> But isn’t this all about saving the planet and sacrifice for the next generations?
> No, the planet doesn’t need saving. This is an ordinary planet circling around an ordinary star among billions of stars, part of an ordinary galaxy among billions of galaxies. This planet has nothing to do with the flourishing of human civilization. It is the human endeavor, science, technology and knowledge that has made this place habitable and we can make any other similar planet habitable for us.
It is willfully contrarian and stupid to argue that we don't need to "save the planet" because the massive rocky body will maintain its orbit, when it's incredibly clear that the meaning is "keep it habitable for future civilizations".
And for a person who spends so much time worrying about what Net Zero means for developing nations, they're sure cavalier with the fact that we can "make any planet habitable", implying but not stating that we can do so for everyone, everywhere, without incurring any costs - in terms of dollars, or lives.
It's also a flat out wrong statement; we haven't made the Earth habitable in any meaningful sense, it started out that way, and we haven't even stepped foot on any other planet. The closest thing is a few dozen people camping out on the Moon for a few days, and several people in low-earth-orbit habitats that require constant resupply.
I don't know if Net Zero is dystopian, imperialistic or coercive, but I do know that this post is riddled with rhetorical nonsense and flat-out wrong statements.
Contrarians are always useful to make sure we get to the best conclusions.
I'm reading this post and right at the start I'm doubting if they understand what they are talking about:
> Now let's take a closer look at this reference point of the measurement, which is to limit the increase of the global average temperature to 1.5°C by 2050 from that of the 1850-1900 era.
Firstly, the industrialization of the world didn’t start in the 1850s uniformly across the world.
[...]
Secondly, the global population was 1.2 billion in 1850 and it is projected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050.
[...]
Is this a right reference to compare global average temperature? If they want to use a fair reference point they should project what would be the global average temperature in pre-industrial time if the population was 9.7 billion and then after 200 years of industrialization measure the increase.
This line of thinking makes no sense.
The effects of a specific increase in global warming are the same, no matter if the population is 5 billion or 50 billion, or if everyone pollutes or only 10% of the people pollute.
God I hate that once a week or so a far right pile of garbage flies to the top of HN due to a catchy title. This article is terrible and obviously uninformed. Scientists are overwhelmingly in agreement that climate change is a huge threat and things need to be done.
6 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 14.6 ms ] thread> But isn’t this all about saving the planet and sacrifice for the next generations?
> No, the planet doesn’t need saving. This is an ordinary planet circling around an ordinary star among billions of stars, part of an ordinary galaxy among billions of galaxies. This planet has nothing to do with the flourishing of human civilization. It is the human endeavor, science, technology and knowledge that has made this place habitable and we can make any other similar planet habitable for us.
It is willfully contrarian and stupid to argue that we don't need to "save the planet" because the massive rocky body will maintain its orbit, when it's incredibly clear that the meaning is "keep it habitable for future civilizations".
And for a person who spends so much time worrying about what Net Zero means for developing nations, they're sure cavalier with the fact that we can "make any planet habitable", implying but not stating that we can do so for everyone, everywhere, without incurring any costs - in terms of dollars, or lives.
It's also a flat out wrong statement; we haven't made the Earth habitable in any meaningful sense, it started out that way, and we haven't even stepped foot on any other planet. The closest thing is a few dozen people camping out on the Moon for a few days, and several people in low-earth-orbit habitats that require constant resupply.
I don't know if Net Zero is dystopian, imperialistic or coercive, but I do know that this post is riddled with rhetorical nonsense and flat-out wrong statements.
I'm reading this post and right at the start I'm doubting if they understand what they are talking about:
> Now let's take a closer look at this reference point of the measurement, which is to limit the increase of the global average temperature to 1.5°C by 2050 from that of the 1850-1900 era. Firstly, the industrialization of the world didn’t start in the 1850s uniformly across the world. [...] Secondly, the global population was 1.2 billion in 1850 and it is projected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050. [...] Is this a right reference to compare global average temperature? If they want to use a fair reference point they should project what would be the global average temperature in pre-industrial time if the population was 9.7 billion and then after 200 years of industrialization measure the increase.
This line of thinking makes no sense. The effects of a specific increase in global warming are the same, no matter if the population is 5 billion or 50 billion, or if everyone pollutes or only 10% of the people pollute.
Mods may want to take a peek if the author used a few sock puppets to give this post a push...