Most active commenters
  • pelasaco(4)
  • mmaunder(3)
  • bushbaba(3)

←back to thread

Climate Change Tracker

(climatechangetracker.org)
447 points Brajeshwar | 19 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
alexchamberlain ◴[] No.37372056[source]
I'm starting to wonder whether the conventional wisdom of reducing carbon emissions in favour of more electricalisation is really solving the actual problem. As is often pointed out on HN, electrical cars are substantially heavier than their fossil fueled alternatives, and generate other pollution along the way. Furthermore, we're digging our lithium brines from the environment, without really understanding what all this lithium will do once it's leached out into the environment or what impact the mines themselves will have.

With the recent advances of turning CO2 into other substances, such as propane, should we be focusing more on closing the carbon cycle and simply be producing fossil fuels from the waste products of yesteryear?

Naively, it feels like we understand C, O and H, better than we understand some of the rare metals we're now introducing in the name of climate change.

replies(23): >>37372234 #>>37372279 #>>37372323 #>>37372344 #>>37372367 #>>37372392 #>>37372424 #>>37372432 #>>37372470 #>>37372510 #>>37372513 #>>37372556 #>>37372583 #>>37372634 #>>37372660 #>>37372760 #>>37372813 #>>37372854 #>>37373016 #>>37373143 #>>37374057 #>>37375338 #>>37382221 #
picture ◴[] No.37372234[source]
Well the real answer is to reduce consumption. It can and should be done without sacrificing comfort. This is a very uphill battle against systems that are interested in distracting you by turning your attention towards fads (recycling, electrification, carbon capture) when in reality we need degrowth and permaculture. (Please read this thread a bit more, including my replies, before you tell me what I think degrowth means. I'm only using it to mean "less [economic] growth")

In a bit more detail:

How about less cars? More effective public transit is good for people and the climate.

Let's do away with golf lawns and pools for every house... Perhaps architecture can be adapted to suit the specific location instead of stamping the same stock photo "American house with garage that can fit 4 cars." Look at passive cooling and stuff. [Again, I'm talking about redefining comfort. Is a personal pool and large car and trimmed lawn really, honestly, what makes you comfortable? Or is it more a product of culture and advertising? You're absolutely free to believe either way, and I don't want anyone to force you to do anything.]

And honestly, we need to consoom less. Devices should not have a lifecycle of one year. You and I don't really need all these gadgets and trinkets, either. Let's stop buying random things

If you think this is a distraction or that it won't work because we can't get everyone to agree: Degrowth and permaculture requires honestly no critical mass. You can choose to buy things that last longer, and use them a bit more. Learn to fix things, etc. These are all nothing but straight benefits to you (more money in your pocket, skills that can make you more valuable in the current system, more time available now that you aren't swiping short form videos all day).

replies(11): >>37372286 #>>37372327 #>>37372358 #>>37372545 #>>37372577 #>>37372586 #>>37372687 #>>37372722 #>>37373262 #>>37373321 #>>37374351 #
1. mmaunder ◴[] No.37372286[source]
Degrowth is a lovely euphemism for the forbidden topic of having less kids. [insert “how dare you” meme]
replies(6): >>37372339 #>>37372361 #>>37372609 #>>37372640 #>>37375270 #>>37375299 #
2. ◴[] No.37372339[source]
3. polygamous_bat ◴[] No.37372361[source]
That is not true in the least. A hypothetical three-genetation extended (and frankly, quite large) family of 25 in Bangladesh emits roughly the same amount of CO2 as an average American.
replies(2): >>37372533 #>>37372618 #
4. mmaunder ◴[] No.37372533[source]
Always gets political. It’s humans. We’re doing it. No question about that. Less humans will mitigate it. No question. The conversation always goes to which humans or which political faction. Start with the fact that it’s us. It is us.
replies(1): >>37373017 #
5. pelasaco ◴[] No.37372609[source]
Exactly. Countries with birth rate > 3 should be unacceptable in 2023... One of the main forces driving Europe crazy today.
replies(1): >>37372657 #
6. bigyikes ◴[] No.37372618[source]
What happens when Bangladesh fully modernizes and the average Bangladeshi consumes the same amount of energy as an American today?
replies(2): >>37372758 #>>37374641 #
7. bushbaba ◴[] No.37372640[source]
We are having less kids though. Give it time and in 30-50 years we’ll have global population shrinkage on our hands.

