At least in Europe the summer solstice is regarded as the beginning of summer. It takes months for the land and water bodies to warm up, so this definition makes the seasons line up with temperatures observed in Europe. Depending on geography it might make less sense elsewhere, just as not every place has four seasons.
At least in my experience the summer solstice is called midsummer, but is not (any more?) regarded as the middle of summer. According to [1] summer is commonly seen as beginning in June, with the exact date varying between the first, the 21st, the day of the summer solstice (20th/21st) or the end of May. [2] gives some insight into the mechanism causing this definition of the seasons.
It's not about culture alone, rather also about the weather patterns. In India, monsoon is the major climactic event around then. So it's not spring-summer-autumn-winter in India (in most part of the country), rather, it is summer-monsoon-winter
The 50.8°C temperature is the highest-ever recorded temperature in Rajasthan. The previous time it went over 50°C was in May 2016. So no, it is not "normal" temperatures and it is not a fact that they go that high every year.
If this is normal, then you imply that the article linked by inflatableDodo is wrong?
Btw, I was kind of impressed, when visiting India and speaking to a few locals, that they don't see climate change to be a real thing, or at least to be such a big problem, and much overrated. The claim was basically that it was always very warm, and it is just normal that way, and they don't expect it to become much warmer. I'm not sure if that is just anecdotal or if that is the major opinion by locals.
That said, it does not mean that it is normal either.
There appears to be a cluster of temps over 50 recently, but before that you seemingly have to go back to 1956 to get over 50 degrees. I could be wrong again however. If someone has better data, I'd like it if they could link to it.
> The claim was basically that it was always very warm, and it is just normal that way, and they don't expect it to become much warmer
I think they might have misunderstood you. They might have thought you are talking about weather and not climate change. Human body may not notice slight changes in temperature but the ecosystem does. For instance, those locals you spoke to may not have personally experienced any change but if you had instead asked them about droughts, drying of wells or yield of crops they would have definitely given you a totally different reply.
>It is just anecdotal as opinions in India change every few kilometres.
And every ten meters, when asking for directions, ha ha :)
And the best part is that some of them, if asked "where is so-and-so place" (hotel / restaurant / bus station / etc.), will dramatically raise their arm, point "that-a-way", and say "tum XYZ chowk ko cross karke seeeedddddhaaaayyy jao" (you cross XYZ square and go sttttrrrraaaiiiiggggghhhhhhhtttt) - without mentioning in which direction to straight from the square ...
Always good for a few giggles (apart from the frustration).
> Btw, I was kind of impressed, when visiting India and speaking to a few locals, that they don't see climate change to be a real thing, or at least to be such a big problem, and much overrated. The claim was basically that it was always very warm, and it is just normal that way, and they don't expect it to become much warmer.
That's very much not my experience. And regardless of beliefs, actual government policy and individual action are largely emissions-reducing. See a comment I posted some time ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18164816
Last year, May was very benevolent with cool weather. June was absolutely brutal with temperatures close to 40C even at 8pm in the evening. All in Delhi.
This year, May has been brutal already and I dread to think what June has in store. This is coming after a very long and very cold winter.
In dry climates with such hot temperatures, staying hydrated and sweating will keep you cool (or rather, keep you cool enough to not die).
What happens when temperatures like these are reached in high humidity zones where sweat just sticks? Will we simply have entire communities that lack air conditioning dying off?
Low lying islands like the Maldives will be first. But the population is relatively small. You already have climate refugees in Africa. The Sahara is spreading south. Destroying lives of those that live on the subsaharan border. They flee to neighbouring countries and eventually Europe. The major concern is countries like Bangladesh. It’s a low coastal country with a huge population.
For instance, climate change played some role in the current Venezuelan refugee crisis (the one that has Trump separating families and housing people in camps under overpasses, or bussing them to sanctuary cities).
Today, the main problem is that their government started to collapse in 2017, so they are unable to supply food to their population.
Why did the government start to collapse? Well, they have seen lower crop yields in recent years, which means more food imports, which means they are more vulnerable to embargoes, etc.
It only has data to 2016, but this site shows across the board agricultural production collapses in 2015 and 2016.
In 2018 (and maybe earlier; tldr) US sanctions cut off oil revenue. The sanctions are due to terrorism, corruption, human trafficking, and human rights violations, which are, again symptoms of a collapsing government:
I fully agree with you, but thought that the words "out of Syria" are not really reflecting reality. According to Wikipedia[1], only about a third of the migrants originated in Syria.
That's true but it is referred to colloquially as "The Syrian Crisis" here, in any case I don't what the solution is, I deeply admire the Germans for what they did though.
Taking 1.5 million migrants with a population of 82 million, if the UK (my country) had done the same ratio that would have been 1.2 million, best figure I can find for UK is <20 thousand.
One thing I do wonder is what western culture will look like in a hundred years if the world bank figures are right (140-200 million displaced people).
Couldn't care less one way or the other about how many brown people there are in Europe, I'm curious if western culture will be significantly altered one way or the other though - there are elements of it I like and would hope would promulgate into the future is all.
It's interesting that you can't really broach it as a question though without it been implied that racism is involved, if you can't debate a subject without been accused of racism then you leave all debate of that subject to racists since they may not care about been accused of racism.
Too many people use race as a placeholder for culture and vice versa (same with religion).
Honestly things would be better if both sides would stop hurling slurs at each other and actually debate the issues but I figure it serves them to have this kind of fight as it gains both sides followers.
I'm seeing more and more of that kind of balkanization in the UK and it's worrying, Brexit has opened some pretty nasty wounds that may not heal in my lifetime.
>I'm seeing more and more of that kind of balkanization in the UK and it's worrying
I am keeping a close eye on the proposed 'Free Ports'.
>"Can "free ports" spark a post-Brexit manufacturing boom? Jonty Bloom reports from Teesside, which plans to become the UK's newest free port, offering customs-free imports and hoping to bring back manufacturing jobs."
>"For each Free Zone, the area covered and the defined entry and exit points shall be determined by the Member State. The perimeter and the entry and exit points must be under customs supervision. Member State must communicate to the commission details of the Free Zones in operation.
>All Free Zones shall be enclosed. Persons, goods and means of transport entering or leaving Free Zones may be subject to customs controls."
Turkey took at least 3 mln people with the same population as Germany and nobody admires what they did. Syria itself took 1.2 mln of refugees from Iraq, nobody cared. Palestine refugees in Lebanon, Afghanistan refugees in Iran. Whole Middle East is filled with refugees from different regions. All these cases could've been prevented if so called democratic nations hold their governments accountable, there were no "climate" in wars that caused these movements. Just rational people in power with no repercussions for their actions.
People have no control over what happens in their cities, but believe they have any power to fight in a global scale with climate change. A major can't handle a city where he/she lives. Now scale it to the "world government" mentioned before, which would be physically located thousands kilometers from places which it would govern.
The best solution to migrant crisis you can find in Switzerland. Government does not have power over who becomes citizen, the people at places have. People with whom these newcomers would have to live. Zero conflict. Behavior and relations of people is different when one is hold accountable only to faceless bureaucrats and to real people.
Been telling people for a while, if we think the amount of refugees from our wars is bad, just wait till you see the number arriving due to the fuel we burn.
Though given our reaction to the current wave of refugees, we will blame the refugees for their own predicament and probably George Soros, as is tradition, long before we accept any blame ourselves.
Or we will simply not accept the refugees. As you said at current numbers it’s been really bad. At much higher numbers it will simply be a better and more popular option to close the border.
At current numbers, the effect on our own society from our own reaction has cause much more damage to ourselves than the effects from the refugees themselves.
I suspect you may be right that the popular option will be to close the border. I do not agree however, that it is the better option.
It’s caused a divide because the number of current economic refugees is relatively small. Thus many people thought it was possible to have them stay in the first world. Hence the divide in public opinion. But I believe that if the estimates are right, the number of climate refugees will be so high that people will more or less agree that it’s better to close the border in that situation.
If you are travelling because otherwise you will starve while dying from disease, you are a refugee. Economic migration generally assumes that you are not likely to die from returning. I do not think it is that wise to conflate the terms.
To riff on a common quote: if a million refugees want to get into your country and you don’t admit them, the refugees have a problem. If a billion refugees want in, you have a problem.
One million people is a single city. You do have a problem if one million people are suddenly relocating. It has happened before for war, natural disasters or other reasons.
Migrating a billion people is not a thing, for the simple fact that there isn't any human settlement any close to approaching a billion people. If you're talking about the scale of a whole continent, migratory flux span over a lifetime and are not homogeneous.
I’m talking from the perspective of the country the refugees are trying to enter. If a million refugees are headed your way and you don’t want to let them in, you can close the border and enact strict immigration controls and you’re fine. Sucks for the refugees, but the target country has no problem aside from the emotional burden. If a billion people are headed your way, you’re fucked.
> just wait till you see the number arriving due to the fuel we burn.
But in the case is the fuel they burn, right? India is projected to become the 2nd biggest producer of CO2 (behind China) this decade.
Also, I go around here and gasoline is so cheap that people don't care about waste. Drivers let their cars with the motor on while they go to buy some small thing to eat or drink.
Per capita India is still pretty good, they just have a lot of people. Also their emissions wouldn't be a problem yet without the last 100 years of emissions from Europe and North America. They are slowly becoming part of the problem, but I don't think it's fair to blame yet.
The wall our president wants to build has nothing to do with current immigration trends. They’re banking on this future.
