I think most people would agree that when I eat beef, I’m responsible for (part of) the slaughter of a cow.
If I fuel my stove, boiler, or car from fossil fuels, the same argument applies.
I recently tried to convert my old boiler to an electric air-to-water heat pump. While technically feasible, it would have cost over $20K more than a 96% gas combi (after incentives) and would have been more difficult to have serviced over the next 20 years of projected life (fewer experienced providers and worse parts lead-time). The economic payback period was literally never and with my grid being 64% fossil fuel now and majority fossil fuel when that equipment would be replaced, the fossil fuel reduction would be minimal.
I was a relatively early adopter of EVs in 2014. That’s been overall a positive experience but, as above, I’m just outsourcing the buying of fossil fuel at the moment and for the useful life of that car.
If you want people to change their behavior, make it at least one of more convenient or cheaper. Maybe that means taxing fossil fuels more and increasing that over time. Maybe that means more incentives for green alternatives.
Saying the fossil fuel industry is causing X damage while changing nothing on the demand side may smugly feel good, but isn’t going to effect lasting change the way that demand reduction [edit to add: for fossil fuels] will.
I’m skeptical of demand reduction. History shows that we keep finding more ways to use energy to improve our lives. We’re unlikely at a global scale to reduce lifestyle to reduce energy usage. We’ve got a big enough problem here with meat eating, where there isn’t a substantially lower carbon option and we’ll probably just have to move to more plant based diets.
For energy consumption it seems much easier to me for us to replace energy generation with green alternatives. I was skeptical of this 10 years ago, but we’ve since seen huge rollouts of wind and solar, the near phasing out of coal in many countries, and continually dropping prices for the necessary hardware. We need to accelerate these, but this feels feasible.
Sorry. I wasn’t clear enough. I meant demand reduction for specifically fossil fuels (to include indirect fossil fuels used for electricity generation), not for energy in general.
That includes making it economically advantageous to choose electricity as the local source while accelerating the greening of the grid. That is frequently not the most advantageous choice for consumers now, and we should not be surprised when they choose what’s most advantageous for them.
This is happening in the UK at the moment. I'm not an expert, but my undestanding is that there is an incentive plan to reduce the cost of install electical heatpumps, with the goal that the increased volume reduces the price over time. The sale of new gas/oil fired boilers will only be allowed for a few more years.
This means that as the grid is made greener there is an increased impact in terms of reduced emissions overall.
Even with the government grant taken into account it would cost me £3,000 to have a heat pump installed at my house. The running costs would be around £500-600 a year more than I'm paying to heat my home with gas at present, and that's with my gas bill having almost trebled over the last year and a bit. Financially, as things stand, it would be lunacy for me to scrap the gas boiler in favour of a heat pump.
To the dead comment that I think is worth discussing...
> Meat eating isn't a "problem" to be solved IMHO. Although I'm sure you'll see me as an eco terrorist for even wanting steak and chicken.
While this is a little inflammatory I basically agree, meat eating is not in isolation an environmental issue, it's arguably a moral issue, and one I have made my peace with. I eat meat and enjoy it.
However, rearing animals in any way (whether it's for meat, dairy, even pets) carries with it a lot of environmental cost – animal feed production, methane emissions from cows, carbon emissions from farming, water use, etc. Completely ignoring the moral part, there's a significant environmental cost that can't be replaced – we can't switch to non-methane-producing cows.
Unfortunately regardless of dietary preferences, this is something we're going to have to contend with as unlike electricity usage there isn't a like-for-like replacement.
I believe it's just a water heat exchanger hooked up to the same tech used for air conditioning all over the world, including third world, fine tuned and adjsuted to operate the flows correctly?
It's not hard nor inherently expensive tech. The difficulty for adoption in the US is that it's positioned as a premium product, with very few vendors of equipment, very few qualified installers, low market adoption (with all the resulting service and parts availability and latency concerns that come with that). In a location with $0.25/kWh electricity, $1.91/therm gas, and ~9%/yr cost of capital, the payback period is literally never.
