Hacker News Reader

Comment by modmans2nd | Hacker News Reader

The poor will suffer the most from global warming, but they’ll still often be much better off than they are now. For example, there are estimates that global warming will cost Bangladesh 10% of its GDP by the end of the century. That’s a lot, but it would be far worse to try and avoid climate change and risk losing even 1 point of annual GDP growth until then.

There are also estimates that Bangladesh will be under the ocean by the end of the century - wonder whether that's worth forgoing 1% annual GDP growth.

Less of Bangladesh will be underwater by the end of the century than Holland in the 19th century. My dad was complaining yesterday that “Bangladeshi kids today don’t know what it’s like to have to take a boat to school during monsoon season.” Flood control technology has pretty much eliminated such flooding in his village and those like it.

Holland was (and is) a rich country that could afford such floor control systems.

Holland in 19th century was poorer than Bangladesh is today, but they managed to build dykes and other flooding control measures.

They’ve been estimating some place or another would be underwater for years. And it still hasn’t happened. What did Al Gore say in 2009 about the ice caps in “5-7 years?” Gore wasn’t even close to correct.

>They’ve been estimating some place or another would be underwater for years. And it still hasn’t happened.

Because most of those predictions weren't claimed to be happening within the next few years. This would still be some decades off, at least.

>What did Al Gore say in 2009 about the ice caps in “5-7 years?” Gore wasn’t even close to correct.

[sigh] Here, give me your hand, I'll hold it for you...

>"These figures are fresh,” Gore said on Dec. 14, 2009, during the COP15 climate change conference in Copenhagen.

>He added: “Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.”

>Gore cited findings from climatologist Dr Wieslav Maslowski, a research professor at the Naval Postgraduate School.

>However, it appears he mis-stated the forecast, according to reporting at the time.

>In an interview with The Times published on Dec. 15, 2009, Dr Maslowski said: “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at. I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-climate-change-idU...

I would also hope that I don't need to point out to you that just because Gore didn't know how to communicate data he was seeing, that that means climate change isn't a thing. I feel like I do, though, because your comment so obviously feels like you're willfully not paying attention.

Mentioning Al Gore in the context of climate change is unserious, although I'm sure it's good fodder for Facebook memes.

>Using the poor as a reason not to cap carbon emissions is a bit perverse.

And yet the wealthy, historically speaking, seem to have a real penchant for taking advantage of the poor in perverse ways.

The problem is theoretical and practical... In theory, a cap would be the same for everyone... in practice, rich people would be able to avoid the cap, and the poor would still be capped.

I lived in a country, where we had odd- even- systems of driving a car due to gas shortages many years ago (basically if your licence plate ended with an odd number, you could drive on odd dates, and even-even). Rich people bought another car... poor people had transport problems.

We've come to a situation where rich people ride their private jets to eco-something conferences, tell Average Joes that they shouldn't eat meat and drive their cars, because in 20 years, the sea will rise for x meters anyway, and then those rich people take their private jets back to their newly bought beachfront properties.

So, when the law (which is written by the rich) changes... who will get fucked the most? WIll they really hurt their own? If they're "afraid" of climate change, why don't they change their behaviour first? And if they don't, why should average joe do that, when he already pollutes A LOT less?

So, the countries that got rich using cheap and dirty energy continue to be rich but the poor shouldn't get the chance to get rich? That's rich!

It is going to be cheaper for poor countries to go directly to renewables. There is no law that says that you need to pollute to become wealthy. The pollute-y kinda tech was just more cost-effective in the past.

A third of the world still burns wood for fuel. One of the most effective things we can do to curb emissions is get them using coal instead. Renewables are not in the immediate future for much of the world.

How is replacing wood with coal going to result in a decrease in emissions? That doesn’t make any sense.. wood/biomass is at least sort of renewable.

Burning wood releases more ghg per unit of energy than coal. We're not talking about biomass pellets in efficient furnaces, but actual wood in a stove. The fact that a tree can grow back in 20 years and alter the equation doesn't help us at all right now. Leaving the trees standing and instead burning coal will result in a decrease of emissions.

> It is going to be cheaper for poor countries to go directly to renewables.

Coal plants are the cheapest way to produce electricity. And no, solar which operates at a fraction of installed capacity and is useless for large periods of time is not a cheaper alternative.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com