Steve Bannon has this book he’s always talking about, The Camp of the Saints. It’s the clearest and most concise guide for how they see the climate future rolling out. (This is also why I bristle when they get called climate change deniers. They’re not, they just reached different conclusions.)
The Camp of the Saints has nothing to do with climate change
It's story about brown and black skinned others destroying western civilization with immigration. The motive is racist. The tone of the book is very passionate and overly emotional.
Here is short preface Jean Raspail wrote to his book:
> I HAD WANTED TO WRITE a lengthy preface to explain my position and show that this is no wild-eyed dream; that even if the specific action, symbolic as it is, may seem farfetched, the fact remains that we are inevitably heading for something of the sort. We need only glance at the awesome population figures predicted for the year 2000, i.e., twenty-eight years from now: seven billion people,
only nine hundred million of whom will be white. But what good would it do?
I should at least point out, though, that many of the texts I have put into my characters’ mouths or pens—editorials, speeches, pastoral letters, laws, news stories, statements of every description—are, in fact, authentic. Perhaps the reader will spot them as they go
by. In terms of the fictional situation I have presented, they become all the more revealing.
These temperatures in high humidity can be deadly even to healthy and fit humans as our bodies are left without a way to cool down. Currently, they have humidity around 10-20% so it affects the most vulnerable, but global warming may lead to making parts of the world literally deadly to every human being...
The wet-bulb temperature (WBT) is the temperature read by a thermometer covered in water-soaked cloth (wet-bulb thermometer) over which air is passed.
Sustained wet-bulb temperature exceeding 35 °C (95 °F) is likely to be fatal even to fit and healthy people, unclothed in the shade next to a fan; at this temperature our bodies switch from shedding heat to the environment, to gaining heat from it.[8] Thus 35 °C (95 °F) is the threshold beyond which the body is no longer able to adequately cool itself. A study by NOAA from 2013 concluded that heat stress will reduce labor capacity considerably under current emissions scenarios.[9]
A 2010 study concluded that under a worst-case scenario for global warming with temperatures 12 °C (22 °F) higher than 2007, the wet-bulb temperature limit for humans could be exceeded around much of the world in future centuries.[10] A 2015 study concluded that parts of the globe could become uninhabitable.[11] An example of the threshold at which the human body is no longer able to cool itself and begins to overheat is a humidity level of 50% and a high heat of 46 °C (115 °F), as this would indicate a wet-bulb temperature of 35 °C (95 °F).
The 2015 Indian heat wave saw wet-bulb temperatures in Andhra Pradesh reach 30 °C (86 °F). A similar wet-bulb temperature was reached during the 1995 Chicago heat wave.
Chicago regularly gets heat waves in that range, but moisture coming from the plains via heavy rains and/or agricultural crops contributes to the humidity levels which really are the killer.
A temperature inversion also happened that July, so no wind and pollution stagnated over the city.
Thanks for posting this. It's something that's really hard to communicate about climate change to people. It's also super depressing.
I went down with heat stroke once and I get know what this is like. I was in hospital for 4 days after a close brush with kidney failure. So many people just think it'll be just a bit hotter in the future.
It's actually a really interesting question, but also very hard to answer in practice. The positive answer would involve the ability of competitive markets[1] to serve as efficient mechanisms that coordinate the activities of people across the globe to collectively increase wealth/output[2]. With greater total surplus, it becomes relatively "cheaper" [on a societal level] to solve problems like saving the village. (Of course, this leaves out the public goods problem of actually provisioning the village-saving in the case that the villagers don't get lifted up directly by economic growth and buy it for themselves.)
"Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."
A tub will work, sure, as long as it's pulled from a large body of water that hasn't warmed up with the air. Hopping in the local lake is an obvious choice.
But in a detached demographic sense: effectively everyone lives in a city in the modern world, and while their housing might not be air conditioned most of the major buildings are. In an emergency like this everyone would just crowd into office buildings and shopping malls.
That's not to say this wouldn't be horrifying, but it's not the kind of existential social crisis people tend to imagine. Cooling ourselves down in a heat wave, in the modern world, is a solved problem at least as far as keeping ourselves alive goes.
Offices and shopping malls are upper-middle class things in India. They would not come close to holding the entire population. There would be millions of people dying if temperatures got that high.
I'd want to see cites for that, honestly. Obviously India's commerce centers can't come close to handling a billion shoppers, but there's enough floor space in the urban core of Bangalore to house the at-risk population for a 72 hour heat wave.
The point is emergency management here. And I'd bet anything that somewhere there's a workable plan drawn up for exactly this kind of occurrence.
India's total retail space is 2 sq ft/person[1]. That's not enough space for someone to sleep in, even assuming that 100% of the retail space there is air conditioned (it's not) and assuming that the AC systems can keep up with that much body heat in temperatures that high (they can't).
>The point is emergency management here. And I'd bet anything that somewhere there's a workable plan drawn up for exactly this kind of occurrence.
Aside from ACs having a limit on cooling far below “everyone packed in a building”, if you’ve ever done business in India, I don’t see how one could assume there would be a plan drawn up for this grand of a scenario, much less many smaller scale scenarios.
> there's enough floor space in the urban core of Bangalore
There's vastly more to India than a few metro cities. A quick google search reveals that around 65+ % of Indian population lives in rural areas.
India is in for some very dark times if the climate situation gets worse. The positive lining in the cloud is that we have some measure of political stability for the next 5 years.
Every human is effectively a 100W space heater just from being alive. That means you need at least 30W of air conditioning capacity per human to keep the temperature constant (on top of what you need to counter heat from outside).
Unless these buildings are designed as emergency shelters for heat waves their air conditioning systems won't be able to cope with all the people.
That's a deeply upsetting mental image. Thousands of people shelter in a building during a heatwave, the electrical grid is overloaded and the AC shuts down.
This makes me want to go live in a deep cave somewhere :(
The principal human-appreciated effect of AC is the dehumidifying of the air when it's cooled.
The dry interior air allows human perspiration to regulate temperature effectively. The AC doesn't have to cool all the bodies, it just has to keep the air dry enough.
Don't ACs dehumidify by condensing the water? If so then it means they need to get rid of the heat of vaporization, the same amount of energy the humans shed by evaporative cooling.
Right, but it does mean you just need to be in a somewhat sealed room to remove the humidity instead of constantly fighting the ever-warming walls/floors/ceiling. Of course you need to exchange CO2 and O2 to stay alive.
But the people in the room will create more humidity that you have to constantly remove again.
Humans burning calories to stay alive creates heat, and thermodynamics that you spend energy to remove it or see the temperature rise. Whether that heat is hot air or bound as humidity shouldn't make a large difference.
In a closed system sure, but I'd expect a larger building to have significant fresh-air return systems.
In a scenario where you've filled the place with people, the interior humidity is going to exceed that of the exterior air and you'd just start dumping the moisture outside exchanging with the fresh, dryer air. It's a comfort regression sure, but not a everyone dies situation.
The survival of the people doesn't come down to the AC heat pump keeping up, it comes down to supplying them enough water to drink and disposing of the humidified air.
My point is just that it's the relative humidity that matters, and the AC system has some options there. I've lived through a desert summer in a small space without any AC at all. I'd just keep the windows closed as deep into the day as possible riding out the night's cooling until the air gets too humid indoors from sweat and respiration for the fan to have any cooling effect. At that point I'd open the windows for relief. The air coming in was usually much hotter than the interior air, since the space was well insulated and nights get cool, but it didn't matter because it's very dry air and perspiration resumes functioning. The situation is easily survived unless you run out of water for your person.
Of course if the outdoor air is something like 100% humidity there's only the heat pump option, but that simply doesn't happen in deserts when it's hot out. It's a desert, not the tropics.
In the desert the relative humidity shoots up when it cools down, the humid nights are the worst. But it's because they cooled down. Again, not a survival problem since it's not that hot, just uncomfortably muggy. One saving grace with deserts is they don't generally have any mosquitoes, so these humid nights can easily be spent outdoors without any annoyance.
> In a scenario where you've filled the place with people, the interior humidity is going to exceed that of the exterior air and you'd just start dumping the moisture outside exchanging with the fresh, dryer air. It's a comfort regression sure, but not a everyone dies situation.
That's equivalent to opening a window without the AC doing anything. If that would work we wouldn't be in a "crowd everyone into a shopping center" type situation, the people would be just fine outside in the shade.
> It's a desert, not the tropics.
While half of India is in the tropics, this part indeed isn't. But next month the monsoon will put humidity at approximately 100% [1].
> That's equivalent to opening a window without the AC doing anything.
Even when the air temperature at your fresh air intake is cooler than the air at your condensor coil? Wouldn't we assume no system would draw its fresh air from near the condensor coil?
You still have a heat pump in the system, and there's a temperature difference between the air inlet and the pump outlet.
Yes, ACs are heat pumps, which means they're just moving heat from one area to another. So yes, the heat shed by human beings via evaporative cooling, is then dumped outside via heat of vaporization.
Specifically the ambient indoor air heat is absorbed by refrigerant which is transformed into a superheated vapor saturated with moisture. When this vapor either touches a cooler surface, or has cooler air blown past it, it will dehumidify and exhaust the heat it has absorbed indoors to the outside. The mechanical work done by the AC (fans, pumps) is also being released as heat. So the total energy being dumped outside is therefore the heat that's taken from the inside plus the energy used by the AC released as heat.