> Maybe that means taxing fossil fuels more and increasing that over time
This is infeasible, there are already millions who are struggling to get by with existing energy bills, and without enough cash to upgrade to more eco-friendly systems. These people are stuck on fossil fuels, increasing taxes for it across the board is just going to cause more pain, suffering, and homelessness.
A better idea would be progressive taxation built into income tax. The higher-earners also tend to be bigger polluters, so it makes sense in that regard as well.
> there are already millions who are struggling to get by with existing energy bills
Most carbon-tax proposals I've seen are revenue-neutral, meaning the carbon taxes collected are returned to people, everyone getting the same amount. The intention is to incentivize reducing carbon emissions but not destroy the poor.
There’s no (non-political) reason that we couldn’t issue a refundable tax credit of $1000/yr (or another amount) to every full-year resident and increase taxes on fossil fuels by an amount such that a median consumer of fossil fuels would break even.
The purpose of the tax is to better align choices with consequences, not to raise revenue. It can be revenue-neutral or even cost money for administrative overhead.
You need a carbon tax, and one that also imposes itself on imports so that other countries can’t cheat.
Canadians have a system similar to this. Everyone pays a carbon tax. 10% of the total pool is skimmed and used by the government for climate related things, and only climate related things. Then the rest of the money is split evenly among everyone.
The poorer people come out ahead since they use less (e.g. can’t afford a car and take public transit) and thus paid less than the average but receive the average amount back.
IMO it's better to call it "fee and dividend", "carbon tax" has a lot of baggage associated with it. I'm a strong supporter of it, but if you say "tax" you'll immediately get people (people who would benefit from such a system regardless of climate effects) insisting it will all go to the government.
Its literally anything you can dig up from the Earth so it also includes radioactive elements. I really think that would've been the better angle to attack coal power plants with.
I agree, but that’s a rhetorically more dangerous path. If you start emphasizing the dangers of radiation, the fossil fuel industry will double down on scare mongering about nuclear energy.
> I think most people would agree that when I eat beef, I’m responsible for (part of) the slaughter of a cow.
> If I fuel my stove, boiler, or car from fossil fuels, the same argument applies.
To make this analogy work, you’d need the beef industry to have spent half a century pouring billions of dollars into campaigns denying that cows are being slaughtered (“they were just going to die of natural causes anyway!”).
I agree that the right fix is to start pricing externalities into things but the decades of denial mean that the easy gradual options are no longer feasible. If we’d acted 3-4 decades ago when the climate science consensus was settled we’d have had the option to decarbonize much less disruptively.
On the heat pump front, one big factor to consider is the relative efficiencies and switching costs. Power plants are professionally maintained and everything I’ve read says that you’ll almost always emit fewer greenhouse gases using electricity from the grid rather than burning fuel at home (or in your car), especially factoring in that things like natural gas leaks aren’t affected by efficiency improvements in equipment.
Each new fossil fuel device locks in pollution for multiple decades, whereas electricity is fungible so each new clean option coming online will increase the amount of time that your grid power is producing less emissions than it does now. Given the cost advantages in many markets, that trend is only going to accelerate.
Your last paragraph is spot-on! That's why it's so tragic that the economics are so unfavorable for air-to-water heat pumps in the US right now. I have a new combi boiler on the wall now (which was eligible for a rebate from my local utility company!). Hopefully when it comes time to replace it (in about 2042), the economics will have shifted to make an A2W competitive as its replacement.
> you’d need the beef industry to have spent half a century pouring billions of dollars into campaigns denying that cows are being slaughtered
Not quite half a century - they are a bit behind the times when in comes to climate lobbying - but they sure as hell spend. I've met a couple of farm lobbyists during my short time in local government, and they're not doing poorly on the financial front.
