UN Climate change is so severe we're running out of time to adapt | Hacker News Reader

UN Climate change is so severe we're running out of time to adapt

axios.com

Remember when the first COVID shutdowns happened and air quality around the world rebounded in astonishing ways? Los Angeles literally had the cleanest air of any major city in the world [1]. How quickly we forgot...because the economy. Climate change is exactly the same situation, but at a much larger scale. Literally everything runs on the energy that we are currently getting from fossil fuels. We will accept no reduction in the standard of living. Not for air quality, not for ecosystem destruction, not for catastrophic climate change. We're gonna fry this planet for our comfort and leisure. There is no realistic plan to transition to alternative energy sources fast enough. We're barreling headlong into this and can't stop.

[1] https://www.8newsnow.com/news/local-news/iqair-los-angeles-h...

>>We will accept no reduction in the standard of living.

Largely this is correct, nor should we.

>There is no realistic plan to transition to alternative energy sources fast enough.

That is because there is not realistic replacement at this stage. They are being developed and will get there but we are not there yet, not with out causing not just a "reduction in living standard" but more like famine, disease and death

How much poverty, death are you willing to accept, because during COVID that answer was ZERO, so i am wondering what the answer is here?

If Governments put the same kind of resources into more sustainable technologies as they did into COVID response, then a similar death-minimisation outcome may be possible.

I see the problem is entirely political, in which the more morally bankrupt / desperate politicians use climate change to score political points by telling people the safe, comforting answers they want to hear, or conversely and more commonly, say that "the other side" are going to take away your X, Y, and Z.

The COVID response has proved that global mobilisation to find solutions is possible. The difference between the two things is, entirely, the political will to 'do' rather than 'do not'.

> famine, disease and death

Famine, disease and death have visited the human race in many eras in many ways. In a large part, the modern world's (temporary) escape of these things is bought through gluttonous use of energy. Like goblins in a vast project to extract undreamed of amounts of energy that just happened to be lying in deep dark pools, we suck this planet dry and claim it is our right to do so. In our mad dash to get at that incredible goldmine of serendipitous energy, we failed to plan for a transition off said energy sources to something sustainable. That's tempting enough for fate to deal us one nasty fall from a great height, but the real kicker is that burning that energy pumped a noxious debt into our atmosphere with long-ranging consequences for the entire biosphere. We've been voracious little goblins that have gnawed away at the support structure that holds up our existence, namely the remarkable green jewelry that adorns the one planet that can support us.

> How much poverty, death are you willing to accept, because during COVID that answer was ZERO, so i am wondering what the answer is here?

HA! I've always thought we should pay the consequences of our actions, and in these cases, both point a pretty damning finger in the direction of our own greed. In both cases, the loudest, shrillest voices were crying about money when life was in the balance. They used codewords like "economy" and "jobs" and "livelihood". But really, we failed to plan for a system where people could have just taken a coordinated timeout. A fragile engine, always tripping forward, that dies if it sputters.

In reality, we can't think of any other way of living than the way we do now, a way of avarice and entitlement, one that would appall any generation of humans that came before us.

>>> We will accept no reduction in the standard of living.

>>Largely this is correct, nor should we.

If we don't deal with climate change, we will definitely have those reductions both through direct environmental impact and the much greater cost of dealing with the problems created by climate change as they happen randomly all over the world. For example, think about the cost impact we've already seen from flood damage and ask what that'll look like in 30 years — housing becoming unsafe, mosquito-borne disease, impact on agriculture, etc.

> That is because there is not realistic replacement at this stage. They are being developed and will get there but we are not there yet, not with out causing not just a "reduction in living standard" but more like famine, disease and death

We have solutions which are being deployed now for a significant fraction of human emissions. Even if that's inadequate to hit carbon zero on its own, every reduction we make now buys us time to find alternatives for the remaining sources.

I honestly feel that the only "out" for us at this point is some kind of miraculous scientific discovery on the order of Einstein's theories that enables the development of some extraordinarily futuristic tech to save us. Obviously not realistic, but there is a one in a trillion chance of it happening, and it's kind of our only hope.

The problem is the actual technology that would save us the US Government, and most climate activists do not want to invest in on a large scale

Nuclear and Fusion. That is the only thing that will cover the oil based energy. Wind and Solar is a pipe dream

Sorry, but if anything in your paragraph is a pipe dream - its fusion energy.