It's more complicated then that. Take a look at this psychrometric chart showing the environmental bounds at which human comfort is guaranteed: http://comfort.cbe.berkeley.edu/
You can see there that even at extremely dry conditions, if the operative (ambient + radiant) temperature is hot enough, it will cause heat discomfort. Even if the human starts sweating, that'll only reduce the temperature a bit so dehumidification isn't the only role of air conditions, sensible cooling is also a factor.
Is this really a long term solution. An A/C does not "produce" cold air it just reduces the temperature at one spot by increasing the temperature in another place making the temperature around those buildings even warmer. At some point A/C units will be battling for that little temperature difference that allows them to perform their function with increasingly higher energy demand.
I'm not sure if it's an actual issue but solar panels are quite dark and get really hot. I could imagine that a huge solar array does measurably heat the immediate surrounding area.
> effectively everyone lives in a city in the modern world, and while their housing might not be air conditioned most of the major buildings are.
The states of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh lag the rest of the nation in economic development. This statement is very much not true in those places, and even elsewhere in India. Air-conditioning is still a luxury outside of relatively well-off people's houses, corporate buildings, and malls.
> Cooling ourselves down in a heat wave, in the modern world, is a solved problem at least as far as keeping ourselves alive goes.
People there can't afford to not work. Sitting in an air-conditioned space for half the working day 4 months a year is not viable for them. A lot of the work is manual or farm labor that must necessarily be done outdoors.
> effectively everyone lives in a city in the modern world, and while their housing might not be air conditioned most of the major buildings are. In an emergency like this everyone would just crowd into office buildings and shopping malls.
Heat waves spur increases in violent crime, limited in some degree by the fact that people stay in their own homes in really hot (but not uninhabitably so) heat waves.
Heat waves that go further to where the only survivable solution is pulling people out of their homes into large communal shelters (whether they otherwise serve as offices or shopping malls or whatever) is...going to be very ugly.
And that's even before considering whether the facilities or supporting infrastructure (plumbing, electrical systems, etc.) are adequate to support these places being used as shelters. Almost certainly they won't be until it's happened and failed a few times, and even after that the places that most need it will be the least able to finance the necessary upgrades.
See the pie chart on page two: eletricity consumption from cooling systems is 17% of global consumption. The IPCC expects this usage to rise as temperatures rise.
I would also like to challenge the notion that human beings understand how to use air conditioning units. In pretty much every building I visited or vehicle I boarded with air conditioning, if the unit was on, the windows were also wide open at the same time. In Greece, where I'm from, in the summer, you can cool down just by walking past stores, with their doors thrown wide to signal they're open for business and their air conditioning blasting cool air onto the street. It may be 42°C in the shade, but in front of our shop, it's 15°! Come on in and buy our stuff! But put on your coat first.
Contemplate for a second the futility of this behaviour: air conditioning pumps heat out of a room, into the environment; leaving the windows open allows the heat to circulate back into the room. The unit typically has a thermostat, also typically set at an unrealistically low value, that would cause the user to turn on the heating in winter. The unit goes to work and pushes the warm air out trying to reach its target temperature. The warm air cycles back in from outside and tries to raise the temperature. The unit keeps working, and working, and working, wasting energy all the time. Eventually, this contributes to warming, which causes more people to buy and misuse air conditioning.
We might know how to survive a heat wave, by our clever use of technology, but we don't know how to use technology to avoid more and more severe heat waves.
Air curtains can be extremely efficient and allow doors to stay open. That sounds like an insane waste of money and energy if store owners are not using one - are you sure you're not just feeling the 10-20% lost cold air when walking past?
Also the AC dumps heat outside, which in urban areas contributes to local heat increase (i.e Urban Heat Island effect), which in turn requires even more AC too fight.
The water is only cooler because it's evaporating, meaning the wet-bulb temperature also describes the water's own limit.
35°C is slightly cooler than body temperature, so it would work just a little bit as a heatsink, but another degree or two and even that becomes ineffective.
> and then stabilizes around the daily average temperature, not the high.
However the acceptable temperature range in water is also much smaller because under water we exchange heat quickly and don't have a way to cool below the temperature of the water. Water above ~38°C would be dangerous to stay submersed in. Not a problem for huge bodies of water, but important to keep in mind on the small scale.
The phase change of water from liquid to gas is an endothermic reaction. In an emergency, if you had water and a fan, you could continually soak yourself and then accelerate water evaporation using the fan. This would keep you significantly cooler than the water temperature itself.
Large bodies of water, mine shafts or just holes in the ground. Just a few meters below the ground temperatures are effectively constant, barely effected by weather. Ocean temperatures are similiarly stable.
Of course you can't start digging while dying of heat stroke and you can't crowd people into any places (people are great space heaters). With education about proper measures a few days should be survivable for rural populations. In cities you just need air conditioning, there's no other viable way to cool large amounts of people.
I credit drinking copious amounts of ice water and frequent urination for helping me avoid hyperthermia for 10+ hours working in a kitchen where the air temperature read 52C + radiative heat from various equipment and high perceived humidity.
Granted I don't know the wet-bulb temp actually exceeded 35C
I've experienced this heat wave in various degrees and in different situations (long distance cycling, shopping, trekking, etc.,) and places (Bangalore, Bombay, and Delhi).
The most effective preventive measure, in my experience, is to drink (~200ml of) mineral-filled water once every half an hour. The body's heat regulation mechanism works best when provided with sufficient amount of water. The problem only begins to manifest once the body water levels aren't good enough to dispose of heat as well as maintain blood circulation in which case the body prefers to give up heat regulation over fluid circulation.
Under normal circumstances, we are used to drinking water only when we get thirsty. Under extreme heat, however, by the time thirst signal kicks in it could be too late. I learned this the hard way during long-distance cycling. Since then I've followed cyclists' mantra of eat-before-hungry and drink-before-thirsty.
Another thing to keep in mind is to drink mineralized water (such as Gatorade, juices, tender coconut water, etc.,). When you sweat you also lose a lot of minerals so replenishing just water isn't good enough.
Most of the heat wave death in India doesn't occur in an urban setting as people have access to water within walking distance. It is the farmers who are in the most danger as a) They are directly exposed to sun b) They are engaged in strenuous physical activity. By the time they realize the danger they are in it'd be too late and they lose consciousness with no one around them to help out in vast agricultural fields.
They're two attempts to measure the same thing, but with different results. Heat index is measured assuming a human walking at 3mph in the shade and attempts to show how hot the air feels when you take into account the humidity (and associated lack of cooling from perspiration).
Wet-bulb is the measurement of the lowest possible temperature a human body can achieve under current ambient temperatures and humidity (taking into account current wind speed). Basically the air temperature minus the ability to cool yourself by sweating given the current wind speed.
They're both designed to show how hot the air feels to your body rather than just air temperature, just with different calculations and assumptions.
Most saunas have relatively low levels of humidity, between 20% and 30%. It's hard to keep high humidity levels when temperature rises. Other than that, it's generally suggested to not exceed 20 minutes in a sauna. Steam rooms on the other hand have higher humidity levels but lower temperature and it's not allowed to stay more than 15 minutes inside.
From personal experience I've never used a sauna for more than 10 minutes and I always carry a bottle of water with me inside.
I've been in some rooms that are kept at 120 degrees and 80% humidity. You can work for about an 45 minutes to an hour at most (Adult male). Working being monkeying with stuff in an electrical cabinet.
I think you'd be in serious trouble after 2-3 hours.
If this happens frequently enough in sufficiently populated areas, then the resulting population die-off will eventually reduce the energy need and resulting carbon outlet and things may stabilize.
Sucks for the people involved. But globally speaking, it may not be so bad.
Why not? I just said "sufficient populated areas". That does not mean only India. Nothing racist about it. I mean, globally speaking, wiping out New York City and all the people in it would also provide a benefit.
I never said it did. However for my views on people using the term 'race card' please see my replies to tinus_hn.
Now this isn't personal to you specifically, however in regard to your query, Me first what?, I have long thought that people who advocate the benefits of depopulation by mass die-off, should generally lead by example.
I probably will - given age and living habits. But that aside; are you saying that we should try and sustain inbounded population growth on this tiny globe of ours?
And if so, why/how?
From a purely practical standpoint, I don't think a die-off will help very much. Say we had a 85% die off, we would be back to around the population level of 1800, the time that Malthus published his prophecy. And along the way we would have had the most collossal wars imaginable and would be ekeing out a living on a much reduced habitable area.
Basically, although it is an unpopular vision these days, I suspect that for the amount of effort involved in having a mass die-off, we could stabilise the population somewhat and start building floating cities and space habitats. People regard this kind of thing as unrealistic, but I think it will rapidly become realistic should we even halt population growth temporarily through environmental disaster and it would be preferable to start doing it before that signal to action.
To sit on our hands and hope for our own actions to kill us off in order to save some remainder is the most fatalistic and least imaginative approach going. We might as well be deer.
Look at some of the people funding him and ask yourself what their motivation is. It maybe isn't that dumb, at least if your motivation is to destroy confidence in democracy as a system and eventually balkanise the US so it can be openly ruled by princelings. He is pretty good for that.
"Would it be a tragedy if humans went extinct?" - The planet doesn't care. The only species that cares is humans. Tragedy? Not really. The universe will move on. We are quite insignificant as-is.
Humans have figured out some neat tricks to create hospitable boundary conditions where there were non, e.g. moving water, heat, and themselves around, but so have other organisms. But by definition, they are all subject to “natural population dynamics”, such as the sun going supernova, an asteroid hitting the earth, earth’s temperature rising a few degrees.