To quote a favored WP article of mine on the subject:
"The North American Meat Institute, insisting that there is “much uncertainty” about climate change, publishes “fact sheets” that selectively count only manure management and animal digestion byproducts as contributors to emissions. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association website includes an animated explainer, “Tough questions about beef sustainability,” that minimizes the industry’s role in environmental problems, from water use to carbon emissions. In response to congressional plans to address climate issues or reports calling for dietary changes, these groups contend that the beef supply chain has environmental benefits, such as cultivating soil for carbon storage. They also point to data showing that farmers and ranchers have become more efficient, producing meat and poultry using fewer resources. Changing food consumption, they contend, is not a “silver bullet.”....
... Sara Place, a scientist who worked for the National Cattleman’s Beef Association, preemptively wrote an article on “Why Taxing Beef Isn’t the Answer.”
What unfolded with fossil fuels suggests at least one path for meat and dairy. Instead of clean coal, the industry might tout carbon-neutral beef, regenerative agriculture and responsible grazing. Just as natural gas from fracking was presented as a “bridge fuel,” we might expect marketing to encourage consumers to switch to “bridge meats” like chicken or salmon (which, like natural gas, have their own significant environmental impacts). The agricultural industry will also invest in technological solutions — such as an algae diet to reduce methane in cattle — to avoid making more substantial changes that would hurt its bottom line."
Same shit with a different coat of greenwashing paint.
The meat industry is a huge contributor to climate change, no doubt, but in this case I was referring only to the narrower comparison between someone buying either beef or gas and therefore being a knowing participant in the negatives of that decision. In the case of buying a hamburger, almost all adults are aware that required slaughtering a cow (even if we choose not to think about it in detail over dinner) but I think a much greater number of people either don't think that climate change is real or substantially under-value its impact due entirely to the fossil fuel industry's propaganda campaign.
The Associated Press said Tuesday that it is assigning more than two dozen journalists across the world to cover climate issues, in the news organization’s largest single expansion paid for through philanthropic grants.
The grant is for more than $8 million over three years, and about 20 of the climate journalists will be new hires
“This far-reaching initiative will transform how we cover the climate story,” Pace said.
It’s the most recent of a series of grants the AP has received since the mid-2010s to boost coverage in health and science, religion, water issues and philanthropy itself. Some 50 AP journalists have jobs funded through grants.
For many years, Journalists and philanthropists were more wary of each other. News organizations were concerned about maintaining independence and, until the past two decades, financially secure enough not to need help. Philanthropists didn’t see the need, or how journalists could help them achieve their goals. Nonprofit news organizations like ProPublica and Texas Tribune led the way in changing minds. The Salt Lake Tribune, which in 2019 became a nonprofit to attract more donors, and The Seattle Times are other pioneers.
Ms Moore says: "You have to be alert and you have to be smart, I tell my students, because the people who would deceive you are sophisticated professionals". Quite.
"Five organizations are contributing to the effort: the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Quadrivium, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Walton Family Foundation."
You wrote this like Tucker Carlsen doing a takedown with Facts and Logic. If you had a good point, I wouldn't know, because how can I trust someone who can't even hold back derision until their done talking down to their interlocutor?
The author of the article isn't an interlocutor as there's no dialog here, just an article and a response she'll never read.
You don't like the capitalization on the Highly Credentialed Expert, presumably. The derision is there for a purpose. It's highlighting that the author presents herself as a logic professor, so we'd hope she's an expert in logic, but her argument isn't logical.
Her argument for why climate footprint calculators are a subtle manipulation by oil companies is that they're "red herrings". A red herring is a fallacy in which irrelevant information is presented alongside relevant information. Personal CO2 footprints seem pretty relevant to any discussion of climate change, but she doesn't like that because it implies that anyone other than oil companies needs to do anything. See, she assigns all emissions to oil companies alone. If you buy a car then drive it on a long trip you didn't need, the emissions don't come from you, you did nothing. Every last atom was emitted by whoever pulled it out of the ground originally. This isn't a logical way to talk about emissions because the act of putting oil in a tank doesn't emit any CO2. It's the decision to burn it that does.
