Not much of a surprise. Government action has been anemic at best. Industry action (overall) has been net negative.
The only hope now is exponential growth of (solar and wind)+batteries making other sources uneconomic. This seems to be slowly happening, so I hope we hit the exponential curve soon and we're there quicker than we expect.
This only stops it.
Then, to fix it, we'll need a massive Direct Air Capture industry that will have to operate for a century, and probably past that so we can hit and maintain a CO2 level of 250ppm.
The technology-will-save-us mentality is part of the reason we are here. We live in a society that doesn't do anything unless it makes money for some set of decrepit old men.
We had the means to avoid this (strict vegan diets, ground based mass transit, dense development & re-wilding, energy transition) but people made money doing the opposite. And more people made money sabotaging solar+battery pricing in the US.
I watched a woman break down crying in a grocery store, the guy behind her put 40 lbs of ground beef on the conveyor. She started off as angry “how can you bear the thought of eating all that dead animal?” “Oh it’s not even for me, it’s for my dogs.”
I admire anyone and everyone who wants to be a vegetarian/vegan. Expecting the rest of the world to follow suit is a fools errand.
The issue with the global warming advocates is that they seem to believe that in order to solve global warming we need to make everyone's life worse. That was already a non-starter. It's just terrible marketing.
You say it's for the benefit of "decrepit old men," but the fact is that more and more of the globe is being lifted out of poverty and living more comfortably than ever before. The unfortunate fact is that global warming is an unstoppable force now, humans would have to go extinct for it to waiver.
I'm not saying we should do nothing, but I am saying that your framing is exactly why no one listens to global warming advocacy. We are powerless against it, not because of governments, but because people are living better and no one is going to sacrifice that; and even if they did the math doesn't add up to reverse course. The people that say we should all be sacrificing are often the richest among us that don't even know what sacrifice entails, contrary to your point.
Did you read the link? Spending 1 million bucks to fix all the methane leaks in the world is such an insane bang-for-buck win that I can’t even fathom spending one billion bucks for a tenth of the gain.
I’m guessing the things you listed are the sacrifices /you/ are willing to make but omit the ones you are not willing to make. Do you travel by plane? Do you use AI? Do you have kids? Do you own a car? Etc etc.
This right here, the absolutely preposterous idea that giving up kids is somehow climate action, is exactly the nonsense that a climate activist should never tolerate.
You think climate action is everybody stopping having children?! You think extinction of the human race is the only option?!
"Of course not!" You say, so clearly we must have some children. But how many? If we drastically reduce our population, we will continue with the same broken systems, same energy systems, etc.
Only by keeping society running do we have the energy to switch our society's engine to zero carbon energy sources.
It's insulting to tell people not to have children, it's not realistic, but worst of all, it's not a climate solution to not have children.
"Don't have kids" is just Malthusian nonsense from a prior environmental era, uncritical thinking, pure slop.
And it greatly harms actual climate action when this extremely stupid idea gets associated with the climate movement. Stop. Just stop.
It's also completely self defeating. Children tend to end up adopting the values of their parents over time. If climate people just remove themselves from the gene pool, their impact on the climate is going to be negligibly small, but there being that many fewer voices of similar values in the future, will have a much more significant impact.
Imagine you're a hyper-partisan and you learn that 'the other side' is spreading messaging amongst themselves encouraging each other to not have children. You're going to be doing backflips, because it's just the collective suicide of an ideology.
> Children tend to end up adopting the values of their parents over time
No, they don't. If that was true, we'd have prehistoric values. (It would mean you could turn matters of culture into genetic arguments, which is fun, I see the temptation, but it's just not true.)
Consider evolution because it's something similar on an even more gradual scale. Species tend to be very much like the things they came from, yet we have obviously a wide array of species over time because small differences can accumulate on their own 'branch' and eventually diverge to the point of creating entirely new species. But if a species chose to just stop having children, it wouldn't not going to have anywhere near the numbers it once did anytime soon.
It's similar with most views and values. Your children will mostly share all of them with you once they reach a certain age. It's something I can even feel happening with my own parents as I age, rather to my distaste. hahah. Anyhow, yeah - there's about a zillion studies on this topic and you can find that parents values are most predictive of those of their children.
This isn't generally the sort of thing that calls for citations since you're presumably a human, and you presumably know plenty of other humans. And once you compare people to their parents, well - the apple doesn't fall far from the tree on average. There are of course plenty of exceptions, but it's also completely fair to call them exceptions.
In looking up some literature on it, it turns out that some studies have even studied and found what I alluded to of people trending ever more towards their parents values as they age. [1] They call it 'delayed activation'. But anyhow, yeah they found the exact same thing where our values become even more alike as we age. Pretty interesting stuff! And I think it makes the age aspect quite critical. I assumed I was one of those exceptions referenced above, yet reality had other plans in mind, in spite of my protestations.
I think your own values are coming through pretty clearly. Understandably, telling a parent they shouldnt have had kids is bound to strike a nerve. Having kids is great. Having kids is also the worst single thing you can do for the environment. Both can be true, and having kids definitely doesn't make someone bad.