Also, I would bet long term survival success (very long term) under various environmental changes to organisms such as water bears over humans.
In this case it's the opposite. We are sawing off the branch we are sitting on. It's not that we are expanding, we are shrinking the boundary conditions!
I generally do use the word bigot rather than racist. I know very few people who are only racist and not bigoted in other ways, so it tends to be more accurate. It also gives much less wiggle room and appears to cut into people's ego far more.
As another observation, I have yet to meet anyone who uses the phrase 'playing the race card', that has a considered opinion on that subject, or indeed many others. It is indicative of a thought process constructed almost entirely from clichés.
I think you missed the nuance. I was saying that I find that people who use that term do not generally have considered opinions. As for putting people in boxes, I thought you were the one advocating that. Wooden ones, specifically.
Air conditioner is like few hundred dollars. Are homes in India that cheap? Even cheapest homes in my countries will cost thousands of dollars. If someone can buy it, he can buy air conditioner.
You underestimate the depth of poverty for some people. When you are living under a trash-heap as your home, a hundred dollars is a fortune fit for a king.
A median Indian makes barely over $50/month[1]. Electricity is only slightly cheaper than the US[2]. Much of the country couldn't afford AC even if it were their only living expense.
Quite unfair comment if you consider that probably those affected are the ones emitting far less CO2 per capita, so it would be a non-existent feedback loop.
People are mobile. What would actually happen would be the biggest refugee crisis the world has ever seen.
Imagine tens of millions of climate refugees at the border of many different countries, and the choice is to let them in and take care of them or let them die right there. It's not a good situation to be in.
Realistically speaking, with that many people, good luck keeping them out.
I remember reading a sci-fi story back in the 80's (damn I wish I could remember the name) where that basically happened, Europe and the US fortified their borders (massive walls/fences, automated weapon systems, usual sci-fi fare) and left the rest of the world to it's own devices.
I was only a kid and I remember thinking "I can't imagine that ever happening" then I look at the refugee camps in EU states (Greece particularly) and it doesn't seem so far fetched.
This has been a plot of quite a few novels, so I'm struggling to come up with that exact one (if I've even read it). Off the top of my head, Children of Men is similar.
It definitely wasn't Children of Men, I read so much pulp sci-fi back then it all blurred (except for the stand out stuff like Iain M Banks - I still remember exactly where I was when I read Consider Phlebas - At the caravan park near Pevensey Bay in 1989, book was a birthday present).
If some of the worse projections become true and large stretches of land become uninhabitable or very inhospitable my money is on the US deploying semi-automated machine gun turrets along the border wall: the turrets will have automated target aquisition and tracking but a minimum-wage border patrol agent in an office in Austin will have to confirm the kill decision. It will be about as controversial as the drone program. Meanwhile in the EU the discussion will be around the coast guard shooting African refugee ships instead of rescuing them.
The only real winner will be Russia: they can just absorb all the refugees from South Asia and use them to populate then-inhabitable Syberia.
...and really how hard would it be to build one of these, the level of CV required is already solved off the shelf, the rest is sensors, servos, a gun to strap to it and programming.
I'd expect a none-trivial percentage of the HN could build one with the resources available.
It would be quite a fun project. You could even use machine learning to predict the motion of the target to be most effective even when you reach 1-4 seconds bullet travel time (1 second at the range of the effective range, 4 seconds at maximum range).
Reliably detecting humans sounds hard though. This is a highly adversarial scenario, they will do anything from carrying cardboard in front of them to disguising as wildlife and vegetation. I'm not sure this is even solvable without shooting down anything that moves and is unidentified.
> The only real winner will be Russia: they can just absorb all the refugees from South Asia
Ethnic Russians are already concerned about plunging birthrates. It is not at all unusual to hear elected Russian officials talk about “the future of the white race”. Furthermore, Russians are aware that a decline in the ethnic Russian population means that the local Muslim minorities gain a correspondingly higher share of the country. Thus, the topic is already a very pressing and sensitive one, and it would be silly to suggest that Russia is open to admitting masses of Muslim (or Hindu) refugees.
It's really interesting how this doesn't seem to occur to some people even in this HN discussion, even in the context of the recent refugee waves to Europe and the illegal immigration situation in the US. Boggles the mind that someone would think that entire populations would just… lay down and die or something!
This "solution" ignores the fallout of said actions. The British lost their highly profitable Indian colony because the citizens at home could not stomach the killings of hundreds of Indians. The average American would not be OK with seeing videos of millions of refugees being mowed down at the border.
And that's ultimately what it would take. When you're dying of dehydration or starving to death, you aren't going to care too much about people shooting into the air.
>This "solution" ignores the fallout of said actions. The British lost their highly profitable Indian colony because the citizens at home could not stomach the killings of hundreds of Indians. The average American would not be OK with seeing videos of millions of refugees being mowed down at the border.
When the alternative is living next to them, that perception might change. Time will tell.
It's not surprising that people are unable to sympathize with people who they've never seen.
I suggest you travel through India and you'll realize how mistaken you are, sometimes the carbon emission of a village with 100 members is less than a typical American household, specially now when LPG is rolling out even in the remotest and poorest families.
For the record; I've travelled in India and parts of Africa. That's not the point. The point is simply biology. If we reduce our population sufficiently (by whatever means), then the effects we have on the global climate may start to wear off. This is just one example of how we are reaching a limit and our species is starting to die off as a result. Given enough such situations our species may eventually reach a sustainable level.
I'm more pessimistic. People will come up with something to use up all easily available fossil fuels no matter what population size.
E.g. via space tourism, the moon being the new Mount Everest. This can easily be seen by how much more CO2 each US-Amercian emits compared to every other person on earth. So your Thanos solution wouldn't even work short term.
The effect also doesn't wear off until you take the CO2 out of the atomsphere and bury/solidify it, which doesn't happen organically within reasonable (for humans) time frames.
The problem is that those who emit the most are best equipped against any ill effects. The US (and Europe) are in quite temperate climate. There will be some internal migration to the cooler regions, somewhat higher taxes to pay for sea walls, storm drains and some permamently running pumps, higher insurance premiums for many types of insurance, etc. But all those are minor inconviniences compared to what those that barely have a carbon footprint will experience.
That means whatever nature "does" to kill humans and balance our carbon budget would have to kill 90% of all humans to have enough of an effect. If that's the plan then just nuking the 10% of humanity with the highest carbon emissions would be more efficient and more humane.
I'm living in EU, and have exactly same bad feeling about pollution generated in EU or US having much more worse effect in some other part of the world. I'm trying to advocate for wanting less (stuff, travelling, ...), but it's seems only very few here care.
So, the migration of large numbers of people from a low-energy-per-capita economy to a high-energy-per-capita economy will save lives, but also have the unintended side effect of increasing global temperatures?
If we refuse to reduce our energy expenditures in the US because [stubborn reasons] ... would it be easier to solve global warming by just having everyone in the US migrate to existing more efficient, low-energy-per-capita economies?
If a 'die-off' happens at large scale within a country that has nuclear weapons, everyone on the planet could be involved. For example, they could make a unilateral decision to detonate nuclear bombs on the surface of the earth to throw up particulates and cool things down. That would 'suck' for everyone if it didn't work as expected.
Except this is a comedy sketch. Considering massive human die-offs as a solution to the climate crisis is not just inhumane it's also very unlikely to work without massive extra consequences from war and other disasters.
By that logic anything which kills mass population is "not so bad". Why not just bomb cities. Infact if you read it as a response to "world wars", though not intended, that way of thinking justify that.
It depends on your view of the world I guess. In my view, humans are not special. We have no inherent right to live on this planet compared to other animals. Why should we not die off and let other creatures live? Only selfishness (and our cognitive ability to have it), enables; I want to live. Humans are not special (except for currently being at the top of the food-chain). We have reached our biological population limit. And it needs to go down. And even if it goes to zero, the universe won't care. We are just another species and we are about to go extinct, like so many before us. Unless drastic measures are taken. But the only ones who will care are still us, the humans. Maybe we just shouldn't, and die out and let some other, better suited, organism take over. Or none at all. In the end it doesn't actually matter...
Humans are actually special. We are smarter than any other animal on earth and have culture. Human brain is the most complex structure in the known universe, so even on that scale we are pretty special.
And it simply makes no sense to just throw away millions of years of evolution. Your nihilistic worldview is very naive.
To put it bluntly, because the road constant progress and improvement can potentially unveil the meaning of existence of the universe. Nihilism is naive by definition, just because you don't know the meaning, doesn't mean that there is no meaning at all.
The 50 C number was observed in a desert. Death Valley, California, also a desert, spend 5 consecutive days above 54 C in 1913, the year it set the temperature record of 56.7 C.
Just as a note, you can put a pin in Any random location in India and it'll be 80% a village or town with a good amount of people living. A train ride through the nation in any non-national park route would show that you very rarelt see a stretch of land go more than a few miles without a couple houses.
Agreed. Jacobabad, Nawabshah, Guddu (where my mom grew up), Kashmore are all substantial cities in Sindh not too far away where the mercury usually gets this high in summer.
I was at NTC (south of Death Valley in the Mohave) one summer when the temp was 125-130F for a week. We were in the box the entire time. We used ice filled camel backs, sucking water all day (and rarely urinating) First sgt would bring out pallets of bagged ice that would be half melted by the time they got to us. As a side note; 125 feels cool after spending all day in, and then climbing out if a M1A1! Really odd thing was shivering at night when the temp dropped to 85-90. And urinating all day when it was only 100, but you were still drinking like it was 130.
