Hacker News Reader

Comment by vzidex | Hacker News Reader

Reminds me of the joke whose punchline is that if we transition to renewable energy and go carbon-neutral we'll have gotten ourselves off of oil and its related issues (spills, war, etc.) for nothing [1].

Even if you don't believe in climate change - which I do not think is a reasonable position at this point - I would hope we can all agree that not having to rely on oil any more is a good enough economic incentive for everyone.

[1] https://solar-power-now.com/what-if-we-create-a-better-world...

View on HN

This totally ignores nuclear energy. If we are really in for "catastropic" climate change, then one of the things you can do is quickly build crappy, unsafe nuclear power plants. Even if you have a Chernobyl somewhere in the world every 5 years, you are still probably better off than with catastrophic climate change.

Basically, it is this thinking that makes a lot of people suspicious about climate change. If all things that you would do to combat climate change are things the progressives/environmentalists want to do anyway (increase taxes, more government regulation of industry, more urbanization, more public transportation, etc) and nothing that they would not want to do, people on the other side of the political spectrum have their bs detector go off.

There are a lot of people, like myself, who would love nothing more than having 100% nuclear power and understand climate change.

Unfortunately the left is as anti-science as the right when it comes to their sacred cows.

When one tries to analyze pros and contras of nuclear energy, he can get conflicting data. Some say "overall modern nuclear beats handily anything", other say "nuclear is good only if you omit externalities like problem of spent fuel". Both sides provide data which supports their point of view, without explaining the data of the other side. So it's hard to make a reasonable judgement.

> This totally ignores nuclear energy.

Yeah and it was a good comment without the us v them environmental bait. I say this as someone who supports nuclear but accepts the reality that building a new plant is essentially impossible to supply urban areas now. It has plenty of applications but we mostly live in democracies and even countries with strong nuclear support have been all cutting back after Fukushima, much to my dismay.

Small modular reactors should have a future for remote communities and a few other applications, space especially. The actual tech behind modern modular reactors is exciting[0]. Besides that the game is up for traditional nuclear plants that require decades to be built against horrendous public opposition in the face of a solar or wind farm that can be hooked up in a year for the same price. It's simply not viable anymore.

[0] https://www.nuscalepower.com/benefits/built-for-resilience

To continue what you're saying, why not put these plants in deserts and other uninhabited regions?

Russia is huge, China is 80% empty, America is sparse, Australia is 95% percent empty and India has a desert too. Power supply would be an issue but can be solved. (Numbers likely hyperbolic).

Instant solution of middle East problem. Perhaps that's why? Maybe Mideast is what stops nuclear plants, just like saudis, via Citibank, decided Obama cabinet?

Water is needed currently for nuclear power. https://nuclear.duke-energy.com/2014/01/22/importance-of-wat...

There is not enough uranium available to just switch to nuclear.

Bill Gates is trying to invent some slow wave something reactor needed to make that work but it is not working yet.

Is this a problem with the existence of ore, or a problem with the current supply chain?

It is the existence of it.

I don't see why this needs to be politicized this heavily. The facts are essentially indisputably in the side of climate disaster as likely. This shouldn't be the cause of 'progressives' (although maybe it should be the cause of 'environmentalists' -- even though I'm not sure who the heck should be an 'anti-environmentalist' in right mind), this should be just something we have to do as a species living on the planet. If 'progressives' picked it up and (some) 'conservatives' did not, I think it's an unfortunate failure of conservatives (and science communicators, and society as a whole, etc.).

I support Nuclear Energy too, but I can see it has difficulty gaining traction for a huge list of reasons, and this is across the political, social and economic spectrum. But basically the need for Nuclear is largely obsolete -- it was the only attractive option when Solar (and Wind to an extent) wasn't so cheap. Solar costs about the same or less, is available more or less everywhere, and has no contamination issues.

Also of very worthy note IMO is that the (electrical) energy supply isn't the whole picture. A good chunk of emissions are from transportation sector and some from industrial processes. There is also advocacy in those sectors (which comes off as 'progressive') simply because of consistency and necessity to achieve a reasonable climate plan. Note that nuclear energy, or solar energy, can't solely avoid incoming disasters.

Let me preface this by saying I believe in AGW, and that it's an existential risk.

> I don't see why this needs to be politicized this heavily

One huge reason is that the coincident ideologies of the left can't be taken seriously by those on the right. Or, put another way, they don't believe them.

Specifically, if one was truly serious about the urgency of solving climate change, they would not simultaneously advocate for raising the standard of living of non-Western populations to Western levels, before the carbon footprint required of said standard of living was dramatically reduced first.

Carbon emission reduction right now, with the urgency required to prevent collapse, is fundamentally incompatible with open borders. So when someone on the right sees an open-borders advocate clamoring for immediate carbon emissions reductions, the conclusion is not necessarily that they don't believe the science, it's that they don't believe you do. And the only valid conclusion is that you're motivated by politics, not by legitimate concern for the species.

Also, considering that the advocates don't seem to change their behaviors or lifestyles even marginally, the folks listening feel like the burden is being put on them. Why would I not take my family to Disneyland when I see private jets taking off ever more frequently from the private airport nearby? Cars are getting bigger, houses too, and apart from buying a Tesla, using LED lights, and a few other simple things, even the advocates don't seem to take global warming seriously. Why would average Joe panic when the celebrities, politicians, and even Gretta are traversing the world and attending fun events? Nobody seems to be sacrificing at all.

> things the progressives/environmentalists want to do anyway

Progressive/environmentalists are a smart bunch, and the movement has enough history. They figured already what's useful, why and how - now their predictions are getting more visible, have more support. To consider that bs just because somebody figured it earlier than you and now has even more arguments is sad.