Also, wind and solar may indeed be insufficient to meet the current energy footprint of first-worlders. However we know that most first-world energy consumers are ridiculously profligate. Basic lifestyle changes can significantly reduce consumer energy footprint. I know this because my family has done it without going full hippy-dippy.

Passive cooling where possible (e.g. opening windows at night, using window awnings during the day). Home insulation. Using LED lighting. Drive a hybrid or more efficient ICE vehicle that's sized for your actual needs not your emotional needs. Don't buy a new car every 3 years. Change your driving style (gentle acceleration and braking). If it's a 5 minute drive - walk. Buy as local as possible. Don't use disposable everything e.g. wash dishes rather than churning through plastic plates, cups and cutlery. If solar is viable for your home and you can afford it, do it. If public transport is viable where you live, then use it.

We are a family of 3 adults, living in a 4 bedroom home with 3 living areas. A/C heating and cooling. 2.3KW solar (which we've had for over 12 years). We've got 2 TV's, 2 computers, 3 phones, an Xbox, an iPad, a Wii (og), a dishwasher etc. Our electricity provider gives a comparison with "typical" families in the area. Our footprint is less than a "typical" 1 person household (which includes quite a few 1 and 2 br apartments). Not bad for not much effort.

But even this is just too radical for most people. Which is why we are collectively screwed. Everyone wants someone else to do the dirty work/experience the pain/make the sacrifice/produce the magic, or at best we want someone else to make the first move. And yes, industry has a big part to play. But I am doing my bit because I am a physicist by training and accept the science (though as an average physicist, made a career in IT). I also do it because, though I am not individually responsible for the outcome, I am individually responsible for my actions - and I want to be able to one day look my grandkids in the eye and honestly say "I tried."

Ehh, technology has saved us every other time. We technically even have the technology today but have limited political will. When it becomes a critical we'll solve it then or deploy enough stop gaps to get us back to being ok again.

This is why I'm not really concerned about climate change. In fact, it strikes me that the replacement energy technologies have existed for some time, but have been artificially held back in order to prolong the age of oil which benefits a lot of powerful people. Once their power is actually substantively threatened by climate change, they'll do what's necessary.

Ecosystems take a long time to recover. Meanwhile millions die and fight wars over scraps. It means a new dark age, at best.

They just need to slowly shift their assets over. Rich institutions gonna be rich. Like Marijuana it will only become legal once the tax and license framework is sorted to ensure the top brokers of wealth keep that wealth.

> get us back to being ok again

For some definition of "us".

What do you mean saved us every time in the past ? We have never faced a problem like climate change. Its the first time we've been so advanced as a species that we can destroy our environment from over consumption. Historically the problems revolved around being unable to produce enough for our needs. Technology is an incredible force for good, but this is a new problem and theres no guarantee that it "saves" us

That is a very common screed that probably feels good but has no tangible effect.

Can you be more specific? Which lifestyles need to be reduced? What specific action are you demanding specific individuals take?

It very much depends on personal experience.

I lived in SE Asia for the first 30 years of my life, then moved to the US. There are so many things that Americans and first world people take for granted what would be considered luxury in the other side of the world- and you have to live through that experience to come to that realization.

So you're saying the western world needs to experience something drastic like third world poverty in order to actually change?

No but the "West" would need to give up a good bunch of luxurious wants. Less trips to the bowling alley, less meat, less drive to the store to get just one thing.

Maybe start thinking type of consumption.

A bowling alley where you walk or bike might not be too bad. I don't think they have very massive carbon footprint. On other hand car trips to skiing, or nature should be right out. And tourism in general outside immediate local vicinity.

And then in general consume less, like electronics. Do we really need to replace them every other year or should once in five to ten be enough? And what do we serve with them? Could we start spending more effort to optimize energy consumption and transfer of data?

Not change your whole like in a drastic manner, but maybe at least live in the 3rd world for a significant amount of time- should be enough of an eye-opener for a lot of people.

Stop buying out of season fruit/veg for your area. That stuff gets shipped 1/2 way around the world to get to your table.

Some dietitians also claim the seasonality of edible plants helps our gut biome (but I can't find that source again)

Also, local-in-season is, IME, lower cost.

One small, kinda easy, step

It would have a bigger effect of the Govt set these things up, to increase incentives for local produce etc. Doing it on the individual level is a losing battle. Most people don't care (or don't understand the implications), so long as they get there xyz to eat.