Irrc they did give us stuff to mix with the water; MREs generally have something as well. A lot of us didn’t use it due to fouling your camel back and canteens. I used to eat the salt packet for example (salt and pepper condiment pack). And yes they did this all the time; all through summer and winter; weather is not a deterrent; train how you fight, fight how you train is how the motto goes.
> I don’t see how the populated areas already hitting comparable temperatures will be habitable at all in ten years.
California desert dwellers simply spend time indoors when it's too hot outside. They use energy-efficient swamp coolers currently in otherwise conventional above-grade homes. If those cease working because the desert air becomes persistently humid even when scorching hot (this strikes me as unlikely) I expect deep basements and underground earthdomes will become more common.
This has been the case almost every year this decade in India.
Also, it is quite common for the government departments to fudge data and report temperatures > 50 Celsius as 49.x to avoid halting work / paying extra to those working under the Sun because there are regulations concerning this.
Edit: I got to know about this practice being rampant through an activist in the South who is well versed with the labour laws.
I have never heard of this. In my experience, in central India, the district officials in many places are overactive in declaring daytime curfews when the temperature passes 45.
I am not sure if this is true. This is from my state (which is in South India) this year (March-April) when the temperature was in the 35-40 degrees range. Highest recorded was 42 degrees I think in a border district. I don't think South India crosses 40 most of the time. One place reached 47 in 2016 [3].
>With mercury levels in Kerala rising this summer, the state’s Labour Department has issued an order allowing mandatory break time for labourers to avoid sunstroke. All labourers in the state who are exposed to sunlight which could potentially lead to a sunstroke have been ordered to rest indoors between 12 pm and 3 pm during the summer months.
>“Those working in the morning shift will get a break from 12 pm to 3 pm. Their work timings have been fixed at 8 hours from 7 in the morning to 7 in the evening. For the other shifts which begin after morning and post noon will be rescheduled to end before 12 pm and begin after 3 pm,” read the order.
>In 2018 too, the State Labour Department had issued a similar order to reschedule the shift timings of labourers during the months of February and April to avoid exposure to heat from 12 pm to 3 pm. [1]
There are many places in South India where the temperature crosses 40 and above during months of Apr-May. For example see temperatures at these places in Karnataka, and AP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raichur (avg. temperature of 45.0 C in May)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurnool (avg. temperature of 46.5 C in May)
Can you cite a source for this? This seems like an urban legend imported from Dubai or the UAE, where it may actually make sense. But I have never seen regulations or the 50 C mark being treated as some barometer of extreme heat in India.
I am observing it in my farm where I have installed precision agri devices from Fasal (https://fasal.co). Fortunately, during this period there wasn't any active crop. Showing new crop now.
This sounds shocking to a lot of people, but it's not new or unexpected, and it's not even that uncomfortable if you have shade and water. I don't mean to downplay the risk to those who don't have shade or water, or who have to work exposed, but it's not as scary as you might think.
I lived in Tempe, AZ for years, and summer temperatures would regularly be over 45C/113F. I walked or biked four miles to work in that. There were a few days when it hit 50C/122F, and while you didn't want to be exposed to the sun for long, it was tolerable. Low humidity makes a huge difference in what you can put up with.
Rajasthan is a desert. The city mentioned in the article, Churu, currently has a humidity of 11%. I mentioned Tempe because it's nearly an identical climate. I've spent time in Ajmer, India, which is pretty close to Churu. It was only about 45C/113F when I was there.
Obviously this is all anecdotal, but my anecdote here isn't off base.
Its absolutely not localized to Rajasthan. Almost the whole of north india is under a heat wave. And we recorded 37% humidity today in Delhi (The capital) with 47 C temprature and hot winds.
I went back to the article and realized I lazily skimmed after the beginning. Delhi and other areas are much more oppressively humid. Mumbai is stifling even when it's "only" 35C. Most of Rajastan is pretty comfortable even well into the 40s though.
Agreed. Riyadh has daily maxima of >40C from May to October, and >45C June-August, peaking about 49C in a normal year. It has low humidity and a little altitude (700m), so it is rarely over 50C (shade), but is certainly over 50C in the city, on the street, in the sun.
It's relatively easy to walk or run up to 30 minutes on the commute, or after work, when temperatures are up to 43C, without carrying any water.
A few years ago, there was more danger from the religious police for wearing running shorts, than from the high temperatures.
I think humidity is a big problem in a lot of places in India with high temperature. In my village in easter UP in India, summer was intolerable because of high humidity and shortage of electricity. (We used to have 8hours electricity per day, but sometimes outages would happen and would go unrepaired for week to month). It was impossible to do anything but take a hand fan and use it to cool yourself. A lot of the time thus went wasted in doing this completely un productive work.
Now that I live in a place with somewhat better weather and 24x7 electricity, I feel what a privilege it is. It pains me to see a large fraction of humanity has to spend a large portion of their time using a hand fan for survival.
The amount of people living in tier 1,2,3 cities should still be less than people living in villages I think. Anyways my village still continues to get abysmal electricity.
Get 24/7 electricity from what source? The state run power producers don’t provide this in many tier 2 cities (pick some names and check). I strongly doubt if all tier 1 cities (except probably Mumbai) get power 24/7 either.
Power is cut during summers, during rains, and at other times very regularly. There are plenty of reasons and excuses for that to be happening.
Well before you guys start doomsday predictions, let me tell you that Churu is in Rajasthan which is in Thar desert. Temperatures like this, even though very high and uncomfortable, are not unheard of.
We are in midst of a very hot summer but it is not something out of ordinary and yearly cycle (we don't love our summers). We are eagerly awaiting monsoon to arrive in India (early june is when it hits our shores). After rains arrive, we expect our dams to fill and possible water scarcity to end
That's the problem. No matter what you think about climate change, summers are undeniably getting hotter. This might not be a doomsday, but it's something that will become more common and eventually will affect more populated areas.
And I believe that climate change is real. Definitely summers are getting hotter, and winters are getting colder and extreme weather events more frequent. Just that it is not yet a doomsday scenario
Dear HN crowd, it might not feel like it but we are quite influential. We are rich and therefore have a non-negligible command over economy. Silicon Valley is cool and people look up to us (do they? I don't really know, but wasn't Steve Jobs a national hero?) and may follow our example.
Please, take the lead. Here are a few things an hornorable member of the HN community can do
- Stop flying to conferences. Go to a local meetup. It's fun. And cheaper. If you really need to get out of town, take a train. Don't think about it as not flying for the rest of your life. Rather, can we declare a moratorium on conferences for like three years? Let's hope by then Prometheus will give us carbon-neutral jet fuel https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19842240
- Shift your investments from fossil to green. If you can't find enough worthy greens, shift it to anything else. Some say it won't impact your returns http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/the-mythical-per.... Move your deposits and savings to a more sustainable bank. This might be one of the most underappreciated yet simple and powerful tools https://fairfinanceguide.org
- Work less. Work part time, and part of that part time remotely. Reduce your commute. If your boss won't let you, find a job that will. In the current job market you can negotiate almost anything, and remote work must be the easiest thing to negotiate. http://cepr.net/documents/publications/climate-change-worksh.... A firm lets its employees work four days a week while being paid for five. Everyone is happy, lower electricity bills, fewer cars on the road https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/world/asia/four-day-workw....
- Reduce your meat consumption as much as you can. I noticed that this one is quite controversial but I am mentioning it anyway. It's fine to not go fully vegan, but make meat a special treat, something you are looking forward to, not an everyday snack. They say these new vega burgers are not too bad. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/30/dining/climat....
India has population of over 1.2 billion people. And major part of this population is vegetarian (at least in the sense that they don't eat meat on daily basis twice a day).
What if India were meat consuming nation just like US?
India is the country with biggest population density in the planet (barring some micro nation), why does everyone keep giving India a pass for having absolutely no regard for sustainability and keep exploding their population by having way more children than those they could actually provide with a good life (if not environmentaly, at least economically) ?
Should we really expect the same level of life for the children of couples that had 2 children and were able to properly provide for then, and for children of couples that had 6 children when they couldn't even provide properly for 2?
My ex ruined my credit due to his incessant extravagant spending spree, I found myself in a big mess. I talked to a credit repair company and I was told that it would take me non less than a year to fix my credit. I was devastated, that's a very long time which I can't cope with. I looked online and came across Neo's contact, took the bold step of messaging him even though I was skeptical about the whole thing and to my greatest surprise, my credit was repaired 3 working days, my credit was restored from 337 -710. Tbh I was shocked and it didn't cost me too much. I advise you to contact him on (neogonzalezhacks at g mail dot com )for all credit issues, he replies quickly and you can text him on +1 773 688 9662 .
268 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 237 ms ] threadhttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/at-50-8c-chu...
edit - not quite a record - https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/Rajasthans-P...
I think in Europe it's called midsummer - middle of summer. That's what Wikipedia says as well.
> Traditionally, in many temperate regions (especially Europe), the summer solstice is seen as the middle of summer and referred to as "midsummer".
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer#Summer_timing
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_lag
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsoon
Btw, I was kind of impressed, when visiting India and speaking to a few locals, that they don't see climate change to be a real thing, or at least to be such a big problem, and much overrated. The claim was basically that it was always very warm, and it is just normal that way, and they don't expect it to become much warmer. I'm not sure if that is just anecdotal or if that is the major opinion by locals.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/Rajasthans-P...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-36339523
That said, it does not mean that it is normal either.
