Hacker News Reader

Comment by philips | Hacker News Reader

Fisheries across Alaska are really struggling. It is striking how climate change affects the economy of Alaska today.

Another article: https://www.npr.org/2019/12/08/785634169/alaska-cod-fishery-...

Oil and gas still provide 1/3 of all jobs in Alaska. What is striking is how much climate change has contributed to the economy of Alaska.

Sure.

Setting your kitchen on fire warms your house, for a bit.

It's not a great long-term plan, though.

Unfortunately, planning for the long term makes you uncompetitive on the nation state scale in the short term, which can threaten the nation state’s survival/prosperity.

That's the tragedy of capitalism.

I am not sure how a different system would have changed things. Look at russia, half the middle east, etc. Not exactly the common definition of capitolist. Producing energy is about the most productive thing a country can do for its people, no matter its politics of distribution. The fact is that petroleum is/was the most efficient way to do that. Science first, then you can drag out your personal politics.

except.. russia is an oligarchy.. middle east is mostly a dictatorship; i don't think you know what capitalism means, it's an economic system, not a system of governance

He's saying that capitalist or not, "Producing energy is about the most productive thing a country can do for its people, no matter its politics of distribution".

With temperatures hardly going above zero for five months each year and easily reaching -40C in some parts, I doubt many people would call it home at all without the help of fossil fuels.

There are certainly better ways to produce the energy we need, and I can only hope we'll find them soon; but let's not forget how much we owe to fossil fuels: probably most people on earth owe their very existence to them; discounting them just as a bad and shortsighted idea isn't really a fair assessment.

> I doubt many people would call it home at all without the help of fossil fuels.

Is uninhabited land inherently a bad thing?

Not at all. Now just go and tell the Alaskans that they can move out because you don't think that making their land uninhabited is "inherently a bad thing".

People moved en masse out of the Rust Belt when that economy changed. Parts of Alaska will be the same as we move away from fossil fuels.

Then if it's fine I don't see the problem of "setting your kitchen on fire" for a century or so. When it's over you can always move and return the land to its uninhabited state. Right?

1. To extend the metaphor a bit, the risk with climate change is burning down the entire neighborhood.

2. You can't really put the carbon back that easily.

Well that's also true on a world scale. Oil & gas are both our best friends and worst enemies.

(On this topic I recommend VlogBrother's video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibg1-0gfwjI)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com