BTW, if you judge an argument purely by its tone then you'd have to ignore all claims about the climate in outlets like Salon. They're all filled with derision, scorn and visceral hatred for anyone who disagrees. The Salon author says things like "If our collective philosophical literacy were better" and asserts anyone who disagrees with her are "pros" in misdirection who "assume that the average American is not much smarter than a Cocker Spaniel".
I understand why Big Oil wants to manipulate the way we think about climate change. What I don't understand is why Big News is so invested in manipulating the way we think about climate change.
Must be a lot of money and power at stake when it comes to climate change.
When will we get an article titled: "How Big News is manipulating the way you think about climate change"?
That's kinda what the AP article I cited is. They don't say it that way because, well, it's Big News reporting on itself. But you can tell it was written by someone who isn't 100% on board with this trend. The whole idea of letting rich billionaires hire whole news teams inside once-respected organizations to push their chosen agenda would have been considered a massive ethics violation 15 years ago. Now it's normal :(
You seem to have a long history here of outright making up claims and pushing bad logic to downplay the effects of climate change [1], in case people were wondering where this is coming from.
That post is only a few sentences and makes two claims. Which is made up?
1. If there was a crisis people would be dying but deaths from weather are massively down over the last 100 years.
2. You can't actually perceive climate change with your senses because the changes are far too small and slow, so you have to rely on news media and academics
I have a mental blockage with the climate change argument(s). While rationally founded, the West can't just constantly handicap itself when 2nd and 1st world countries are the largest carbon emitters.
I'd like to see global opt-in rather than just constantly harping on one side of the hemisphere.
Two things, first it depends of the western country we are talking about. Luxembourg and USA have a too high emission per capita compared to the rest.
Second, I'm not sure why you see it as a handicap, it's not you vs them? If you are worried their cheaper bad climate good can eat your market just put some carbon tax or whatever polluants we are talking about.
I'm happy to be proven wrong, but my understanding is that the atmosphere itself doesn't really care about "per capita", absolute numbers are what matters.
I'd imagine Vatican City has an even higher emission per capita than nearly anywhere else, but it would be silly to pretend that's where we should prioritize policy change.
As it stands, the one country produces more CO2 than the following 7 combined. That number is only set to increase. If our goal is a global reduction, should that not be where we focus the majority of our political energy? If Luxembourg went down to net 0 emissions, my understanding is effectively no difference would be made on a global scale.
The problem with your reasoning is that you think that the atmosphere problem is a problem that should be equally burdened by every country, whereas it should be equally burdened by every human. There is no reason that people that are inmore populated countries should be burdened more than people in less populated ones.
You could take a further step down the conspiracy path, and argue that Climate Change is how the developing East has created dependence on their materials and manufacturing.
The real solution to this is a CO2 tax at the point of goods import.
The problem is that you can't reverse 40 years of industrial change with an import tax.
But you are right, a global alliance to have consistent CO2 tax on import goods and CO2 tax in the country would fundamentally realign economic supply chains.
There are of course a whole host of practical issue with the idea but it is right in concept.
I love the religious overtones of this, especially as I was brought up devout Christian and have a good familiarity with the Old Testament prophets and the Book of Revelation.
Here, the author is warning us of the promised false prophets and deceivers, who do the work of the Enemy in its long and shadowy struggle with The Science. Only those who follow the True Path will enlighten humanity, navigate our pending Doom, and guide us into the prosperous Green Age.
I have no idea what argument this comment is trying to make. All the comments in this thread seem to be pretty wild, so this is probably another one of those "Hacker News becomes unhinged when you bring up topic X" situations.
It's probably the unstated implication that because the argument may share some similarities to religious principals it can be straightforwardly dismissed as having no value.
This assumes that both religion has no value, and that things resembling religion, possibly in any way, have no value.
