“ Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.”
We should probably include climate change specifically.
In other news, there’s evidence that climate activism could be swaying public opinion in the US:
Given that the glaciers are in retreat and permafrost that has been stable for at least thousands of years is melting, are there any coordinated efforts to seek out, document, and preserve the archaeological and paleontological discoveries that are no doubt being exposed to the air for the first time in modern history?
HN doesn't have answers because individually most of us have particularly massive carbon footprints that we're busy ignoring. Every computer, monitor, phone and peripheral carried a huge environmental cost to extract the resources and manufacture the goods. If you have a few laptops and desktops and some old phones and a wall of records your carbon footprint is a crater.
In the last 6 years a lot of Apple users weren't inspired by the newer laptops and just clung to their old hardware for an unprecedented amount of time. This is how we can help but it's just not what we want!
I don’t think that’s what the parent was saying. I think they were referring to the cost of transportation for the consumer, not for the product itself.
The carbon emissions of burning a gallon of gasoline is about 11 kg - that’s an estimate, from a random website, so I don’t attest to its accuracy. It’s just a starting point for the following:
I drive a 2000 Jeep Wrangler that gets 14 MPG. I drive about 20k miles per year, which works out to 1,430 gallons of gas or ~15,500 kg of carbon emissions.
Based on this estimate, my vehicle’s fuel alone is equivalent to 75 10” MBPs per year.
>>The energy consumption of digital technologies is increasing by 9% a year, and already represents% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The use of digital technology accounts for 55% of its energy consumption, compared to 45% for the production of equipment.
>>We live in a world where only one form of digital use, online video, generates 60% of of world data flows and thus over 300 million tons of CO2 per year. This use is far from being “dematerialized”. On the contrary, it represents 20% of the greenhouse gas emissions of all digital devices (use and production included), and 1% of global emissions, i.e. as much as Spain.
There are three kinds of solutions available to each of us personally.
Civil engagement, demonstration, and just being an irritation to leadership. It's not a lot but it's some pressure. My congress critters are too busy riding their gravy train to interrupt it, but I hope to shame them at least.
Examine personal carbon footprint. LED or incandescent? Commute or WFH? Meat today or local produce? Fly to a vacation or find something local?
Support renewables. They're already competing with fossil to the point where they'll score some wins on their own economics despite political forces.
> Civil engagement, demonstration, and just being an irritation to leadership.
Are these the new methods? Those who are demonstrating and shouting the loudest now can only say “well, do something” and are skipping the school on Fridays. How does that benefit anyone.
Also, HN probably isn’t the right place for this kind of dialogue. The people who need to listen aren’t here.
Governments have leverage. Corporations, particularly the big ones, have leverage. I don't have the tiniest fraction as much, even if I do everything I possibly can. A government that sets an energy policy, introduces a carbon tax, or refuses planning permission for that mine or rig achieves millions of times more impact than a citizen or demonstrator. A corporation might make a negative carbon commitment, as Stripe did a month or two back.
Civil disobedience, demonstrating, getting arrested, disruption and organising along with chaining yourself to things are time worn routes to change, not new methods. From the 14th C Peasant's Revolt[1] through civil rights, Indian independence and universal suffrage, and countless others, even the current HK protests, they succeeded via these sorts of tactics. Governments tend to ignore polite marches of many thousands, but take note when people start ignoring laws, striking or disrupting, and getting noticed or costing money.
The striking school children appear to be doing an utterly marvellous job of making our elected leaders (all of them, pretty much everywhere) look foolish, incompetent and incredibly selfish. They achieved a remarkable amount of media exposure. Many are nearing voting age. Do you think they will all forget about climate when they can finally cast their vote? I don't. Do you think they will give up and go home? I don't. I wonder what we can look forward to when some of them start thinking of going into politics?...
The people who need to listen may not be on HN, but many of the people who can get them to listen are - the potential demonstrators, the strikers, then the marketers, the website and app builders etc. Not forgetting employees and founders of hundreds of corporations who need to be making climate related change.
[1] The Peasant's Revolt was far from peaceful, ultimately more riot and revolution than disobedience, and truly brutally suppressed, but the government was terrified of a repeat for decades after. Poll taxes died in England for 300 years. A few attempts around the Civil War and restoration, then 300 more years for Thatcher's attempt at a poll tax. Which got her a modern replay of the Peasant's Revolt in the shape of the Poll Tax Riots.
Yet both the original and Thatcher's rerun started with discontent, then demonstration, then disobedience, then riot, and for the original, outright revolt.