It won't help. The majority of emissions are industrial and commercial. If you want to look at actions like that I would see them through the lens of local sustainability which is a fantastic goal. Unfortunately a single cargo ship idling in the dock would probably erase the carbon savings of every good willed vegetable purchase.

What you as an individual can actually do is contact your delegates, your ministers, your officials, your industry partners, whoever you have access to, and tell them exactly why it's their problem to solve. You not buying bananas is a good gesture, but a carbon tax that makes out of season bananas unprofitable is where we need to implement the change.

Downvote first paragraph, upvote second :)

Those things are still worth doing because en masse it has an effect, and if the single cargo ship is idling in the dock, then that doubles the negative effect, so offsetting counts for... something, at least.

That's fair, I am a little bashful in this regard sorry.

We are decades beyond the pail at this point is why. There is of course reason to change your own behavior, but we need rock solid actionables from industry to change emissions at the scale we need.

> It won't help.

If I've learned one thing from plugging holes in my insulation, is that leaks are cumulative. A crack here, a hole there, a bad seal there, a gap in the insulation there; it all adds up. CO2 emissions, the primary driver of climate change, is a "leaky" situation. We've got a huge distributed system here. We need to plug holes at every level. We're not one CPU or one core. We can do multiple things at once. If anything, people doing local things are viral, cathartic, and set the tone for change.

Despite my doomerish top comment (I still think we are screwed), but I compost, I recycle, I reduce waste as much as possible, and these effects "won't help". Whatever.

It's true, "it won't help" is not true I suppose. It will certainly help. But we need much greater scale, and I am cynical toward the motivations of the global community.

We can't even get one of the wealthiest nations in the world, Australia, to stop digging up coal in 2022, when it's citizens are busy installing enough solar to power whole cities. We the people need to wield our power to get the people up top to do the right thing, else it's for nothing.

Your first sentence is flat-out wrong for two reasons: the most obvious is that while not sufficient to solve the problem, it clearly does help but the second is the psychological benefits. Telling people things they can do right now don't matter is depressing; getting them in the habit of thinking about ways to reduce their personal impact is part of helping build the social inertia which is needed to get the various people you mentioned in your second paragraph to listen. Someone who feels good and – far more importantly – gets positive feedback towards making a change rather than a cynical “it won't help” is probably going to keep doing things like that (drop beef next!), and probably explore ways to make their commute less expensive too.

One way to think about it which might be helpful is to triage your targets: have a short-term goal which you could do today with no real barriers (e.g. pick a protein other than beef), a mid-term goal which you can do on your own but might take some planning (bike / transit to work or shop, use a clothesline instead of a drier, replace old non-electric appliances in your house with electric ones, buy your electricity from a renewables supplier, etc.), and a long-term goal with more dependencies which you can't do quickly or on your own (get involved in local politics to reduce car usage, hound your elected representatives, etc.).

' replace old non-electric appliances in your house with electric ones '

I have a functional can opener in my kitchen which I crank by hand. The suggestion to replace it with an electric version is stupid virtue signalling.

My toilet runs on water pressure, gravity, and me pressing the lever. Should I get a model with wifi actuated electric flush handle?

I have not had a TV in a couple decades. What TV with wifi and always-on do you recommend to virtue signal?

My car has a cassette tape deck. Should I replace the car for a new model with a built-in 20" dashboard TV to signal that I save the planet?

> I have a functional can opener in my kitchen which I crank by hand. The suggestion to replace it with an electric version is stupid virtue signalling.

Ah, “virtue signaling”, ever the reliable indicator that someone is attempting to converse in good faith.

Take this as an opportunity to learn what a major appliance is and that some of them burn natural gas or use electricity very inefficiently:

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

Really, what TV should I get to save the planet? Are there models with big 'energy efficient' stickers and a few green leaves?

I'm keeping my hand-crank can opener. No need to take this opportunity to research electric can opener appliance energy usage.

he probably meant replace fossil/gas with electric

not to replace passive ones

I was a bit cynical with the absolutism it is true. I know you aren't wrong on your other points too, believe me. I implement a lot of your suggestions already even. It's just that it will be for nothing if we can't convince our politicians to force the hand of industry to change.