This is unrigorous, because a lot of things resemble religion generally or specific religious practice in various ways and have value despite or sometimes because of that resemblance. And annoying also because a lot of people find value in their religious beliefs and it's petty to dismiss that common experience.
>have value despite or sometimes because of that resemblance
What kinds of value? Personal reflection and growth? Community cohesiveness? The construction of inspirational and grandiose places of worship?
How would these be useful values to the cause of Climate Change?
>It's probably the unstated implication that because the argument may share some similarities to religious principals it can be straightforwardly dismissed as having no value.
Nearly. It's that the root causes and values of such societal constructs and shared value sets might be quite different than we expect at face value.
Yes, these are great examples of the sort of good & useful conversations that are not going to happen when you frame all religious impulses as inherently valueless or destructive.
Religious impulses get measured on a different metric than the dry, purely scientific and logical basis that Climate Change is supposedly formed from. If it really is a religious impulse, then we have to completely re-evaluate the constructiveness and worth of the idea (that is, if its acolytes will let us).
The author is also guilty of the very same crime she accuses others of in claiming that what we should be focusing on necessarily is big oil. That even philosophy professors can make these mistakes shows how tricky it is.
A big issue that I have with the current discourse on environmentalism is the idea that individuals should do small things before the institutions do big things. For example using any gas appliances less without first converting all power plants to renewable. The first aim should be to convert all power plants to renewable and build automated recycling plants and incinerators, then move on to ensuring all transportation is clean by building more public transport and banning non-electric cars.
Ah yes, instead of having people do things that they can do within a year lets not do any of those things until somebody spends decades building enough power plants to replace all of our current ones.
You should look up Critical Path [1]. If you want to go things done faster, creating a long critical path is not a good idea. Of course, if you want the status quo to stay the same it's a great idea.
And the response has been great for them! They convinced a lot of people who would have thought otherwise that they don't need to consume less or differently because that's just a Big Oil trick!
Climate change has to main components, temperature and CO2, which are related by the relationship burning fossil fuels creates CO2 which increases the world's average temperature. This much has been known for over one hundred years.
Over the past five years though the situation has radically changed in the financial sense. That is, the cost of wind and solar energy (and HVDC transmission) has dropped precipitously and in response the amount new installations has been going by 30 to 50 percent a year.
Most large projects are now being bid at between one and two cents a kilowatt hour! To clarify, that means that the company that bids on these projects commit to selling the power produced at a rate of 1 to 2 cents a kWh, for solar, for TWENTY YEARS. And it's about 4 to 5 cents per kWh for new wind projects. And the winning bidder expects to make a profit at these rates.
Today the consumer is paying between 10 to 50 cents per kWh depending on country etc. The stunning consequence of this is that green power is already way cheaper than power produced by fossil fuels, and it's only going to get better. In fact it's so cheap that in some jurisdictions it's cheaper to mothball a perfectly fine coal burning generator and switch over the green energy. This is already happening.
In essence then the war on climate change has already been won for all intents and purposes. Even five years ago this was not the case. There is still the tricky problem of being able to deploy enough green energy quickly enough to squeeze through the eye of the climate needle. But it's now longer how but when. Sometimes technology can run you over from the back while you're looking ahead.
63 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 119 ms ] threadIf I fuel my stove, boiler, or car from fossil fuels, the same argument applies.
I recently tried to convert my old boiler to an electric air-to-water heat pump. While technically feasible, it would have cost over $20K more than a 96% gas combi (after incentives) and would have been more difficult to have serviced over the next 20 years of projected life (fewer experienced providers and worse parts lead-time). The economic payback period was literally never and with my grid being 64% fossil fuel now and majority fossil fuel when that equipment would be replaced, the fossil fuel reduction would be minimal.
I was a relatively early adopter of EVs in 2014. That’s been overall a positive experience but, as above, I’m just outsourcing the buying of fossil fuel at the moment and for the useful life of that car.
If you want people to change their behavior, make it at least one of more convenient or cheaper. Maybe that means taxing fossil fuels more and increasing that over time. Maybe that means more incentives for green alternatives.
