Hacker News Reader

Comment by pvaldes | Hacker News Reader

Not, Not the only.

There are a lot of room for improvement in using energy better. Cars do not need to spend so much fuel as before, and there is room for improvement in isolation of houses so they don't need so much energy.

None of those are related with nuclear energy but would reduce the climatic problem just now, not in ten years, without putting a low probability but catastrophic collateral effect in the middle of the road for our grandsons.

In any case with or without nuclear, with the highest wildfires registered in the history in Russia, Australia, Brazil and US (2019-2020) we either focus and solve the arsonism crimes, predatory logging, and environmental lack of water problems or we aren't going anywhere. Deliberate arsonism should be reclassified worldwide as crime against (the future of) humanity. If we can bomb a whole city in Irak, we should be able to drop water in California or Canberra.

View on HN

> If we can bomb a whole city in Irak

Notwithstanding the human and archaeological impact of this, the environmental impact was pretty terrible as well. The oil consumption of all those tanks and planes can't have been small, as well as the burning oilfields that blackened the sky and all the depleted uranium rounds littering the country.

You have a point here. I'll rephrase it. If we can bomb a whole city in Irak, we should be able to stop bombing cities also. Is a much easier task and would help also to fix the climate problem.

Has anybody calculated how many greenhouse effect gasses are released when moving and dropping a bomb?

Cultural change can do a lot. Less consumption, less waste.

When I think about ICE.. every time someone used brakes in the past they were wasting energy ... at least EVs will recapture some of that.

In Germany we're pretty much at the base line it's to expensive to waste energy. After picking the low hanging fruit (light, lcd tvs, not using a dryer all the time) It gets very hard.

> "Deliberate arsonism should be reclassified worldwide as crime against (the future of) humanity"

You mean that, what the western countries did throughout the 19th and the 20th century, the developing countries aren't allowed to do now?

Why? Because some forests are burning near one of the richest cities in the world?

People in western countries had to bloody fight each mm, for those laws. Laws that are always eroding. Is a sisyphean task, even here.

Developing countries are sovereign and have governments and armies. Prominent environmentalists are assassinated each year in those countries and the cases remain inexplicably unsolved. All the time.

So, no more excuses and "come here and solve my environmental problems so I don't need to". No more "donate to save the rainforest for 40 years, so we can sell later the logs to the first company that knocks at my door". People can always choose not to vote for the mentally damaged candidate.

This is not an excuse. The western countries burned most of the fossil fuels, and are responsible for most of the world's deforestation.

You're effectively saying that other countries shouldn't be allowed to lift their population from poverty in the same way that the western countries did.

If so, then the west should pay up, or otherwise stfu.

This is a rotten old red herring and a false dichotomy that assumes that the way to get rich is selling the roof of your house.

They will not got rich if they destroy their nature. How they will pay for the services that it provides?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com