There appears to be a cluster of temps over 50 recently, but before that you seemingly have to go back to 1956 to get over 50 degrees. I could be wrong again however. If someone has better data, I'd like it if they could link to it.
However, the Indian Government has made its stance clear on Climate Change: https://www.undp.org/content/dam/india/docs/undp_climate_cha...
and: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-natio...
> The claim was basically that it was always very warm, and it is just normal that way, and they don't expect it to become much warmer
I think they might have misunderstood you. They might have thought you are talking about weather and not climate change. Human body may not notice slight changes in temperature but the ecosystem does. For instance, those locals you spoke to may not have personally experienced any change but if you had instead asked them about droughts, drying of wells or yield of crops they would have definitely given you a totally different reply.
And every ten meters, when asking for directions, ha ha :)
And the best part is that some of them, if asked "where is so-and-so place" (hotel / restaurant / bus station / etc.), will dramatically raise their arm, point "that-a-way", and say "tum XYZ chowk ko cross karke seeeedddddhaaaayyy jao" (you cross XYZ square and go sttttrrrraaaiiiiggggghhhhhhhtttt) - without mentioning in which direction to straight from the square ...
Always good for a few giggles (apart from the frustration).
Indian here.
That's very much not my experience. And regardless of beliefs, actual government policy and individual action are largely emissions-reducing. See a comment I posted some time ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18164816
This year, May has been brutal already and I dread to think what June has in store. This is coming after a very long and very cold winter.
What happens when temperatures like these are reached in high humidity zones where sweat just sticks? Will we simply have entire communities that lack air conditioning dying off?
Given the absolute mess migration was out of Syria into Europe (and that was comparatively minor) I think it's going to be unpleasant.
Once it starts it'll snowball as well instead of an orderly evacuation it'll be pell-mell.
Sometimes think it would be nice to have a single rational world government so that we could deal with these things on a species level.
Of course if we had a single rational world government for any length of time we wouldn't be in this mess.
No, you would be in another mess.
Alternatively, take the way North Korea is run and make it global. This is the only way it could work.
As a third alternative, take the way the EU is run, and make it global.
What are the problems? There is way too much diversity for a single entity to handle the various aspects.
Gut response is wherever is currently the hottest but that may not be the case since there are a bunch of factors that will effect it.
Good report on it here.
https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/infographic/2018/03/19/gro...
Direct Link: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/2... (PDF)
For instance, climate change played some role in the current Venezuelan refugee crisis (the one that has Trump separating families and housing people in camps under overpasses, or bussing them to sanctuary cities).
Today, the main problem is that their government started to collapse in 2017, so they are unable to supply food to their population.
Why did the government start to collapse? Well, they have seen lower crop yields in recent years, which means more food imports, which means they are more vulnerable to embargoes, etc.
It only has data to 2016, but this site shows across the board agricultural production collapses in 2015 and 2016.
https://www.ceicdata.com/en/venezuela/agricultural-productio...
The government went into disarray in 2017.
In 2018 (and maybe earlier; tldr) US sanctions cut off oil revenue. The sanctions are due to terrorism, corruption, human trafficking, and human rights violations, which are, again symptoms of a collapsing government:
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/IF10715.pdf
You may also remember tortilla riots a few years back when the price of corn spiked. That probably led to some migration.
Arguably, and famines that led to refugees in the last 10-20 years are due to climate change.
The issue is that we’re at a tipping point where they will become more common.
Spirited debate is the best thing about this place.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_migrant_crisis#Statis...
Taking 1.5 million migrants with a population of 82 million, if the UK (my country) had done the same ratio that would have been 1.2 million, best figure I can find for UK is <20 thousand.
One thing I do wonder is what western culture will look like in a hundred years if the world bank figures are right (140-200 million displaced people).
So it's a valid question as long as it's not a veiled "will there be too many brown people".
It's interesting that you can't really broach it as a question though without it been implied that racism is involved, if you can't debate a subject without been accused of racism then you leave all debate of that subject to racists since they may not care about been accused of racism.
Too many people use race as a placeholder for culture and vice versa (same with religion).
Honestly things would be better if both sides would stop hurling slurs at each other and actually debate the issues but I figure it serves them to have this kind of fight as it gains both sides followers.
I'm seeing more and more of that kind of balkanization in the UK and it's worrying, Brexit has opened some pretty nasty wounds that may not heal in my lifetime.
I am keeping a close eye on the proposed 'Free Ports'.
>"Can "free ports" spark a post-Brexit manufacturing boom? Jonty Bloom reports from Teesside, which plans to become the UK's newest free port, offering customs-free imports and hoping to bring back manufacturing jobs."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46349717
>"For each Free Zone, the area covered and the defined entry and exit points shall be determined by the Member State. The perimeter and the entry and exit points must be under customs supervision. Member State must communicate to the commission details of the Free Zones in operation.
>All Free Zones shall be enclosed. Persons, goods and means of transport entering or leaving Free Zones may be subject to customs controls."
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/notice-3001-speci...
Though given our reaction to the current wave of refugees, we will blame the refugees for their own predicament and probably George Soros, as is tradition, long before we accept any blame ourselves.
I suspect you may be right that the popular option will be to close the border. I do not agree however, that it is the better option.
Interesting way to describe people fleeing war.
https://www.unrefugees.org/refugee-facts/what-is-a-refugee/
A crop failure might be a natural disaster, but lots of other causes of starvation that are not.
Main point is, if you’re seeking refuge, try to put a clear-cut reason down rather than something debatable, but sensible, like absolute poverty.
This will certainly happen in a scenario where there are massive refugee populations elsewhere in the world.
Nothing “simply” about it.
One million people is a single city. You do have a problem if one million people are suddenly relocating. It has happened before for war, natural disasters or other reasons.
Migrating a billion people is not a thing, for the simple fact that there isn't any human settlement any close to approaching a billion people. If you're talking about the scale of a whole continent, migratory flux span over a lifetime and are not homogeneous.
Yet.
But in the case is the fuel they burn, right? India is projected to become the 2nd biggest producer of CO2 (behind China) this decade.
Also, I go around here and gasoline is so cheap that people don't care about waste. Drivers let their cars with the motor on while they go to buy some small thing to eat or drink.
[1]: https://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?commodity=milk&graph...
Steve Bannon has this book he’s always talking about, The Camp of the Saints. It’s the clearest and most concise guide for how they see the climate future rolling out. (This is also why I bristle when they get called climate change deniers. They’re not, they just reached different conclusions.)
https://observer.com/2018/05/the-insanity-of-alt-right-banno...
(Apologies, I know everyone wants to keep this a politics-light zone; this isn’t off topic.)
It's story about brown and black skinned others destroying western civilization with immigration. The motive is racist. The tone of the book is very passionate and overly emotional.
Here is short preface Jean Raspail wrote to his book:
> I HAD WANTED TO WRITE a lengthy preface to explain my position and show that this is no wild-eyed dream; that even if the specific action, symbolic as it is, may seem farfetched, the fact remains that we are inevitably heading for something of the sort. We need only glance at the awesome population figures predicted for the year 2000, i.e., twenty-eight years from now: seven billion people, only nine hundred million of whom will be white. But what good would it do? I should at least point out, though, that many of the texts I have put into my characters’ mouths or pens—editorials, speeches, pastoral letters, laws, news stories, statements of every description—are, in fact, authentic. Perhaps the reader will spot them as they go by. In terms of the fictional situation I have presented, they become all the more revealing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature
The wet-bulb temperature (WBT) is the temperature read by a thermometer covered in water-soaked cloth (wet-bulb thermometer) over which air is passed.
Sustained wet-bulb temperature exceeding 35 °C (95 °F) is likely to be fatal even to fit and healthy people, unclothed in the shade next to a fan; at this temperature our bodies switch from shedding heat to the environment, to gaining heat from it.[8] Thus 35 °C (95 °F) is the threshold beyond which the body is no longer able to adequately cool itself. A study by NOAA from 2013 concluded that heat stress will reduce labor capacity considerably under current emissions scenarios.[9]
A 2010 study concluded that under a worst-case scenario for global warming with temperatures 12 °C (22 °F) higher than 2007, the wet-bulb temperature limit for humans could be exceeded around much of the world in future centuries.[10] A 2015 study concluded that parts of the globe could become uninhabitable.[11] An example of the threshold at which the human body is no longer able to cool itself and begins to overheat is a humidity level of 50% and a high heat of 46 °C (115 °F), as this would indicate a wet-bulb temperature of 35 °C (95 °F).
The 2015 Indian heat wave saw wet-bulb temperatures in Andhra Pradesh reach 30 °C (86 °F). A similar wet-bulb temperature was reached during the 1995 Chicago heat wave.
A temperature inversion also happened that July, so no wind and pollution stagnated over the city.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_equilibrium
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorems_of_welfar...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
This is scary, what's a good way to survive for someone that doesn't have access to a bunker or AC? Immersing oneself in water in a bathtub?
But in a detached demographic sense: effectively everyone lives in a city in the modern world, and while their housing might not be air conditioned most of the major buildings are. In an emergency like this everyone would just crowd into office buildings and shopping malls.
That's not to say this wouldn't be horrifying, but it's not the kind of existential social crisis people tend to imagine. Cooling ourselves down in a heat wave, in the modern world, is a solved problem at least as far as keeping ourselves alive goes.