As well, while you and I are doing the right thing, it's likely we are the minority, and for many it's just due to the economics of their situation. We have built a societal appratus that pollutes, it's not fair to put the onus of change on the individuals when they have the least agency of all. Although of course we can do our various parts to help.

My cynacism is probably better seen as exasperation, because it is absolutely mind boggling that we are at the point we are yet the only levers we have are to eat less fruit, or take a bus. Why isn't one of our levers "ban fossil fuel entirely in industries where there are alternatives"? Why is it up to us to correct for profit chasing industrial practices?

Telling people to rile up against climate change let's industrialism get away with it. If I'm to downgrade my life, it better be from trickle down ecology rather than frugality.

> Stop buying out of season fruit/veg for your area.

Nope, its just piggy-backing on existing trade routes. Wont change anything.

Stop eating meat, stop flying, stop driving, stop buying new clothes (for starters). Its not "feel good", its reality.

As we have already seen this pandemic, you can't always guilt or shame people into action.

Sure thats why the commenter said we're going to fry the world for our comfort. There are lots of straightforward steps we can take to reduce emissions, the issue is a lack of willingness

Again a non-answer. What exact steps should be taken and by whom?

I gave you a very precise set of actions that you personally can take, it can also function as a set of broad goals for governments to set tax policies (tax meat). I'm sorry that you don't like them

Stop producing meat, stop international flights, stop selling cars, stop producing clothes. That's the only way people will abide these policies. What's the point of saving the planet if you destroy your life?

Instead of "stop", the more realistic approach is tax those things to reflect their damage to the environment and watch consumption patterns change. Unfortunately most governments won't do that either

I'm already paying the vegan tax. So do we add meat taxes on top of that? Can we restructure the subsidies?

Only start producing and eating the optimal gruel as food. No more wasteful and useless things like coffee or fruit that isn't optimal for calorie-CO2.

Evaluate diet containing all micro and macronutrients with absolute minimum carbonfootprint and ban everything else. Enforce these bans harshly.

Yes, I recognize that most people want to continue to live their lifestyles. I've come to accept that its very likely the planet is toast.

Pretty much every person on earth has to start living like the Amish.

If we do nothing my life will be completely fine. Currently we're on track to drastically reduce emissions and my life will be completely fine. You want to actively make my life worse. A conundrum.

One thing that surprises me, which became more obvious as a result of the pandemic, and screamingly obvious as a result of Russia invading Ukraine, is the national security implications of fuel and energy security.

What blows my mind is the chasm between national security paranoia due to terrorism and absolute inaction and denial on national security around energy.

It may be more obvious since I'm in Australia, where we have boundless open spaces and abundant sunshine as well as some of the highest electricity costs in the world (despite also having an abundance of coal), in combination with being remote and dependent upon external sources of petrol / fuel; Australia has been in breach of the IEA obligations on fuel security for years[0][1]. Australia should be exemplary for the use of electric vehicles and solar power, and yet it lags behind much of the developed world.

In addition to the current Australian government being rabidly anti-renewables, such as rolling back the carbon price policy in 2014[2][3] after it was put in place in 2011 that looked as if it made a measurable difference to Australia's carbon emissions[4].

I'm an angry motherfucker about it, and it's my primary vote-deciding issue.

[0]: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-23/government-accused-of...

[1]: https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Australias-Fuel-S...

[2]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/17/australi...

[3]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-28339663

[4]: https://ccep.crawford.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/publica... (table, page 9 - page number 7)

"The sudden rise in Solar PV installations in Australia since 2018 dramatically propelled the country from being considered a relative laggard to a strong leader in Solar PV development by mid 2019. With an installed photovoltaic capacity of 16.3 GW at the end of 2019, Australia has the highest per capita solar capacity"

There is also this https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-23/nt-sun-cable-project-...

Huge solar farm in the works for NT, Australia.. though it's to help power Singapore... But at least it'll bring some work/income to Australia. It's kinda what you'd expect the Australian Govt to be working on though, for its citizens, and to export.

South Australia went a full week on renewables recently, and regularly does full days. You could probably nitpick technicalities but that any portion of any day could be served entirely on solar and wind is a massive achievement and one I don't see rolling backward any time soon.

Wow, that's an amazing achievement, especially considering SA was having major power issues not so long ago.

The State Governments have been surprisingly good at filling the vacuum left by the federal government.

Residents have been doing their bit, no doubt, but it hasn't "trickled up". Additionally, State Governments have been implementing their own policies due to the federal policy vacuum.