Saying the fossil fuel industry is causing X damage while changing nothing on the demand side may smugly feel good, but isn’t going to effect lasting change the way that demand reduction [edit to add: for fossil fuels] will.
For energy consumption it seems much easier to me for us to replace energy generation with green alternatives. I was skeptical of this 10 years ago, but we’ve since seen huge rollouts of wind and solar, the near phasing out of coal in many countries, and continually dropping prices for the necessary hardware. We need to accelerate these, but this feels feasible.
That includes making it economically advantageous to choose electricity as the local source while accelerating the greening of the grid. That is frequently not the most advantageous choice for consumers now, and we should not be surprised when they choose what’s most advantageous for them.
This means that as the grid is made greener there is an increased impact in terms of reduced emissions overall.
If we can't remove the skew in the economics, it's going to be very slow to make progress.
> Meat eating isn't a "problem" to be solved IMHO. Although I'm sure you'll see me as an eco terrorist for even wanting steak and chicken.
While this is a little inflammatory I basically agree, meat eating is not in isolation an environmental issue, it's arguably a moral issue, and one I have made my peace with. I eat meat and enjoy it.
However, rearing animals in any way (whether it's for meat, dairy, even pets) carries with it a lot of environmental cost – animal feed production, methane emissions from cows, carbon emissions from farming, water use, etc. Completely ignoring the moral part, there's a significant environmental cost that can't be replaced – we can't switch to non-methane-producing cows.
Unfortunately regardless of dietary preferences, this is something we're going to have to contend with as unlike electricity usage there isn't a like-for-like replacement.
This is infeasible, there are already millions who are struggling to get by with existing energy bills, and without enough cash to upgrade to more eco-friendly systems. These people are stuck on fossil fuels, increasing taxes for it across the board is just going to cause more pain, suffering, and homelessness.
A better idea would be progressive taxation built into income tax. The higher-earners also tend to be bigger polluters, so it makes sense in that regard as well.
Most carbon-tax proposals I've seen are revenue-neutral, meaning the carbon taxes collected are returned to people, everyone getting the same amount. The intention is to incentivize reducing carbon emissions but not destroy the poor.
The purpose of the tax is to better align choices with consequences, not to raise revenue. It can be revenue-neutral or even cost money for administrative overhead.
Canadians have a system similar to this. Everyone pays a carbon tax. 10% of the total pool is skimmed and used by the government for climate related things, and only climate related things. Then the rest of the money is split evenly among everyone.
The poorer people come out ahead since they use less (e.g. can’t afford a car and take public transit) and thus paid less than the average but receive the average amount back.
Its literally anything you can dig up from the Earth so it also includes radioactive elements. I really think that would've been the better angle to attack coal power plants with.
> If I fuel my stove, boiler, or car from fossil fuels, the same argument applies.
To make this analogy work, you’d need the beef industry to have spent half a century pouring billions of dollars into campaigns denying that cows are being slaughtered (“they were just going to die of natural causes anyway!”).
I agree that the right fix is to start pricing externalities into things but the decades of denial mean that the easy gradual options are no longer feasible. If we’d acted 3-4 decades ago when the climate science consensus was settled we’d have had the option to decarbonize much less disruptively.
On the heat pump front, one big factor to consider is the relative efficiencies and switching costs. Power plants are professionally maintained and everything I’ve read says that you’ll almost always emit fewer greenhouse gases using electricity from the grid rather than burning fuel at home (or in your car), especially factoring in that things like natural gas leaks aren’t affected by efficiency improvements in equipment.
Each new fossil fuel device locks in pollution for multiple decades, whereas electricity is fungible so each new clean option coming online will increase the amount of time that your grid power is producing less emissions than it does now. Given the cost advantages in many markets, that trend is only going to accelerate.
Not quite half a century - they are a bit behind the times when in comes to climate lobbying - but they sure as hell spend. I've met a couple of farm lobbyists during my short time in local government, and they're not doing poorly on the financial front.