You are holding this community to an unreasonable standard - we cannot jump onto every single link that is posted and have in-depth discussions about solutions. There are in-depth discussion about climate change on HN, including the possible directions that could be taken. I'd recommend seeking out those posts, and not expecting a repetition of the discussion on every post.
Plenty of solutions have been proposed and even some proof of concepts have been developed, unfortunately "management" has not budged. (In the US anyway.)
It's depressing. I recently finished a hike from Chamonix to Zermatt, which passes near a ton of glaciers in the Pennine Alps. They are all dying. Moraines exposed everywhere. What is supposed to be a glorious celebration of the beauty of the Alps turns instead into sombre contemplation of whether the next generation will ever know such beauty.
Mer de Glace, near Chamonix, is a particularly tragicomic example because the authorities need to add more and more steps each year in order to take the tourists down to the glacier. It's receding that fast.
At risk of prodding at a hornets' nest here, I'd like to raise a controversial question:
Mostly everyone here agrees (including myself), that human contribution to global warming is going to have severe consequences and the rapid impact on glaciers is an early and visible symptom of this problem.
However, I think most people also agree that the planet would be warming even without human involvement (albeit at a considerably slower pace). I don't know whether the glaciers would melt also during the natural warming of the planet, but I assume so given that there were periods in the geological history when it was much warmer in general and were no glaciers at these latitudes.
Yes it is sad that in one or two generations the glaciers will be gone, but glaciers will come back when the next ice age comes around. On the other hand, there are living organisms which could likely survive the natural and more gradual warming, but will be driven to extinction by specifically the human contribution. These species are not coming back, ever. Certainly not naturally.
So perhaps rather than ruminating about whether the next generation can look at large amounts of ice, we should concentrate on saving the parts of the ecosystem which once lost, cannot be recovered.
Would the planet be warming without human involvement? I'm not aware that this is a widely held scientific belief.
I don't think anyone's "ruminating." As the great Howard Beale said: "I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street.
All I know is that first, you've got to get mad!"
The Alps around Mt. Blanc are one of the most beautiful places in the world, and I'll probably cry next time I go back.
I mean we're in the middle of an intetglacial period so yes. In geologic terms the last ice age is still ending. In an interglacial period, the northern hemisphere may lose all its glaciers as its done before.
Glaciers are the charismatic megafauna of climate. They're easy to see and feel attachment to.
Anybody paying attention to the science already grasps what is wrong and has at least some ideas about what to do. But an awful lot of people don't pay attention to the science -- not least because an enormous number of people deliberately obfuscate it -- and so you need other methods of persuasion.
It's easier to get people to pay attention to large, attractive animals than to concern themselves with small, ugly ones even if the latter are more crucial to the food chain. We may not "need" the Alps glaciers, but they're easier to understand than a 0.1 pH drop in the oceans, and they have the same root cause.
Among scientists it may feel dishonest to focus on truthful but not-critical aspects of climate change. Scientists were almost universally persuaded decades ago, yet action fails to come because scientists are only a tiny fraction of the population. Even a huge number of people calling for action against climate change don't really understand the science. Getting anything done, however, requires getting the attention of a majority of Americans, who produce massively-disproportionate carbon and are disproportionately likely to reject the evidence (or remain unpersuaded by it.)
So yeah, I'd rather "concentrate on saving the parts of the ecosystem" that need to be saved. I'd rather be doing a lot of things. Instead, people focus on what is possible rather than what is needed.
I personally am really pessimistic -- cynical, even -- and you kinda don't want to hear my answer. I admire people who are trying and feel it's worth trying to understand their tactics and strategy. Of necessity that means non-rational arguments to appeal to non-rational people, so that means there might be a rationale to be learned.
As I said, I doubt it. But it's just as well that somebody is trying, if that's how they wish to spend their time.
There's an awful lot of glaciers in the Alps. I've no idea which rivers they feed, but I imagine quite a lot of the surrounding rivers are in part fed from the normal seasonal melt and groundwater. How much drinking water and farmland is dependent on those?
Switzerland gets most of its electricity from hydro. Now the glaciers are melting they are getting more power from hydro - thanks to increased water flow. That's a strictly temporary arrangement. At some point they'll be mainly melted. Then what?
The knock on effects of one glacier probably aren't much. In aggregate they could be enormous.
>>At some point they'll be mainly melted. Then what?
