Comment by darkmighty | Hacker News Reader

Comment by darkmighty | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This is too contrived an explanation (for the general climate change denialism), I think. I think there are two facets to it:

1) Some industries refuse to even consider it because it means they're effectively dead -- coal, oil, and a few other industries. They fuel propaganda because of this

2) Sheer ignorance

I say because it's very difficult and fragile to try and profit off a genuine catastrophe. We are indeed heading for a disaster (2C warming) even under quite optimistic assumptions about world politics and people accepting climate change and whatnot; if there is not enough action, if some technologies are not developed quickly enough, we are facing genuine catastrophe (I think there's far too much faith in a magical technological solution (rapid carbon capture) in current scenarios) -- 3 or 4C warming, where you start to talk about civilization collapse. This seems like a very weird thing to gamble with, specially since gambles require long term payoffs. If the economy and politics is a mess and there's general instability, how can you guarantee ability to monetize your bets?

No, I think most people are just genuinely not aware, willfully ignorant, don't believe humans could alter the climate, etc.

In a way it's good, because it means you can fight it to an extent with information.

3) Some people just want to see the world burn. I know people who truly believe in climate change and just don't care about the ramifications.

> 1) Some industries refuse to even consider it because it means they're effectively dead -- coal, oil, and a few other industries.

If coal/oil/gas is dead then most of humanity is dead too. Do you realize that coal, oil, gas are responsible for almost all of the world's energy production?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bp_world_energy_consumpti...

Not to mention the world's agricultural production is dependent on oil, not just for transportation, but also for petrochemical fertizilers.

Also, almost every product ( medicine, electronic, clothes, etc ) have petrochemical derivatives in them. If those fossil fuel industries are dead, then civilization ends and most of humanity dies.

> They fuel propaganda because of this

There are plenty of propaganda on both sides along with the fearmongering. And the propaganda and fearmongering doesn't help anything.

Unless there is some technological breakthrough in energy production, we aren't going to stop using fossil fuels.

Much of the world is underdeveloped and looking to industrialize.

There are 1.3 billion people without electricity. Can you believe that?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/world-without-...

Climate change isn't a political issue. It is a technological one. Europeans aren't going to give up fossil fuels to end their first world lifestyle and destroy their society and starve themselves to death. The chinese are going to use as much fossil fuels needed to reach the first world lifestyle of the europeans. Indians, once they get their act together, are going to follow in china's footsteps. Same goes for ASEAN. And eventually Africa, etc. Can't expect the poor nations to stay poor forever. And of course, we aren't going to give up fossil fuels anytime soon in the US, especially since we just became a fossil fuel energy exporter recently.

So given these realities, what do you think the climate change issue is really about? It certainly isn't about fossil fuels or reducing fossil fuels because it's simply not possible anytime soon. So what is it about?

Doing all those things is possible and there are clear plans to do them, at significant economical costs but nothing that our economies can't handle. This is the technological solution: transition out of oil and carbon in general! We already have I'd say 90% of the technological capability to achieve it and sufficient economic resources (in fact it's happening even without subsidies in many places).

Europe is already on IPCC 2C targets, and it's clearly not starving, its economy is fine. What they need to do is show the rest of the world how we're toast without action.

Just look at the 3 or 4C targets -- that themselves largely predict quick oil phase out! Civilization runs real risk of collapse before the end of the century in those targets, and 3 decades from now it'll already start looking bleak. Imagine if we do nothing.

I guess the most dark humor thing is (most) people imagining their kids living in happy wonderlands, making retirement plans, etc. while the world is literally going to hell.

It really feels like a failure of science, technology and engineering community. We're failing at communicating. Because I owe to and admire so much of our scientific history and people, I'll gladly campaign for climate action to my last day (or at least until we're at a somewhat sane track).

> Doing all those things is possible

Renewables make up almost 0% of the total energy used by the world. Getting rid of fossil fuels or the fossil fuel industry is simply not possible. This is basic economics and physics. It's science.

> in fact it's happening even without subsidies in many places

Name one place where subsidies didn't prop up renewables.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/05/home-sol...

https://ieefa.org/subsidy-cuts-result-in-sharp-drop-in-u-k-r...

The green energy industry itself admits it needs subsidies to exist hence why they lobby for more subsidies.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2015/09/01/solar...

> Europe is already on IPCC 2C targets, and it's clearly not starving, its economy is fine.

That's because Europe's fossil fuel use hasn't dropped. It has actually increased. Not only that, europe is building or trying to build pipelines from russia and the middle east to meet their energy needs. What do you the instability in syria was about? What do you think the geopolitical skirmish with russia is about? Pipelines and fossil fuels. Europe wants more of it, not less.

> It really feels like a failure of science, technology and engineering community. We're failing at communicating.

No. The communication is fine if you actually read and understand the science, technology and engineering. If you get your information from fearmongering newspapers, cable news or social media, then you have a real problem.

While you worry about the end of the world, the science/tech/engineering community is planning future research into the 30s, 40s, etc. Space flight into the 30s, 40s. Mega construction projects in the 30s, 40s, etc - some of which will last decades. Surely if the world was going to end, these highly intelligent people wouldn't be wasting time and resources on such projects.

I don't want to add to your anxiety, but the indian subcontinent, ASEAN, middle east, south america and africa are going to industrialize heavily in the coming decades. Conservatively, they make up about 40% of the world's population. So fossil fuel use is going to go up in the coming decades.

So economics, science and reality says that fossil fuel use is going to increase. So if you are really sincere in what you say, then ask yourself, what is all the climate change rhetoric really about?

> While you worry about the end of the world, the science/tech/engineering community is planning future research into the 30s, 40s, etc. Space flight into the 30s, 40s. Mega construction projects in the 30s, 40s, etc - some of which will last decades. Surely if the world was going to end, these highly intelligent people wouldn't be wasting time and resources on such projects.

I am part of the science/engineering community. I also know oceanographers (personally), a handful of climate scientists (indirectly), several biologists from several fields, physicists, and more. People usually leave this stuff to specialists -- a physicist usually won't delve deep into climate science. Everyone I know that is informed (i.e. that doesn't say "I haven't looked at the climate data and projections") is deeply worried, and the oceanographer and climate scientists I know are the least hopeful (which should be worrying). Engineers generally just assume it's going to be fine for practical purposes -- I know a handful of civil engineers and electrical engineers working on large projects. The electrical engineer is informed on climate change and doesn't know how it will impact the project long term.

Just look at the data. It's the ethical thing to do, at least I believe. If you don't, we're both wasting our times.

Where to start?

I recommend simply reading the wikipedia article in its entirety:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

paying special attention to this section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Mitigation

Look at the emission pathway -- it demands massive, immediate action.

Also read this:

https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_w...

again pay attention to page 11:

https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_w...

again the emission targets. You can see if emissions keep increasing, i.e. pathways RCP6.0 and RCP8.5 are unlikely to keep warming under 3C (see table on page 13) -- likely to go to 4-5C of warming.

Finally, you can see some of the effects here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

(note that no emission reduction, i.e. RCP>6.0, >3C warming isn't given much attention, given it's quite apocalyptic)

and also here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_and_ecosystems#...

It's anyone's guess what would happen under this scenario, almost certainly mass extinction on ocean and land, the tropics become literally almost uninhabitable, effects on civilization anyone's guess in the range of catastrophe to collapse (imagine all of India and large parts of China trying to migrate).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com