Most active commenters
  • picture(4)
  • jiofj(3)

←back to thread

Climate Change Tracker

(climatechangetracker.org)
447 points Brajeshwar | 13 comments | 03 Sep 23 14:53 UTC | HN request time: 0.465s | source | bottom
Show context
alexchamberlain ◴[03 Sep 23 17:11 UTC] 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 ◴[03 Sep 23 17:30 UTC] 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. jiofj ◴[03 Sep 23 17:56 UTC] No.37372545[source]▶
"Degrowth" is code for "poor people should have fewer things"
replies(3): >>37372565 #>>37372762 #>>37375335 #
2. picture ◴[03 Sep 23 17:58 UTC] No.37372565[source]▶
Stop telling me what I mean. No, I believe that degrowth and permaculture are about yourself, not other people. This is why I say comfort cannot be sacrificed, because I see myself in this future too.
replies(3): >>37372589 #>>37372739 #>>37376563 #
3. jiofj ◴[03 Sep 23 18:01 UTC] No.37372589[source]▶
People aren't going to "degrow" by themselves, so governments turned authoritarian will force them, but will do so in a way that won't affect the rich.

For example, low emission zones for cars - you have to have a new car to be able to drive in a low emission zone. So, who can afford it?

Cheap airplane tickets, make them more expensive - who will be able to afford to fly? Beef contaminates, make it more expensive, same result.

You can follow the logic from there.

replies(2): >>37372780 #>>37372846 #
4. simpleblend ◴[03 Sep 23 18:14 UTC] No.37372739[source]▶
"The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the "bailey")."
5. klabb3 ◴[03 Sep 23 18:16 UTC] No.37372762[source]▶
Yeah I mean that’s pretty obvious. If you increase the cost of pollution then things will be more expensive, including for the poor. Still pretty disingenuous since the poor pretty much always get the short end of the straw by most economic crisis management, even though they are the least responsible for having created. Eg bailouts of irresponsible speculators.

Another aspect is that crises are really bad for the poor. Wars, pandemics and depressions is when the biggest poor-to-rich wealth transfers occur. Preventing crises is typically better for the poor than meager after-the-fact concessions.

6. picture ◴[03 Sep 23 18:18 UTC] No.37372780{3}[source]▶
"People aren't going to "degrow" by themselves" is an immediate flaw, because, well, mere ideas were enough to convince me to change some of the ways I act. You're thinking about all this from policy at the global or national scale, but these ideas are closer to the local and organic level

It's actually a little concerning how your line of reasoning seems to follow the most dystopian path, can't you see any other way of it happening?

replies(1): >>37372821 #
7. jiofj ◴[03 Sep 23 18:21 UTC] No.37372821{4}[source]▶
Low emission zones already exist and have existed for years.

"Airplane tickets are too cheap" is a talking point of French politicians recently. It's likely they will do something about it.

The EU already has a law in place saying no more regular cars can be sold starting in 2035. Of course, with a nice exception for Ferraris.

These dystopian things are happening now, I'm not imagining things.

replies(2): >>37372875 #>>37372893 #
8. lostlogin ◴[03 Sep 23 18:24 UTC] No.37372846{3}[source]▶
This list of yours are all imposed solutions.

I’m not the OP, but if I take one less flight, avoid a car trip and choose not to eat beef, the same has happened with no regulation change.

It doesn’t have to be all or nothing, small steps help and the OPs positive approach is very different to the ‘tax it’ approach you have described.

9. lostlogin ◴[03 Sep 23 18:25 UTC] No.37372875{5}[source]▶
A town with no cars is about the least dystopian thing I can imagine.

Banning them all would make my life difficult in many ways, but there would be some really huge upsides.

replies(1): >>37373419 #
10. picture ◴[03 Sep 23 18:27 UTC] No.37372893{5}[source]▶
That's all.. specifically what I said I'm against? They're politicians and corporations manipulating you with distractions. Degrowth and permaculture are about yourself, not other people.
11. landemva ◴[03 Sep 23 19:17 UTC] No.37373419{6}[source]▶
> there would be some really huge upsides.

You can live in Mackinak and try out the no car lifestyle. Watch out for the crap and piss in the gutters. https://www.michigan.org/city/mackinac-island

12. palata ◴[03 Sep 23 22:44 UTC] No.37375335[source]▶
I guess you know it, but just in case: "degrowth" is the opposite of "growth". "Growth" is the thing that is killing the planet.

"Green growth" is a utopia from people who haven't understood the problem yet.

13. dgroshev ◴[04 Sep 23 02:24 UTC] No.37376563[source]▶
No, "degrowth as a model for combating climate change" is indeed fundamentally about poor people. Because there will be about 8 billion of not-westerners in a few decades, and they rapidly get out of poverty, increasing their carbon impact. Look at Chinese emissions; multiply by a few times and you get Africa and South-East Asia getting somewhat closer to the global middle class in 50 years without technological decoupling. On the other hand, if countries can grow out of poverty sustainably, there is no reason for already developed countries to "degrow".

Talking about "degrowth" doesn't just imply that you somehow get a say in allowing countries to grow, but also suggests that people aren't allowed to get out of poverty. This is unconscionable and unrealistic, a distraction from the only real answer — engineering our way out of it.