The absence of Government policy and support for industrial-scale solar and wind installations has driven away a fair bit of investment (according to a number of articles I've read over the years). And there's not just lack of Government support, but overt negativity: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/sas-big-battery-just-ano... (Scott Morrison, treasurer at the time, is now Australia's prime minister)

Amusing follow-up: https://reneweconomy.com.au/on-first-day-as-pm-morrison-lear...

This david attenborough doco shows the covid change pretty well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XswV_yqPq28

> Remember when the first COVID shutdowns happened and air quality around the world rebounded in astonishing ways?

Yes, we're definitely not beyond the point of no return.. yet. Natures engine can still drive restoration.

But what I also remember from covid is the plethora of sterilization and depopulation conspiracies. If we put 2 and 2 together..

Look at how we say climate change as opposed to global warming, or global freezing. What hubris we have as humans that we are wanting to freeze in place the climate. If you go back in time and look at the climate, it has changed.

With that, please provide with a serious set of facts, that we can model impacts that can be implemented to change the system. Please bear in mind that I just watched a model tell us to lock down a system. People said that the model had issues, they were pilloried for questioning it. The model turned out to be politically motivated and has been shown to be adjusted to justify a lockdown. Now, with a serious set of facts tell me that the people who are doing the models are not politically susceptible. Now, with a serious face tell me that the climate change modeling community does not have a positive feedback loop to encourage dire warnings, please include that we just watched the sciences go along with bad ideas to make sure they kept their NIH funding. Finally, please include Michael Mann’s active avoidance of sharing data because his hockey stick model failed in its data.

My metric for finding out if people understand reality is to ask the following: Is nuclear power on the table as a base load provider?

If the answer is “no” then the person is not versed in what we need and is a signal to smile and get away from them.

> If you go back in time and look at the climate, it has changed.

https://xkcd.com/1732/

> the people who are doing the models are not politically susceptible

That works both ways, and there's a fucking fuckton, like, I can't even find the words that would describe the size difference, like Arcturus to the Sun[0] sized motherfatherfucking fuckton difference in money to be made promoting fossil fuels and the status quo versus renewables and sustainability.

An excerpt from a conversation no-one will ever hear: "I want to be a billionaire, I'm going to go into environmental science".

[0]: http://www.co-intelligence.org/newsletter/images/arcturus-et...

There’s a tremendous amount of political power that can be gained by promoting climate change, i.e. the ability to control every aspect of the economy and peoples’ lives. You don’t think that’s a potentially juicy incentive to a budding young technocrat?

I don't really see it as political power because it has been, and is still being, strongly resisted by both politics and media. Real politcal power is populism, and action on climate change is still un-populism (from what I see).

> i.e. the ability to control every aspect of the economy and peoples’ lives

Sounds like you're worried about an agenda that I just don't see even exists, like you're attaching a very personal fear to this particular issue. What you're describing sounds more like the combination of politics and religion to me.

I'll update my sarcastic response from above to:

"I want to control every aspect of the economy and people's lives, I'm going into environmental science".

Edited to add: There's a theory I'm working on, which I'm referring to as "the shock jock test". If controversial radio hosts and "guest columnists" are using the topic (climate change, feminism, immigration for example) to instigate dramatic, angry, emotional, and poorly constructed arguments as the kind of feedback to represent their listenership / readership, then the political winds are against it's very existence as a topic.

This is the most idiotic argument I've ever heard. You can dismiss literally any problem that affects society by claiming the proponents of it are "politically motivated". No shit they're political motivated. It's a political problem that needs a political solution.

With the west looking to cut off Russian energy and the world economy staring at a ton of misery due to the sanctions a green new deal like stimulus could be a great way to tackle all 3 problems.

The green new deal will just be a blank check, managed by politicians. It'll be a catch all where every political wishlist item and special interest will jump on the bandwagon with zero scrutiny or oversight.

I am not very hopeful that it will have a good result.

Let's focus on high ROI climate mitigation projects driven by the people who actually know what they are doing and can execute on those ideas.

The Green New Deal has actual proposals. In other words, it is not a blank check. Writing it off with platitudes is not a serious response.

Conversely, saying "Let's focus on high ROI climate mitigation projects" etc. is just writing yourself a blank check. There is no concrete proposal, just an assertion that certain people should get the power and funding. Give them the cash and they'll solve it for us.