To quote a favored WP article of mine on the subject:
"The North American Meat Institute, insisting that there is “much uncertainty” about climate change, publishes “fact sheets” that selectively count only manure management and animal digestion byproducts as contributors to emissions. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association website includes an animated explainer, “Tough questions about beef sustainability,” that minimizes the industry’s role in environmental problems, from water use to carbon emissions. In response to congressional plans to address climate issues or reports calling for dietary changes, these groups contend that the beef supply chain has environmental benefits, such as cultivating soil for carbon storage. They also point to data showing that farmers and ranchers have become more efficient, producing meat and poultry using fewer resources. Changing food consumption, they contend, is not a “silver bullet.”....
... Sara Place, a scientist who worked for the National Cattleman’s Beef Association, preemptively wrote an article on “Why Taxing Beef Isn’t the Answer.”
What unfolded with fossil fuels suggests at least one path for meat and dairy. Instead of clean coal, the industry might tout carbon-neutral beef, regenerative agriculture and responsible grazing. Just as natural gas from fracking was presented as a “bridge fuel,” we might expect marketing to encourage consumers to switch to “bridge meats” like chicken or salmon (which, like natural gas, have their own significant environmental impacts). The agricultural industry will also invest in technological solutions — such as an algae diet to reduce methane in cattle — to avoid making more substantial changes that would hurt its bottom line."
Same shit with a different coat of greenwashing paint.
See article here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/the-meat-industry-is-...
1. "Another example of this subterfuge, also from the fossil fuel world, is the idea of carbon sequestration"
2. CO2 footprint calculators.
3. The UN Climate Change Conference.
To this Highly Credentialed Expert In Logic all the above are examples of manipulation by Big Oil.
Meanwhile, outside the ivory tower:
https://apnews.com/article/science-business-arts-and-enterta...
The Associated Press said Tuesday that it is assigning more than two dozen journalists across the world to cover climate issues, in the news organization’s largest single expansion paid for through philanthropic grants.
The grant is for more than $8 million over three years, and about 20 of the climate journalists will be new hires
“This far-reaching initiative will transform how we cover the climate story,” Pace said.
It’s the most recent of a series of grants the AP has received since the mid-2010s to boost coverage in health and science, religion, water issues and philanthropy itself. Some 50 AP journalists have jobs funded through grants.
For many years, Journalists and philanthropists were more wary of each other. News organizations were concerned about maintaining independence and, until the past two decades, financially secure enough not to need help. Philanthropists didn’t see the need, or how journalists could help them achieve their goals. Nonprofit news organizations like ProPublica and Texas Tribune led the way in changing minds. The Salt Lake Tribune, which in 2019 became a nonprofit to attract more donors, and The Seattle Times are other pioneers.
Ms Moore says: "You have to be alert and you have to be smart, I tell my students, because the people who would deceive you are sophisticated professionals". Quite.
You don't like the capitalization on the Highly Credentialed Expert, presumably. The derision is there for a purpose. It's highlighting that the author presents herself as a logic professor, so we'd hope she's an expert in logic, but her argument isn't logical.
Her argument for why climate footprint calculators are a subtle manipulation by oil companies is that they're "red herrings". A red herring is a fallacy in which irrelevant information is presented alongside relevant information. Personal CO2 footprints seem pretty relevant to any discussion of climate change, but she doesn't like that because it implies that anyone other than oil companies needs to do anything. See, she assigns all emissions to oil companies alone. If you buy a car then drive it on a long trip you didn't need, the emissions don't come from you, you did nothing. Every last atom was emitted by whoever pulled it out of the ground originally. This isn't a logical way to talk about emissions because the act of putting oil in a tank doesn't emit any CO2. It's the decision to burn it that does.