The point is emergency management here. And I'd bet anything that somewhere there's a workable plan drawn up for exactly this kind of occurrence.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retailing_in_India#The_Indian_...
Aside from ACs having a limit on cooling far below “everyone packed in a building”, if you’ve ever done business in India, I don’t see how one could assume there would be a plan drawn up for this grand of a scenario, much less many smaller scale scenarios.
There's vastly more to India than a few metro cities. A quick google search reveals that around 65+ % of Indian population lives in rural areas.
India is in for some very dark times if the climate situation gets worse. The positive lining in the cloud is that we have some measure of political stability for the next 5 years.
Unless these buildings are designed as emergency shelters for heat waves their air conditioning systems won't be able to cope with all the people.
This makes me want to go live in a deep cave somewhere :(
The principal human-appreciated effect of AC is the dehumidifying of the air when it's cooled.
The dry interior air allows human perspiration to regulate temperature effectively. The AC doesn't have to cool all the bodies, it just has to keep the air dry enough.
Humans burning calories to stay alive creates heat, and thermodynamics that you spend energy to remove it or see the temperature rise. Whether that heat is hot air or bound as humidity shouldn't make a large difference.
In a scenario where you've filled the place with people, the interior humidity is going to exceed that of the exterior air and you'd just start dumping the moisture outside exchanging with the fresh, dryer air. It's a comfort regression sure, but not a everyone dies situation.
The survival of the people doesn't come down to the AC heat pump keeping up, it comes down to supplying them enough water to drink and disposing of the humidified air.
My point is just that it's the relative humidity that matters, and the AC system has some options there. I've lived through a desert summer in a small space without any AC at all. I'd just keep the windows closed as deep into the day as possible riding out the night's cooling until the air gets too humid indoors from sweat and respiration for the fan to have any cooling effect. At that point I'd open the windows for relief. The air coming in was usually much hotter than the interior air, since the space was well insulated and nights get cool, but it didn't matter because it's very dry air and perspiration resumes functioning. The situation is easily survived unless you run out of water for your person.
Of course if the outdoor air is something like 100% humidity there's only the heat pump option, but that simply doesn't happen in deserts when it's hot out. It's a desert, not the tropics.
In the desert the relative humidity shoots up when it cools down, the humid nights are the worst. But it's because they cooled down. Again, not a survival problem since it's not that hot, just uncomfortably muggy. One saving grace with deserts is they don't generally have any mosquitoes, so these humid nights can easily be spent outdoors without any annoyance.
That's equivalent to opening a window without the AC doing anything. If that would work we wouldn't be in a "crowd everyone into a shopping center" type situation, the people would be just fine outside in the shade.
> It's a desert, not the tropics.
While half of India is in the tropics, this part indeed isn't. But next month the monsoon will put humidity at approximately 100% [1].
1: https://en.climate-data.org/asia/india/delhi/new-delhi-30/
Even when the air temperature at your fresh air intake is cooler than the air at your condensor coil? Wouldn't we assume no system would draw its fresh air from near the condensor coil?
You still have a heat pump in the system, and there's a temperature difference between the air inlet and the pump outlet.
Specifically the ambient indoor air heat is absorbed by refrigerant which is transformed into a superheated vapor saturated with moisture. When this vapor either touches a cooler surface, or has cooler air blown past it, it will dehumidify and exhaust the heat it has absorbed indoors to the outside. The mechanical work done by the AC (fans, pumps) is also being released as heat. So the total energy being dumped outside is therefore the heat that's taken from the inside plus the energy used by the AC released as heat.
You can see there that even at extremely dry conditions, if the operative (ambient + radiant) temperature is hot enough, it will cause heat discomfort. Even if the human starts sweating, that'll only reduce the temperature a bit so dehumidification isn't the only role of air conditions, sensible cooling is also a factor.
The states of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh lag the rest of the nation in economic development. This statement is very much not true in those places, and even elsewhere in India. Air-conditioning is still a luxury outside of relatively well-off people's houses, corporate buildings, and malls.
> Cooling ourselves down in a heat wave, in the modern world, is a solved problem at least as far as keeping ourselves alive goes.
People there can't afford to not work. Sitting in an air-conditioned space for half the working day 4 months a year is not viable for them. A lot of the work is manual or farm labor that must necessarily be done outdoors.
Not saying that #climatechange isn't an emergency; but people won't suddenly die.
Heat waves spur increases in violent crime, limited in some degree by the fact that people stay in their own homes in really hot (but not uninhabitably so) heat waves.
Heat waves that go further to where the only survivable solution is pulling people out of their homes into large communal shelters (whether they otherwise serve as offices or shopping malls or whatever) is...going to be very ugly.
And that's even before considering whether the facilities or supporting infrastructure (plumbing, electrical systems, etc.) are adequate to support these places being used as shelters. Almost certainly they won't be until it's happened and failed a few times, and even after that the places that most need it will be the least able to finance the necessary upgrades.
https://www.rehva.eu/knowledge-base/rehva-journal/chapter/ai...
See the pie chart on page two: eletricity consumption from cooling systems is 17% of global consumption. The IPCC expects this usage to rise as temperatures rise.
I would also like to challenge the notion that human beings understand how to use air conditioning units. In pretty much every building I visited or vehicle I boarded with air conditioning, if the unit was on, the windows were also wide open at the same time. In Greece, where I'm from, in the summer, you can cool down just by walking past stores, with their doors thrown wide to signal they're open for business and their air conditioning blasting cool air onto the street. It may be 42°C in the shade, but in front of our shop, it's 15°! Come on in and buy our stuff! But put on your coat first.
Contemplate for a second the futility of this behaviour: air conditioning pumps heat out of a room, into the environment; leaving the windows open allows the heat to circulate back into the room. The unit typically has a thermostat, also typically set at an unrealistically low value, that would cause the user to turn on the heating in winter. The unit goes to work and pushes the warm air out trying to reach its target temperature. The warm air cycles back in from outside and tries to raise the temperature. The unit keeps working, and working, and working, wasting energy all the time. Eventually, this contributes to warming, which causes more people to buy and misuse air conditioning.
We might know how to survive a heat wave, by our clever use of technology, but we don't know how to use technology to avoid more and more severe heat waves.
Edit: because obviousy I also go into shops to buy stuff and I've never seen an air door used. If air doors are used, they are very, very rare.
35°C is slightly cooler than body temperature, so it would work just a little bit as a heatsink, but another degree or two and even that becomes ineffective.
So a large body of water stays cool for a long time, and then stabilizes around the daily average temperature, not the high.
However the acceptable temperature range in water is also much smaller because under water we exchange heat quickly and don't have a way to cool below the temperature of the water. Water above ~38°C would be dangerous to stay submersed in. Not a problem for huge bodies of water, but important to keep in mind on the small scale.
Of course you can't start digging while dying of heat stroke and you can't crowd people into any places (people are great space heaters). With education about proper measures a few days should be survivable for rural populations. In cities you just need air conditioning, there's no other viable way to cool large amounts of people.
Granted I don't know the wet-bulb temp actually exceeded 35C
The most effective preventive measure, in my experience, is to drink (~200ml of) mineral-filled water once every half an hour. The body's heat regulation mechanism works best when provided with sufficient amount of water. The problem only begins to manifest once the body water levels aren't good enough to dispose of heat as well as maintain blood circulation in which case the body prefers to give up heat regulation over fluid circulation.
Under normal circumstances, we are used to drinking water only when we get thirsty. Under extreme heat, however, by the time thirst signal kicks in it could be too late. I learned this the hard way during long-distance cycling. Since then I've followed cyclists' mantra of eat-before-hungry and drink-before-thirsty.
Another thing to keep in mind is to drink mineralized water (such as Gatorade, juices, tender coconut water, etc.,). When you sweat you also lose a lot of minerals so replenishing just water isn't good enough.
Most of the heat wave death in India doesn't occur in an urban setting as people have access to water within walking distance. It is the farmers who are in the most danger as a) They are directly exposed to sun b) They are engaged in strenuous physical activity. By the time they realize the danger they are in it'd be too late and they lose consciousness with no one around them to help out in vast agricultural fields.
Wet-bulb is the measurement of the lowest possible temperature a human body can achieve under current ambient temperatures and humidity (taking into account current wind speed). Basically the air temperature minus the ability to cool yourself by sweating given the current wind speed.
They're both designed to show how hot the air feels to your body rather than just air temperature, just with different calculations and assumptions.
From personal experience I've never used a sauna for more than 10 minutes and I always carry a bottle of water with me inside.
I think you'd be in serious trouble after 2-3 hours.
while some parts of the world warm to become uninhabitable, others will warm to the opposite.
Sucks for the people involved. But globally speaking, it may not be so bad.
And please don't pull that bogus racist card again. Race has got nothing to do with any of my comments.
Now this isn't personal to you specifically, however in regard to your query, Me first what?, I have long thought that people who advocate the benefits of depopulation by mass die-off, should generally lead by example.
Basically, although it is an unpopular vision these days, I suspect that for the amount of effort involved in having a mass die-off, we could stabilise the population somewhat and start building floating cities and space habitats. People regard this kind of thing as unrealistic, but I think it will rapidly become realistic should we even halt population growth temporarily through environmental disaster and it would be preferable to start doing it before that signal to action.
To sit on our hands and hope for our own actions to kill us off in order to save some remainder is the most fatalistic and least imaginative approach going. We might as well be deer.
In my eyes, we very much are.