The issue is society as currently structured doesn’t exactly work without population growth.

replies(1): >>37373076 #
8. bushbaba ◴[] No.37372657[source]
Is it fair to tell an emerging county, hey I made my wealth doing X, however you can’t do X as it’s wrong.

Unlikely the emerging country will listen without the prior wealth being shared. And it’s unlikely for wealthy countries to give up their wealth.

replies(2): >>37372975 #>>37373054 #
9. simpleblend ◴[] No.37372758{3}[source]
This is the key. They don't want the third-world to industrialize.
10. lovecg ◴[] No.37372975{3}[source]
Emerging countries have the benefit of modern technology though. They can buy solar panels and batteries instead of coal plants like everyone else. Also surely we do say just that all the time. X=slavery, child labor, etc.
11. jonjon16 ◴[] No.37373017{3}[source]
I usually like to answer this question(?) with a quote from Jordan Peterson (paraphrased), “lift people from poverty and they and their future kids will have more time to worry about a solution”. Personally speaking, to me “controlled childbirth” (unless you are instead suggesting we kill off some people) seems a contingent for the usage of humans as livestock.
replies(1): >>37376483 #
12. pelasaco ◴[] No.37373054{3}[source]
> And it’s unlikely for wealthy countries to give up their wealth

Just from 2020 to 2023, more than $24 Billion in interest-free loans were distributed. https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/03/31/the-time-is...

There is no such thing as "enough help", but each country should do its own part, and birth control is for sure important for countries with birth rate > 3 and cannot provide to its people. I came myself from a poor country and I can guarantee that there is no way to develop a long term plan, if the population increases in a high pace. There is no way to allocate money accordingly and create infrastructure in such a pace to support it.

replies(1): >>37375395 #
13. pelasaco ◴[] No.37373076[source]
> The issue is society as currently structured

There was never better structured society as we have today.. or can you point some period where we were better than now?

14. polygamous_bat ◴[] No.37374641{3}[source]
There is an implicit assumption that "modernization" equates large energy consumption. Carbon emission of a German is half of that of an American, so are Americans twice as "modern" (whatever that means) compared to the average German?
15. palata ◴[] No.37375270[source]
Proving that you don't understand what degrowth is, in one sentence.
16. jacquesm ◴[] No.37375299[source]
No, it really isn't. But: degrowth to a Westerner usually translates into : the developing world shouldn't develop, and meanwhile I get to keep mine. That also doesn't work. That's the kind of pulling-up-the-ladder-behind-you thinking that gets you world wars. You can have as many children as you want as a nation, but you'll have to do that in more efficient (energy, resources) ways than you did in the past if you are a developed country and you probably can still develop quite a bit if you are a developing country.
17. bushbaba ◴[] No.37375395{4}[source]
24 billion is equivalent to jeff bezo's buying you a Happy Meal at McDonalds, followed by hope you enjoy the shared wealth.

US's GDP is 23.32 Trillion, and US collected 5 Trillion in taxes Americans. Wealth sharing would need to be many orders of magnitude more than 24 billion over 3 years.

replies(1): >>37378436 #
18. mmaunder ◴[] No.37376483{4}[source]
Reducing the birth rate below 2.2 kids per family on average results in negative population growth. We’re already seeing it in many places world wide as a result of equality and education. Simply creating awareness of the global benefits is enough. We are already facing a catastrophic global population decline mid century which is going to shock the hell out of our forever-growth economic systems. The only question is whether we’ll see a decline soon enough. Humans as livestock? Killing people? Relax dude.
19. pelasaco ◴[] No.37378436{5}[source]
> US's GDP is 23.32 Trillion, and US collected 5 Trillion in taxes Americans. Wealth sharing would need to be many orders of magnitude more than 24 billion over 3 years.

Why is that is relevant? Do you think that US should share more money from US taxes payers with the World? I can imagine that the majority there holds a different opinion than you in such topic.

> 24 billion is equivalent to jeff bezo's buying you a Happy Meal at McDonalds, followed by hope you enjoy the shared wealth.

Why is it relevant for the discussion? AMZ is a private company, built in the last 20 years, without any colony exploitation.. they own $0 to the poorest countries in the World.