Hacker News Reader

Comment by abricq | Hacker News Reader

> The process outlined in the study — known scientifically as eutrophication — is remarkably similar to modern, albeit smaller-scale, phenomenon currently fueling broad “dead zones” in the Great Lakes and the Gulf of Mexico, as excess nutrients from fertilizers and other agricultural runoff trigger massive algae blooms that consume all of the water’s oxygen.

Meanwhile, the next COP28 (United Nations Climate Change conference) will be held by United Arab Emirates's minister for industry and CEO of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company. As much as this seems like a joke, or a "Don't look up" moment, it is not one ...

View on HN

> (United Nations Climate Change conference) will be held by United Arab Emirates's minister for industry and CEO of the Abu Dhabi National Oil

https://unwatch.org/u-n-elects-saudi-arabia-to-womens-rights...

A lot of regulatory bodies, commissions, councils, are for optics and captured by the governments or corporations they should be regulating in some way. Put another way we have the fox watching the hen house. Put another way it's all bullshit. It's just as true with our domestic regulation.

This concerns me and saddens me a lot. Major changes are required in the near future, and the more I look at the news the less it seems like any of these changes are happening. If at some point I actually get to the conclusion that "it's all bullshit" (i.e. climate change is all bullshit) to those in charge of making these changes, then I have to see how to change those in charge. But really, the options are limited... It's a scary problem. But yeah, it seems like corporations have (often) a lot more to say in this that the what the majority of citizens want.

> the more I look at the news the less it seems like any of these changes are happening

What news are you reading? Last year the world invested $500bn in wind and solar, and another $500bn in energy efficiency. The IRA has $369bn for green tech, and Europe is going to spend $270bn. The invasion of Ukraine has left large amounts of Russian oil and gas effectively stranded. We're going to reach peak carbon in 5 years, and 2°C is looking increasingly feasible.

Does it matter if by then we’ve fractured or cut down what’s left of the world’s forests? Deforestation the last decade https://ourworldindata.org/deforestation

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

I mean, if the sidewalks outside your house were government controlled, the most likely people to try to take control of them would be people with an interest in making money from them (somehow). Most people don't enter government to be the "Minister of Forestry" without some previous industry experience, and a plan of what to do with the forests. The people with industry experience and a plan are usually ones frustrated by the limits of the regulations and therefore they have the desire to take over and change the rules to suit them.

> The people with industry experience

This is at the heart of the problem. You get these revolving doors between eg big positions at the FDA and big pharma staffed by the same individuals at different times in their careers, same with eg Wall St vs SEC. This extends to lobby group positions. One day Fred is the head of the FDA the next day he’s lobbying the FDA for Pfizer. This should be illegal.

They mask the corruption this causes by saying “Hey we need someone with industry/regulatory experience” with no acknowledgement of the massive ($$) conflicts of interest inherent in that strategy.

What you're suggesting is that a political preference to put the experts in positions of power is actually bad?

Perhaps there's a difference between experts and lobbyists?

The DEA is great at busting drug dealers without being drug dealers, neither are the cartels run by DEA agents. This wouldn't be an issue if creating a revolving door between industry and government didn't create huge conflicts of interest but it does.

Ocean oxygen depletion (and atmospheric oxygen depletion as marine life like plankton dies with a double whammy of reduced oxygen and greater acidity) comes up in the scarier corners of climate change awareness but I've never known if it was something to take seriously or if it was overblown. Will we stop being able to breathe?

Yes, we have 2 years left until everyone in the world (except the super rich who can afford bottled air) will suffocate and die

On the bright side, our carbon emissions will go way down

Decay produces a lot of carbon emissions.

Only in an aerobic environment, no?

CO2 requires oxygen. Methane is worse, but it's still carbon emissions.

Hmm will be for the super rich for sure. Lets say one air canister is 160 breaths. And this canister is premium lol, and cost 32 bucks. cost per breath is $.20. Avg person = 16 breaths per minute. Cost per minute : $2.30. Cost per hour $192. Cost per day $4608. Cost per year: $1,618,920!

Don't be ridiculous. As President of HN, I can assure both you and the other readers that there's absolutely no air shortage whatsoever. Yes, I've heard the same rumors myself! Thanks for calling, and not reversing the charges.

HAIL SKROOB!

From the abstract of the paper linked in the article: "A full-scale OAE would take thousands of years to develop, but some of today's processes are reminiscent of those thought to have promoted OAEs in the distant past." (OAE = oceanic anoxic event) https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaj2321

In what way is it not a "Don't Look Up" moment? It absolutely resonates with the theme of that documentary.

Yes that's what I meant, it could be taken from it. But it's not taken from the movie, it's actually happening (that's what I meant)

Ahh right, I read it as “a moment in the style of Don’t Look Up” (which it totally is) rather than “literally a thing in the movie” (which… yeah I agree.)

If you are ESL:

“As much as this seems like a joke … it is not one”

Reply on news.ycombinator.com