That joke boils down to "just do what we say even if we're wrong". That message isn't going to fly with a lot of people, especially in the US, where many are deeply suspicious of the government. Reminds me of Steve Bannon telling some Republican congressman "look, you really have no choice, you have to support this proposal". To which the guy replied "last time someone told me I had to do something I was 18 and it was my daddy, and I didn't listen then either".

"Do what we say or we all die" is also not a great message...even if it's true (which, personally, I doubt).

How can you possibly doubt that? What have you seen to convince yourself that catastrophic climate change is not real?

Or perhaps you're taking the other rational position - that even if we did what they say, we'll still die...

Oh, and the joke boils down to no such thing. It is very explicitly 'even if we were somehow wrong about climate change, there are so many other huge advantages to getting rid of fossil fuels'.

My understanding is that "we're all going to die" is not a widely accepted view among climate scientists. I am skeptical of "catastrophic climate change leading to the end of life as we know it or the extinction of humanity" e.g. Wells' The Uninhabitable Earth.

Anyway, my point was simple. If you want to sell people on "huge advantages to getting rid of fossil fuels" then sell them on that. Don't use a stick when you could use a carrot. This stuff is political. It's about persuasion, personal relationships, talking to people like they're not idiots (even if they are), showing respect, and so on. It's not about being right.

Catastrophic climate change isn't expected to lead to extinction of humanity though, and very few people with any sense would characterize it that way (I'm sure you can find a few)

What is expected is: increasing, and increasingly damaging weather events yoy. Destruction of a bunch of viable agricultural land, and abrupt change in more. Destruction of a lot of low lying infrastructure close to water. Secondary effects include mass migrations and health crisis in some populations affected by previous. etc. Things get more expensive and painful all over.

Almost all of the policy making in this area so far, globally, has not been evidence based (or even evidence acknowledging). That's the real thing to change.

There isn't a clear cut answer to any of this, just risk management and mitigation. But the action so far has been almost entirely "delay, this is hard". And so the problem, and probable impacts, gets worse.

It's a little like a nation-state version of ignoring your credit card debt because you don't want to think about it. And then arguing around the dinner table about how bad it is without anyone having looked at a statement in years.

> What's wrong with selling people on "Use the best available data and expertice to make logical policy decisions" ? There hasn't been much of that in this area, to date.

Because it amounts to "you have no choice, look at these graphs, do as I say" and people don't like hearing that.

You have a scientist's bias against politics. Most people on HN have it. But we're stuck with politics and politics is about persuasion. You have to convince people and people are not rational automatons. You don't convince people by "showing them irrefutable evidence". First, because no evidence is actually irrefutable and second, because it frames the conversation in terms of "I am smart, I have knowledge, I have research, you are ignorant, you need my knowledge to choose correctly". That's not going to convince people even if it's true.

Finally, it's a good thing that politics is about persuasion. The only alternatives are worse.

> Because it amounts to "you have no choice, look at these graphs, do as I say"

It doesn't, though. I'm not saying you can take the politics out of something like this, or that you should. The last thing I am is a technocrat. But policy makers should be working from good information when they can.

What I am saying is that the politicians, for the most part, are choosing avoidance and the arguments being made for the most part are superficial and often naive, both for and against. It's up you and I (and everyone, at least in a democratic society) to insist they hold themselves to a higher standard and actually do the work.

The (actual, not media) science, for the most part is not contentious - but that doesn't actually mean that the scientists know what is best from a policy point of view.

However, the politicians are mostly operating in a way that avoids too much contact with what is known. It's the easier path, but incredibly unlikely to lead to anything useful.

"It's not about being right."

This is the best advice to all sides.

I have found in the past that the best way to convince people is not to try to "convince" them that my "view" is correct but to listen to their views.

I call this being a "Cardboard engineer". It does not work for everyone.

> I would hope we can all agree that not having to rely on oil any more is a good enough economic incentive for everyone.

It is an economic incentive, but whether it's "good enough" depends on the costs of the transition- which are certainly dependent on how quick it needs to be.

Just a quick nit, but we make a lot of plastics and things out of oil, and iirc it’s still the most dense and stable form of energy we have. Far more so than any battery technology even on the horizon. Even if renewables were 100% perfect tomorrow, there will still be people / groups / applications for that oil. It’ll just last much longer before we run out.

One more reason to not burn it.

Yea, I agree. But what about the FACT that it's so much denser of an energy source than any battery we have? The straight up truth is that right now, unless there is so amazing innovation, we are going to use every drop. In the short term at least the world's militaries will burn as much oil as they can. Regardless of what you hear in press releases, major industry, military, aerospace will not move from oil until there is a performance reason, not ethical not cost reason to do so.

Batteries aren’t an energy source, they’re an energy storage device.

Guess what? We use oil as an energy storage device. So are you making the argument that fuel/oil is a battery or are you just being pedantic and don’t have a counter the truth that we’re going to use it all - the only question is over what time period.

If we introduce a carbon tax, militaries would have an economic incentive to reduce carbon, just like everyone else.

You believe that? You don’t know that the first exemption would be military and national security?

Crude oil is distilled (refined), not generally burned. The result is several products, all of which are used for different purposes. Naptha is best suited for plastic production; gasoline is a different chemical makeup.

Also, a good chunk of plastic can be produced from natural gas, using ethylene instead of the naptha from crude oil.

One more reason to not refine then burn it!

Yep. Even more reason to conserve it for cases where we actually need it. Plastic is tremendously useful, though we could probably use a lot less of it, too. Particularly in the ocean.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com