Yeah but they were shit proposals that just tried to attach a bunch of random progressive ideas to carbon neutral.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal#Green_New_Deal_...

> "Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States." "Providing all people of the United States with – (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature."

Going through the Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal#Green_New_Deal_...) it is pretty much a blank check, saying "we have to be 100% carbon free by 2050" isn't an actual proposal, it's just a goal.

I am not American, this is an actual good faith assessment as I don't have a favorite "party".

The Green New Deal, as it says in that article, is not a particular proposed piece of legislation but a collection of proposals. Nonetheless, each of these does contain particular proposals. And you didn't pick a proposal, you picked a goal. A sample actual proposal is "invest x dollars over y years upgrading the electrical grid as a necessary precursor to more widespread adoption of variable but renewable power sources". "Invest x dollars over y years to subsidize the transition to electrified transportation", i.e., tax incentives and grants to build charging stations and get people to buy electric cars -- another proposal. These have actually been worked out in excruciating detail in one Green New Deal-esque legislative proposal: the Build Back Better plan. They had to work it out in detail because they had to put a pricetag to it so they could submit it to the Congressional Budget Office. This legislation has a vast amount of detail, but maddeningly its opponents deride it both for being too detailed ("Who could read this doorstop!? We don't know what we're voting on! Government red tape!") and for being a blank check.

Here's the original proposal from Sanders' campaign: https://berniesanders.com/issues/green-new-deal/

Wait, so your solution to massive economic harm caused by government regulations, and money printing is to increase government regulations and print even more money...

That's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for them

last time government tried to solve climate change we got 10% corn based ethanol gas which current research indicates has made things WORSE not better.[1]

[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-yDKeya4SU

Pipe dream. You can’t run a military on green energy. The West needs to re-industrialize, quickly, or it’ll lose the next Cold War.

1. The Cold War wasn't won by the military. 2. You can definitely run a military on green energy 3. The world is moving towards more cooperation, not less. 4. Yes the west should re-industrialize by electrifying everything and replacing all the dirty energy production with green energy production

1. Couldn’t have been won without it though. 2. Ships, jets, and rockets all require fuel. Coal is required to produce steel. 3. Could have been, but this trend is reversing. The only place becoming more unified might be Europe, and the relationship between China and Russia. We are shifting away from the unipolar world order of dollar hegemony. 4. Would agree if nuclear is counted.

Europe unification will crack within a decade. Southern Europe is strangled by euro without effective ability to shift course. It will be okay, like brexit.

Can you elaborate a bit? Doesn't the Ukraine/Russia conflict imposing an existential threat on Europe change your calculation? For example, we see Germany re-militarizing [1], which would have been unthinkable even a few years ago. Security trumps economics.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/27/world/europe/germany-ukra...

Since you brought up trump, he was on to something when he questioned why USA still runs NATO. Europe can provide for their own defense. USA can still sell them equipment.

If the EU provide for its own defense, i guarantee you it won't buy American. Now that the UK is out, Eu main militaries are French and Italian, two countries with major arms dealer. You can be certain that if USA leave the helm, all deals for the European Army will benefit those two.

I call bullshit. Southern Europe ( Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, because they're the only ones on the euro) have had drastic success in Covid stimulus negotiations, and look well poised to apply it well. And if you look at the political situation there, there are no big eurosceptic parties with consistent ( not a one time fluke) success. Especially with the devolving security situation, and post-Covid, the EU is only going to get more important and needed by European countries.

Nuclearize all the things, like we are in 1960s. It’s actually exciting that it came back in force.

The US military runs engines without emissions controls because ... war. It is embarassing to waste so much wealth on endless conflicts. DoD spend continues to be a white-collar welfare program.

The headline is a poor summary. The report finds that the climate is tracking right down the middle of predictions made 10, 20, and 30 years ago. But the report finds that the impacts on human civilization is more severe than anticipated.

Most people think that we'll be able to deal with climate change when the impact becomes problematic but when that happens it will be already too late to do anything for the current generation.

There is a lag of decades between emissions and perceivable changes in the climate. We're now only seeing the effects from the emissions of the late 20th century.

The other important point that most of the public narrative is missing is climatic feedbacks. These are self sustaining systems that once triggered will have a life of its own and are already having a significant impact (eg: methane from the permafrost).

Finally, CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for centuries if not more.