Spot on. I was in Aosta Valley, Italy this summer and they were using glacial melt water at midday, in a 40 C heat, to sprinkle vast fields of grass, to be made into hay.
I've been hiking/mountaineering in the Alps for the past decade, and have personally witnessed how fast they have been changing in the new climate.
This summer was insanely, persistently, and consistently hot. In fact hiking, even at high altitudes, was becoming impossible without a great chance of a heat stroke. At 2700 m in July you could wear short sleeves at night.
I was mostly shocked about how little environmental awareness there seems to be even in the very areas where glaciers supply water and energy.
In Aosta, Italy they were watering grass fields to be used for cow feed.
In France, Italy, Austria, the primary mode of transport is cars, and I've seen jams in the most unlikely places that rival jams in cities like London and SF.
In all these places, I've witnessed local people burn piles of garbage in the open, instead of composting it.
Probably only Switzerland stands out with reasonable public transport.
36 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 113 ms ] threadhttps://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
“ Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.”
We should probably include climate change specifically.
In other news, there’s evidence that climate activism could be swaying public opinion in the US:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21059853
Given that the glaciers are in retreat and permafrost that has been stable for at least thousands of years is melting, are there any coordinated efforts to seek out, document, and preserve the archaeological and paleontological discoveries that are no doubt being exposed to the air for the first time in modern history?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-one/10562017/M...
For a community that prides itself on disruption and global impact, HN sure is quiet on solutions.
In the last 6 years a lot of Apple users weren't inspired by the newer laptops and just clung to their old hardware for an unprecedented amount of time. This is how we can help but it's just not what we want!
https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/notebooks/13-...
13-inch MacBook Pro = 210 kg carbon emissions, 77% during manufacturing and just 16% for transport
https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/desktops/iMac...
iMac Pro = 1468 kg carbon emissions, about 1/2 during manufacturing and just 4% for transport
The carbon emissions of burning a gallon of gasoline is about 11 kg - that’s an estimate, from a random website, so I don’t attest to its accuracy. It’s just a starting point for the following:
I drive a 2000 Jeep Wrangler that gets 14 MPG. I drive about 20k miles per year, which works out to 1,430 gallons of gas or ~15,500 kg of carbon emissions.
Based on this estimate, my vehicle’s fuel alone is equivalent to 75 10” MBPs per year.
According to this report, about half of the CO2 footprint of devices comes from usage - mobile data, streaming.
https://theshiftproject.org/en/article/unsustainable-use-onl...
>>The energy consumption of digital technologies is increasing by 9% a year, and already represents% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The use of digital technology accounts for 55% of its energy consumption, compared to 45% for the production of equipment. >>We live in a world where only one form of digital use, online video, generates 60% of of world data flows and thus over 300 million tons of CO2 per year. This use is far from being “dematerialized”. On the contrary, it represents 20% of the greenhouse gas emissions of all digital devices (use and production included), and 1% of global emissions, i.e. as much as Spain.
Civil engagement, demonstration, and just being an irritation to leadership. It's not a lot but it's some pressure. My congress critters are too busy riding their gravy train to interrupt it, but I hope to shame them at least.
Examine personal carbon footprint. LED or incandescent? Commute or WFH? Meat today or local produce? Fly to a vacation or find something local?
Support renewables. They're already competing with fossil to the point where they'll score some wins on their own economics despite political forces.
Are these the new methods? Those who are demonstrating and shouting the loudest now can only say “well, do something” and are skipping the school on Fridays. How does that benefit anyone.
Also, HN probably isn’t the right place for this kind of dialogue. The people who need to listen aren’t here.
Civil disobedience, demonstrating, getting arrested, disruption and organising along with chaining yourself to things are time worn routes to change, not new methods. From the 14th C Peasant's Revolt[1] through civil rights, Indian independence and universal suffrage, and countless others, even the current HK protests, they succeeded via these sorts of tactics. Governments tend to ignore polite marches of many thousands, but take note when people start ignoring laws, striking or disrupting, and getting noticed or costing money.
The striking school children appear to be doing an utterly marvellous job of making our elected leaders (all of them, pretty much everywhere) look foolish, incompetent and incredibly selfish. They achieved a remarkable amount of media exposure. Many are nearing voting age. Do you think they will all forget about climate when they can finally cast their vote? I don't. Do you think they will give up and go home? I don't. I wonder what we can look forward to when some of them start thinking of going into politics?...
The people who need to listen may not be on HN, but many of the people who can get them to listen are - the potential demonstrators, the strikers, then the marketers, the website and app builders etc. Not forgetting employees and founders of hundreds of corporations who need to be making climate related change.
