address the problem?

When people spend that long telling you what they want, it’s generally safe to believe them.

Probably so, but when someone steps in the direction you want them to go, its not effective to whack them for it. If you want them to continue down your path you say "Well done! But, can you take just one more small step?"

The hope is that these steps accumulate into something meaningful. A virtuous upward spiral.

There is evidence that performing minor activities like tree planting actually reduces willingness to take meaningful action against climate change. This is called the 'low cost' hypothesis [1].

If you wanted to reduce public pressure against fossil fuels you would instigate something exactly like a tree planting program.

[1] https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v166y2019ic2.html

Treeplanting itself is of mixed usefulness. I've done some treeplanting, sometimes it's done well, native species are used, trees are planted properly in appropriate spots, other times, no care in tree selection is used, and introduced/invasive or just unsuitable trees are planted, trees are planted inmproperly or in locations where they won't grow and a lot of money and time ends up wasted for no benefits.

> that performing minor activities

Can I assume you are also opposed to straw and plastic bag bans? Unlike tree planting which at least does something, those bans are almost entirely worthless.

Neither of those have anything to do with climate change.

Plastic production requires oil

Plastic incineration creates CO2.

Bans on straws and plastic bags have a direct measurable impact on local marine wildlife and in the reduction of microplastics.

Now that Asian countries are introducing bans, we should start seeing slowing microplastic accumulation. Within a decade microplastic accumulation should peak. By then we'll have more efficient means of addressing microplastic pollution.

One point not often brought up is that microplastics in the ocean contribute to ocean temperature rise, since the plastics are able to retain (and thus radiate) more thermal energy. This one of the reasons the great garbage patches are hypoxic--warmer water holds less oxygen.

> The hope is that these steps accumulate into something meaningful. A virtuous upward spiral.

Or, if let's say the other side isn't working in good faith, they could then hold it up as "proof" they have done their part and ride that "effort" for another 30-40 years.

If you want to build cooperation then praising any progress, no matter how small it might seem, is usually a good idea.

Sure there might be more disagreement down the road but any bipartisan action on climate change is better than none.

We want people to feel good about positive actions taken so when we have to pressure them again they have a reason to care and turn about. Any positive movement means they're slipping, realize they're slipping and have to do something to appease critics. But doing too little makes them a hypocrite and opens them to additional criticism. Which this article is an example of.

If I'm damned either way I'm going to go to hell doing as I please.

So what you are saying, is that criticizing them for any progress is more effective?

If you mean the environmentalists and nuclear power, I agree. Nuclear power really is the only serious answer to climate change.

It's hard to know if climate change would even be an issue if protesters of the 70s, 80s, and 90s wouldn't have made any investment into nuclear power so difficult.

Stepping stones would have worked 40 years ago. We are at the precipice now and must take radical action if we are to mitigate the damage that is baked into the current climate model given the carbon ppm levels we're at now.

Bah, humbug. You still have to be nice and compromise, you can't just expect everyone to go along.

Frankly, the science isn't settled, it's such terrible rhetoric. As though science settles things that can't actually be measured until they happen.

(Ah! Did you see that? Your radicalism made me defensive and elicited my extreme response! I'm not a denier, I just find uncompromising rhetoric deeply dysfunctional)

Cool, it doesn't matter, carbon doesn't care about your rhetorical exercises. We're heading towards an extinction event and once this realization reaches critical mass, it's going to get ugly.

>You still have to be nice and compromise

If the ship is sinking you don't have to be nice and compromise with those bailing water into the ship. You have to tie them up and throw them below deck so they don't impede the bailing. Then afterwards you have up try them for mutiny.

Climate extremists (not you, but those who take this belief 2-3x further) are a major threat to modern civ. Who else fervently believes that killing off 50% of people on Earth and completely overturning the modern political-economic system is a better alternative than the status quo?

You're conflating ecofascism with activists who know that neoliberal tinkering with carbon taxes is a recipe for failure.

Common ground would be building nuclear power plants. Big, beautiful and numerous.

Planting trees is feel-good-do-nothing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com