Hopeful that https://www.vesta.earth/ can make a difference.

Another alarmist article.

Can we please get concrete, non-negotiable deadlines with clear goals? E.g. by 2030 - only electric cars, by 2040 - only recyclable materials, by 2050...

Statistics and expert warnings are nothing new and the vast majority are coping with the doomsaying with ease.

afaict, the amount of actual science in this report is zero.

The referencing and style shouldnt even get it into a low grade scam journal.

Worse, it definately wouldnt convince an average policy maker to part with a roll of wall paper, let alone commit to any kind of serious action.

Ask a Republican or Democrat what is more important, capitalism or the environment (safe environment for future generations)? Neither will be able to give you a straight answer.

apparently we can either cause major damage to the planet or all go live in caves. either we have to lay off the market completely for it to work its magic or its totalitarian communism. certainly I have a heard a republican answer - double down on consumption and the market will figure out a way (I call this this 'shoot the moon' idea from hearts).

the best thing about the market is that its highly adaptive. we should change the ground slowly and let it adapt. I guess that would be 'choosing the winners'

What? What is your answer? I assume by capitalism you mean economic prosperity. Climate change is going to be terrible for economic prosperity. On the other hand, there are a lot of jobs to be had addressing climate change. The problem isn't that we have to choose between economic prosperity and doing something about the climate, but that certain vested interests will be harmed. If you've invested billions in prospecting for fossil fuels and buying up mineral rights your ox is going to be gored. These people, who only foresee a few more decades of life before them anyway, have a lot of spare cash to invest in propaganda to change the subject, confuse issues, and divide the electorate. Telling people that they have to choose between the economy and the climate is one of the ways they do this. Don't buy it.

> On the other hand, there are a lot of jobs to be had addressing climate change.

The environment is real, and no matter how much we pretend to care about it, the artificial economy will continue to take priority as long as capitalism is around.

It's not really an either or question, and, unlike the environment, 'capitalism' seems to have different meanings to different people, often somewhat divergent from its proper definition.

Let's take capitalism to mean capital allocation by independent profit seeking entities within a (state mandated) market framework.

Such a system has turned out to be fairly efficient at resource allocation, in purely economic terms, compared to e.g. central planning. It encourages the rule of law, requiring as it does strong property protections. Since actors are expected to be independent, it also fits nicely with ideas of personal freedom (at least, for capital owners anyway).

Unfortunately, in its remorseless drive for greater extractive efficiency, it tends to trash anything external to the market system within whose logic it operates. Namely, the health and dignity of workers, and the environment.

Put a heavy price on carbon externalities, let the free market do its work. It will heavily incentivize local manufacturing and onshoring in general, so it should result in a hell of a lot of local job creation.

Not disagreeing with what you're saying, but is that the right terminology? Once you start pulling levers and putting thumbs on scales like that, is it still a "free" market?

People always argue about this when it comes up, it’s basically the no true Scotsman thing. Call it what you want, but it’s generally a lot more “free market” than targeted subsidies/penalties designed by legislators - eg $5000 back if you buy an EV, but only if that manufacturer has sold less than 500,000 cars, and a bonus if it was made in a union shop with x% American parts.

Like I said, I'm not opposed to what you're saying, it just seems like calling it the free market is just distracting from your point, which is to solve this with regulations.

The contradiction kind of jumped out at me, and it sounds like it has jumped out at others before based on what you said. Your original comment could be paraphrased as "regulate the market and then let the unregulated market do its magic." Why not just avoid all that and just take out the "free" part? Its the market part thats doing the work.

Maybe you're right, feel free to ignore the "free" if it makes it make more sense, the "free" part wasn't the point so much as letting the market decide where carbon is worth a steep price and where it isn't.

Irrelevant. Markets work well for society when there is a lot of competition and when winning is aligned with social good. If we can change the rules to help the second while keeping the first, it’s a win win.

Again, I'm not saying the market should be free. I'm asking if parent is being inaccurate with their language.

Yes, import tariffs based on USA pollution requirements. That is going to sting when toxins from iStuff and solar panel manufacturing are no longer profitable to dump on the ground in China and India.

Glory to Putin, his war on imperialist Western powers will finally force them to stop burning fossil fuels. If that doesn’t work, he’ll try geoengineering with nuclear weapons to induce global cooling. What a great environmentalist, ol’ Vlad!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com