[1] The Peasant's Revolt was far from peaceful, ultimately more riot and revolution than disobedience, and truly brutally suppressed, but the government was terrified of a repeat for decades after. Poll taxes died in England for 300 years. A few attempts around the Civil War and restoration, then 300 more years for Thatcher's attempt at a poll tax. Which got her a modern replay of the Peasant's Revolt in the shape of the Poll Tax Riots.
Yet both the original and Thatcher's rerun started with discontent, then demonstration, then disobedience, then riot, and for the original, outright revolt.
Mer de Glace, near Chamonix, is a particularly tragicomic example because the authorities need to add more and more steps each year in order to take the tourists down to the glacier. It's receding that fast.
Mostly everyone here agrees (including myself), that human contribution to global warming is going to have severe consequences and the rapid impact on glaciers is an early and visible symptom of this problem.
However, I think most people also agree that the planet would be warming even without human involvement (albeit at a considerably slower pace). I don't know whether the glaciers would melt also during the natural warming of the planet, but I assume so given that there were periods in the geological history when it was much warmer in general and were no glaciers at these latitudes.
Yes it is sad that in one or two generations the glaciers will be gone, but glaciers will come back when the next ice age comes around. On the other hand, there are living organisms which could likely survive the natural and more gradual warming, but will be driven to extinction by specifically the human contribution. These species are not coming back, ever. Certainly not naturally.
So perhaps rather than ruminating about whether the next generation can look at large amounts of ice, we should concentrate on saving the parts of the ecosystem which once lost, cannot be recovered.
I don't think anyone's "ruminating." As the great Howard Beale said: "I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first, you've got to get mad!"
The Alps around Mt. Blanc are one of the most beautiful places in the world, and I'll probably cry next time I go back.
Anybody paying attention to the science already grasps what is wrong and has at least some ideas about what to do. But an awful lot of people don't pay attention to the science -- not least because an enormous number of people deliberately obfuscate it -- and so you need other methods of persuasion.
It's easier to get people to pay attention to large, attractive animals than to concern themselves with small, ugly ones even if the latter are more crucial to the food chain. We may not "need" the Alps glaciers, but they're easier to understand than a 0.1 pH drop in the oceans, and they have the same root cause.
Among scientists it may feel dishonest to focus on truthful but not-critical aspects of climate change. Scientists were almost universally persuaded decades ago, yet action fails to come because scientists are only a tiny fraction of the population. Even a huge number of people calling for action against climate change don't really understand the science. Getting anything done, however, requires getting the attention of a majority of Americans, who produce massively-disproportionate carbon and are disproportionately likely to reject the evidence (or remain unpersuaded by it.)
So yeah, I'd rather "concentrate on saving the parts of the ecosystem" that need to be saved. I'd rather be doing a lot of things. Instead, people focus on what is possible rather than what is needed.
And that is the point. If people can't be startled by the emblematic "victims" like glaciers and polar bears, can we even hope for urgency? :/
As I said, I doubt it. But it's just as well that somebody is trying, if that's how they wish to spend their time.
I hope this encourages you.
There's an awful lot of glaciers in the Alps. I've no idea which rivers they feed, but I imagine quite a lot of the surrounding rivers are in part fed from the normal seasonal melt and groundwater. How much drinking water and farmland is dependent on those?
Switzerland gets most of its electricity from hydro. Now the glaciers are melting they are getting more power from hydro - thanks to increased water flow. That's a strictly temporary arrangement. At some point they'll be mainly melted. Then what?
The knock on effects of one glacier probably aren't much. In aggregate they could be enormous.
Spot on. I was in Aosta Valley, Italy this summer and they were using glacial melt water at midday, in a 40 C heat, to sprinkle vast fields of grass, to be made into hay.
This summer was insanely, persistently, and consistently hot. In fact hiking, even at high altitudes, was becoming impossible without a great chance of a heat stroke. At 2700 m in July you could wear short sleeves at night.
I was mostly shocked about how little environmental awareness there seems to be even in the very areas where glaciers supply water and energy.
In Aosta, Italy they were watering grass fields to be used for cow feed. In France, Italy, Austria, the primary mode of transport is cars, and I've seen jams in the most unlikely places that rival jams in cities like London and SF. In all these places, I've witnessed local people burn piles of garbage in the open, instead of composting it.
Probably only Switzerland stands out with reasonable public transport.
1: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/17/climate/melti...