Hacker News Reader

Comment by gmuslera | Hacker News Reader

Is not a CO2 reduction, but that to the excess of CO2 that is already in the atmosphere, we worsened the situation as much as previous 2 years, not more. There is little to celebrate or feel relieved about it, we are still bleeding, but at least the cut stopped getting wider.

The other "good" news is that we lowered the increase caused by carbon and replaced it with new emissions from oil and gas that may have other side effects.

I'm a bit negative about this, even for an article that seem to have possitive news, maybe next year report will give us brigther news because there was less activity because the coronavirus.

View on HN

I'm not in favor of this attitude. If the wound is widening exponentially and you stop it from widening that's a big step in solving the issue. Basically you can move from containment to treatment.

Taking steps towards solving an issue doesn't mean anyone is claiming we solved it or doesn't recognize that we still have hundreds of miles ahead in our journey. But rather you use the past success as motivation to build momentum. You should look at the past and say "hey, we've made measurable and meaningful change. Small, but it shows that what we're doing is working. Now is the time to fight harder." Revel in that success and use it to fuel your efforts. I believe putting these things in a negative light instead paints a picture that we haven't gotten far and that our efforts aren't working. Thus disheartening people and turns them apathetic. ("There's nothing I can do")

Perspective matters.

Both of your perspectives are essential. We can't feel relieved, because there's a monumental amount of work left, and we should not discount what progress has been made, because that will discourage further progress.

But I wasn't trying to convey relief nor completion.

When I said your perspectives, I meant your perspective and the commentor your responded to perspective.

I think the GP is an important point though, because for those not following it closely, that graph can look like good news when it isn't. It's like the difference between speed and acceleration - if you're accelerating toward a wall it doesn't help your situation if you switch to merely maintaining current velocity.

> that graph can look like good news when it isn't.

Except it IS good news. But good news doesn't mean we solved the problem. This is a small victory, but doesn't mean it isn't a victory nonetheless. We need to break away from this binary thinking. Good news and bad news are a continuous spectrum. My issue here is that people are saying "well we're not done, therefore the news isn't good." To me this is fundamentally wrong and distinctiveness the human psychology.

> if you're accelerating toward a wall it doesn't help your situation if you switch to merely maintaining current velocity.

Except it does. The force you hit the wall with is proportional to the velocity you strike it. It is better to hit the wall at 100mph than 200mph. For a more accurate analogy consider that the peddle has been stuck to the floor this entire time and we've dislodged it. This is the first major step to slowing down (there's been tons of minor steps along the way).

For a more logical view: to be effective moving forward we have to look at the past to see what has been successful so that we can better focus our resources.

A battle is not the war. Celebrating the victory of a battle is not celebrating a victory in a war. You celebrate your victories along the way because otherwise you lose hope. I think this psychology should be very apparent considering the existential crisis and hopelessness that people have. Maybe we shouldn't be encouraging that attitude.

Here's an example - R0 dipped below 1 for several states, and they collectively said "Good news!" and immediately started opening back up again.

I feel like you have missed my entire point. The example is not related.

A lot of people in the west believe that we will somehow "figure it out" and that their way of life will never have to change for a solution (or be forced to change by the consequences from the lack of a solution). I think news like this is often viewed as some kind of reassurance to people of this belief. Perspective matters, which is why these kinds of results need to be given in their proper context -- i.e. extreme alarm that we are still only stopping an increase now, decades after first understanding that this was a problem yet continuing to increase our carbon output, and only during a pandemic-induced economic slowdown.

I agree with what you are saying, but this is a technical document. So the perspective of "good news" or "still bad news" is in our interpretation. We are providing said context. While I'm being optimistic here it is because I'm responding to a comment which I view as too pessimistic and encouraging hopelessness. I would (and do) go after a similar comment if it was trying to claim victory over the crisis.

The thing is that if we think about climate change as a war then this is an important battle we've won. We've STOPPED the invading army. We did not push them back, we did not defeat the entire army, but for the first time we've been able to stop the invading army from gaining ground. By all accounts, before it looked hopeless. But if that kind of battle doesn't instill hope, I don't know what does. We haven't won the war, but for the first time we haven't been slaughtered in a major battle.

We need to stop believing that anything that isn't complete victory is bad news. All that does is create a hopeless future, which turns people apathetic. Just because you haven't won the war doesn't mean you shouldn't celebrate your small victories and improve moral. That is the issue, moral.

> and only during a pandemic-induced economic slowdown.

The data is 2019.

> maybe next year report will give us brigther news because there was less activity because the coronavirus.

That “brighter news” would be at the expense of millions of jobs and livelihoods destroyed. In the US over 40% of black owned businesses are not expected to survive. Thousands of restaurants have been closed forever, and the toll keeps climbing.

That isn’t “brighter news” by any stretch.

Those safely ensconced in their work from home jobs might not get it, but the millions of small businesses are struggling and many are dying. Claiming “brighter news” for this is macabre.

Yes, any news that is not about massive reductions in total CO2 emissions (not just from energy sector) should be considered extremely bad news. Because that's what it is. Our collective apathy and resignation to continued destruction needs to stop. We need to be mad as hell and not take it anymore.

Get mad as hell, yes. But also revel in your victories. This is a long and arduous journey. People don't have the energy to be mad through all of it. They give up when we don't show how we're making progress. NO ONE IS SAYING STOP WE'VE WON. No one. But recognize that moral is low and it needs to improve. So let's celebrate the small victory and with our new and improved moral continue pushing forward.

I would like to ask fellow readers to not downvote this line of comments. I may disagree with the sentiment, but meeting it with hostility would only cause apathy and resignation that the commentor talks about. It would be great to see important discussions happening with inclusiveness and understanding. That's what it takes to not fall apart when bad things happen.

Wrong website for saying this.

You'll be cancelled and flagged (and so will I). COULD NOT AGREE MORE!

I also want to see what happens after in 2020 the whole world has stopped. Let's how many degrees the temperature lowers even with most factories and economical activity gone for months.

Atmospheric CO2 sticks around for a long time. Cutting emissions slows warming, but doesn’t decrease temperatures.

You might be thinking of Methane which does break down reasonably quickly.

Why? More usable land in Canada and Russia. Is that all there is?

I hope you're joking. Pretty much all the potentially usable land in Canada is already in use, regardless of climate change. The issue with Canadian agricultural lands isn't climate it's soil quality. Almost everything else isn't going to be arable because it's thin soils over granite bedrock (Canadian shield). If you go really far north there's areas in permafrost but that's a) arid and b) would be poor fertility anyways. Likely to desertify if it actually got that warm.

It isn't about just fertility, it can have other uses, and its also possible to make it more fertile (although it is a poor choice as farmland). Las Vegas for example is very inhospitable, as was the ancient Persepolis.

It's not usable if crops won't grow:

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2458/why-a-half-degree-tempera...

Is the only usage of land for crop growth?

well if you want to raise animals, you will also need crops to feed them... nearly half of all the crops we grow are fed to livestock

Reply on news.ycombinator.com