BTW, if you judge an argument purely by its tone then you'd have to ignore all claims about the climate in outlets like Salon. They're all filled with derision, scorn and visceral hatred for anyone who disagrees. The Salon author says things like "If our collective philosophical literacy were better" and asserts anyone who disagrees with her are "pros" in misdirection who "assume that the average American is not much smarter than a Cocker Spaniel".
Must be a lot of money and power at stake when it comes to climate change.
When will we get an article titled: "How Big News is manipulating the way you think about climate change"?
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35978553
1. If there was a crisis people would be dying but deaths from weather are massively down over the last 100 years.
2. You can't actually perceive climate change with your senses because the changes are far too small and slow, so you have to rely on news media and academics
I'd like to see global opt-in rather than just constantly harping on one side of the hemisphere.
Second, I'm not sure why you see it as a handicap, it's not you vs them? If you are worried their cheaper bad climate good can eat your market just put some carbon tax or whatever polluants we are talking about.
I'd imagine Vatican City has an even higher emission per capita than nearly anywhere else, but it would be silly to pretend that's where we should prioritize policy change.
As it stands, the one country produces more CO2 than the following 7 combined. That number is only set to increase. If our goal is a global reduction, should that not be where we focus the majority of our political energy? If Luxembourg went down to net 0 emissions, my understanding is effectively no difference would be made on a global scale.
The real solution to this is a CO2 tax at the point of goods import.
But you are right, a global alliance to have consistent CO2 tax on import goods and CO2 tax in the country would fundamentally realign economic supply chains.
There are of course a whole host of practical issue with the idea but it is right in concept.
Here, the author is warning us of the promised false prophets and deceivers, who do the work of the Enemy in its long and shadowy struggle with The Science. Only those who follow the True Path will enlighten humanity, navigate our pending Doom, and guide us into the prosperous Green Age.
I didn't see it as unhinged or wild, just a very tame observation. I'm curious what part of their comment bothered you so much?
This assumes that both religion has no value, and that things resembling religion, possibly in any way, have no value.
This is unrigorous, because a lot of things resemble religion generally or specific religious practice in various ways and have value despite or sometimes because of that resemblance. And annoying also because a lot of people find value in their religious beliefs and it's petty to dismiss that common experience.
What kinds of value? Personal reflection and growth? Community cohesiveness? The construction of inspirational and grandiose places of worship?
How would these be useful values to the cause of Climate Change?
>It's probably the unstated implication that because the argument may share some similarities to religious principals it can be straightforwardly dismissed as having no value.
Nearly. It's that the root causes and values of such societal constructs and shared value sets might be quite different than we expect at face value.
You should look up Critical Path [1]. If you want to go things done faster, creating a long critical path is not a good idea. Of course, if you want the status quo to stay the same it's a great idea.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_path_method
personal responsibility is important but collective responsibility is important too.
Just like you should try not to mug people in the park it's probably a good idea to pass laws that make it illegal too.
Over the past five years though the situation has radically changed in the financial sense. That is, the cost of wind and solar energy (and HVDC transmission) has dropped precipitously and in response the amount new installations has been going by 30 to 50 percent a year.
Most large projects are now being bid at between one and two cents a kilowatt hour! To clarify, that means that the company that bids on these projects commit to selling the power produced at a rate of 1 to 2 cents a kWh, for solar, for TWENTY YEARS. And it's about 4 to 5 cents per kWh for new wind projects. And the winning bidder expects to make a profit at these rates.
Today the consumer is paying between 10 to 50 cents per kWh depending on country etc. The stunning consequence of this is that green power is already way cheaper than power produced by fossil fuels, and it's only going to get better. In fact it's so cheap that in some jurisdictions it's cheaper to mothball a perfectly fine coal burning generator and switch over the green energy. This is already happening.
In essence then the war on climate change has already been won for all intents and purposes. Even five years ago this was not the case. There is still the tricky problem of being able to deploy enough green energy quickly enough to squeeze through the eye of the climate needle. But it's now longer how but when. Sometimes technology can run you over from the back while you're looking ahead.