If we were deer, then Malthus would have been right by now. We are fairly uniquely placed as a species to be able to avoid being this dumb.
Even with Trump as president?
He takes "dumb" to a whole new level!
Would it be a tragedy if humans went extinct?
Also, I would bet long term survival success (very long term) under various environmental changes to organisms such as water bears over humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrade
Unless we figure out cheap space travel and water production in the next few hundred years.
And it really doesn't carry quite as much weight as people apparently think it does.
As another observation, I have yet to meet anyone who uses the phrase 'playing the race card', that has a considered opinion on that subject, or indeed many others. It is indicative of a thought process constructed almost entirely from clichés.
One can have a considered opinion and still think that playing the "race card" is despicable.
Try not to be so single-minded.
[1] https://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/ind...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing#Price_Comp...
Putting the current immigration fiasco to shame.
Imagine tens of millions of climate refugees at the border of many different countries, and the choice is to let them in and take care of them or let them die right there. It's not a good situation to be in.
Realistically speaking, with that many people, good luck keeping them out.
I was only a kid and I remember thinking "I can't imagine that ever happening" then I look at the refugee camps in EU states (Greece particularly) and it doesn't seem so far fetched.
Trump and his wall as well.
The only real winner will be Russia: they can just absorb all the refugees from South Asia and use them to populate then-inhabitable Syberia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SGR-A1
I just hope nobody tells Trump these exist.
...and really how hard would it be to build one of these, the level of CV required is already solved off the shelf, the rest is sensors, servos, a gun to strap to it and programming.
I'd expect a none-trivial percentage of the HN could build one with the resources available.
Reliably detecting humans sounds hard though. This is a highly adversarial scenario, they will do anything from carrying cardboard in front of them to disguising as wildlife and vegetation. I'm not sure this is even solvable without shooting down anything that moves and is unidentified.
Ethnic Russians are already concerned about plunging birthrates. It is not at all unusual to hear elected Russian officials talk about “the future of the white race”. Furthermore, Russians are aware that a decline in the ethnic Russian population means that the local Muslim minorities gain a correspondingly higher share of the country. Thus, the topic is already a very pressing and sensitive one, and it would be silly to suggest that Russia is open to admitting masses of Muslim (or Hindu) refugees.
And that's ultimately what it would take. When you're dying of dehydration or starving to death, you aren't going to care too much about people shooting into the air.
When the alternative is living next to them, that perception might change. Time will tell.
I suggest you travel through India and you'll realize how mistaken you are, sometimes the carbon emission of a village with 100 members is less than a typical American household, specially now when LPG is rolling out even in the remotest and poorest families.
Climate change due to population is not a simple numbers reduction game.
The effect also doesn't wear off until you take the CO2 out of the atomsphere and bury/solidify it, which doesn't happen organically within reasonable (for humans) time frames.
That means whatever nature "does" to kill humans and balance our carbon budget would have to kill 90% of all humans to have enough of an effect. If that's the plan then just nuking the 10% of humanity with the highest carbon emissions would be more efficient and more humane.
If we refuse to reduce our energy expenditures in the US because [stubborn reasons] ... would it be easier to solve global warming by just having everyone in the US migrate to existing more efficient, low-energy-per-capita economies?
https://youtu.be/owI7DOeO_yg
Except this is a comedy sketch. Considering massive human die-offs as a solution to the climate crisis is not just inhumane it's also very unlikely to work without massive extra consequences from war and other disasters.
And it simply makes no sense to just throw away millions of years of evolution. Your nihilistic worldview is very naive.
"And it simply makes no sense to just throw away millions of years of evolution" - Why not?
I traveled there.
Churu has 120k inhabitants, you can call that a population center.
Going outside there even for short periods of time is extremely dangerous for some fraction of each year.
They shut the park down when this happens.
A few years ago, some tourists that didn’t heed the warning ended up dead after rental van overheated.
I don’t see how the populated areas already hitting comparable temperatures will be habitable at all in ten years.
Phoenix, AZ, where nearly 5 million people live, hit 50C in 1990 and has come close many times.
^ This absolutely riveted me. It's a long read, but mindblowing for someone who's accustomed to a much more hospitable place.
How did you keep your electrolytes balanced drinking all that water?
California desert dwellers simply spend time indoors when it's too hot outside. They use energy-efficient swamp coolers currently in otherwise conventional above-grade homes. If those cease working because the desert air becomes persistently humid even when scorching hot (this strikes me as unlikely) I expect deep basements and underground earthdomes will become more common.
Also, it is quite common for the government departments to fudge data and report temperatures > 50 Celsius as 49.x to avoid halting work / paying extra to those working under the Sun because there are regulations concerning this.
Edit: I got to know about this practice being rampant through an activist in the South who is well versed with the labour laws.
Never heard of this. Do you have a source?
>With mercury levels in Kerala rising this summer, the state’s Labour Department has issued an order allowing mandatory break time for labourers to avoid sunstroke. All labourers in the state who are exposed to sunlight which could potentially lead to a sunstroke have been ordered to rest indoors between 12 pm and 3 pm during the summer months.
>“Those working in the morning shift will get a break from 12 pm to 3 pm. Their work timings have been fixed at 8 hours from 7 in the morning to 7 in the evening. For the other shifts which begin after morning and post noon will be rescheduled to end before 12 pm and begin after 3 pm,” read the order.
>In 2018 too, the State Labour Department had issued a similar order to reschedule the shift timings of labourers during the months of February and April to avoid exposure to heat from 12 pm to 3 pm. [1]
[1] https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/kerala-govt-orders-man...
[2] https://english.manoramaonline.com/districts/thiruvananthapu...
[3] https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/gk-current-affairs...
Luckily for India, it has a long shoreline.
>Founders: Ananda Verma and Shailendra Tiwari
No self-promotion, please. At least keep it relevant.
I lived in Tempe, AZ for years, and summer temperatures would regularly be over 45C/113F. I walked or biked four miles to work in that. There were a few days when it hit 50C/122F, and while you didn't want to be exposed to the sun for long, it was tolerable. Low humidity makes a huge difference in what you can put up with.
Our bodies rely on evaporative cooling to reduce heat, which is why we sweat and why you need water.
When humidity is above 50% evaporative cooling stops working, so temperatures slightly above our body temperature become lethal.
Obviously this is all anecdotal, but my anecdote here isn't off base.
It's relatively easy to walk or run up to 30 minutes on the commute, or after work, when temperatures are up to 43C, without carrying any water.
A few years ago, there was more danger from the religious police for wearing running shorts, than from the high temperatures.
Now that I live in a place with somewhat better weather and 24x7 electricity, I feel what a privilege it is. It pains me to see a large fraction of humanity has to spend a large portion of their time using a hand fan for survival.
Power is cut during summers, during rains, and at other times very regularly. There are plenty of reasons and excuses for that to be happening.
Bangalore (supposedly a tier-1 city) has regular power cuts throughout the year. Apartment residents don't notice this thanks to the diesel generator.
"the temperature was 53.7 degrees Celsius, which is 128.7 degrees Fahrenheit"
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/weather/2017/06/29/129-degrees...
The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_index, which also takes humidity into account, hit an incredible 142 degrees.
We are in midst of a very hot summer but it is not something out of ordinary and yearly cycle (we don't love our summers). We are eagerly awaiting monsoon to arrive in India (early june is when it hits our shores). After rains arrive, we expect our dams to fill and possible water scarcity to end
That's the problem. No matter what you think about climate change, summers are undeniably getting hotter. This might not be a doomsday, but it's something that will become more common and eventually will affect more populated areas.
And I believe that climate change is real. Definitely summers are getting hotter, and winters are getting colder and extreme weather events more frequent. Just that it is not yet a doomsday scenario
Dear HN crowd, it might not feel like it but we are quite influential. We are rich and therefore have a non-negligible command over economy. Silicon Valley is cool and people look up to us (do they? I don't really know, but wasn't Steve Jobs a national hero?) and may follow our example.
Please, take the lead. Here are a few things an hornorable member of the HN community can do
- Stop flying to conferences. Go to a local meetup. It's fun. And cheaper. If you really need to get out of town, take a train. Don't think about it as not flying for the rest of your life. Rather, can we declare a moratorium on conferences for like three years? Let's hope by then Prometheus will give us carbon-neutral jet fuel https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19842240
- Shift your investments from fossil to green. If you can't find enough worthy greens, shift it to anything else. Some say it won't impact your returns http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/the-mythical-per.... Move your deposits and savings to a more sustainable bank. This might be one of the most underappreciated yet simple and powerful tools https://fairfinanceguide.org
- Work less. Work part time, and part of that part time remotely. Reduce your commute. If your boss won't let you, find a job that will. In the current job market you can negotiate almost anything, and remote work must be the easiest thing to negotiate. http://cepr.net/documents/publications/climate-change-worksh.... A firm lets its employees work four days a week while being paid for five. Everyone is happy, lower electricity bills, fewer cars on the road https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/world/asia/four-day-workw....
- Reduce your meat consumption as much as you can. I noticed that this one is quite controversial but I am mentioning it anyway. It's fine to not go fully vegan, but make meat a special treat, something you are looking forward to, not an everyday snack. They say these new vega burgers are not too bad. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/30/dining/climat....
What if India were meat consuming nation just like US?
Should we really expect the same level of life for the children of couples that had 2 children and were able to properly provide for then, and for children of couples that had 6 children when they couldn't even provide properly for 2?
why is it bad to state the reason for flagging something? alright, then I don't explain it in the future. np.