However putting kids on a pedestal is silly. If we push our civilization above earths sustainable carrying capacity, we are fucked. In isolation having them is beautiful, in the aggregate it can be bad.
A) I’m not a millennial. B) I have kids. C) I used that as one of several sacrifices that can be made to reduce carbon footprint. I would say it is more valid than “being vegan” since that alone may or may not help. Everyone is very ready to wag their finger about the sacrifices they are willing to make but excuse or ignore the ones they are not.
A) I didn't say you're a millenial. B) Having kids is not an excuse for saying "don't have kids for the sake of the environment!" it's an awful, anti-environmental thing to say no matter what. C) Not having kids is not climate action, it doesn't stop climate change, it's at best a half-measure.
Most of all, when people say "don't have kids for the environment" it actually really hurts environmental action. Pretending that self-sacrifice is inherently environmental action, that we will save the world through sacrifice, is just one of those weird ways that Christian religion has worked its way into people's every day life.
We save the climate by stopping ALL emissions, and then also in the later half of the century actually sequestering CO2 at a pretty consistent rate. We don't get to that by halving the population, that's not a solution in any way. It's not going to be easier to get to zero emissions with half the population, if anything it's going to be harder. And we definitiely won't be sequestering CO2 in the later half of the century if we're dealing with all the challenges of reducing the population by any significant amount.
I'm willing to wag my finger at you, not about sacrifices, but falsely equating climate action with sacrifices. Climate action is one thing and one thing only: reducing emissions and eventually reversing some of them. It is not sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice.
If you look back at this thread, I’m not suggesting anyone should do anything, I’m pointing out the piousness of people suggesting we aren’t doing enough when they themselves have more they could do. Also, having fewer children absolutely would have a positive impact on climate if you subscribe to the ideas that climate change is human caused. I have two kids, I personally, for myself, think it would be irresponsible to have more but I wouldn’t push that on anyone.
We’re so far past this, technology is 100% the only hope and always was. Getting stuck in the mentality that we can shame our way out of this for a decade was (and continues to be) a colossal waste of time.
"strict vegan diet" AKA supporting industrial byproducts made into ultraprocessed food made on the other side of the globe rather than consuming vegetables, fish & meat produced locally and ecologically.
I think that vegan diets never took off primarily because the vast majority of people do not want to follow vegan diets. Money factors such as subsidies are secondary. There are also potential health impacts. I followed a vegetarian diet for a few years when I was younger because of ethical concerns, and I felt healthier once I started eating meat again. This is just anecdotal evidence of course, and many people argue that you can be as healthy or even more healthy vegetarian as you can be omnivorous. But it's a potential psychological factor arguing against the likelihood of mass adoption of veganism.
Mass transit and dense development are potentially doable, but at this point the suburban sprawl + car model has been popular in the US for decades and it would feel like a downgrade for many people to live in smaller places in more heavily urbanized environments. I think that many Americans don't even have a clear idea of what it would look like to raise kids in a multi-story residential building in a city without it seeming like poverty.
Also, in some parts of the US, mass transit and dense urban living run into the problem of anti-social behavior including street violence. Many of the people in the US who care the most about stopping climate change also oppose the kind of intensive policing that would be required to keep crazy dangerous people off buses and clean up troubled neighborhoods enough that the average person would feel safe living there. Violent crime rates have largely been going down since the early 90s, but are still much higher than in Europe. One of the reasons for the high rates, through definitely not the only reason, is the availability of guns, but getting US right-wingers to accept gun restrictions is probably even less probable than getting US left-wingers to accept major crackdowns on street crime.
In medicine there’s this well known axiom that if an intervention regime would technically work, but is something that the patients tend to not follow through, then the intervention regime doesn’t work.
It was oil companies that created the notion of a "carbon footprint" as a way of deflecting blame from them to individuals and now you're falling right into their propaganda with "strict vegan diets" etc. And regardless, we have no alternative but technology to solve the issue because, are you just going to maintain the CO2 status quo in the atmosphere?
At least we've discovered that trying to get people to behave differently at scale without the presence of an *immediate* emergency is a failed endeavour... So maybe now we can stop that nonsense and focus all of our energy on technological solutions?
I didn’t ask for the world to have 8 billion people in it, and I sure as hell won’t be stopping enjoying fairly basic luxuries like consuming protein just because others tell me to do so.
If we need to make such drastic changes to human consumption, have people considered if we have a overpopulation problem?
The demographic collapse was a forgine conclusion in the 80s. There is no global overpopulation problem over the next century. There will be food shortages due to a lack of labor and dessicated farmland. It will be rough for the average human.
I mean, nearly all of my produce, meat, and dairy from a handful of small, local farms. They're all organic, focus on "happy animals", all that. I'll shift to a strict vegan diet once everyone else abandons their giant mega-agriculture lifestyle.
The means to do it would be things like uranium steel mills and concrete plants (via hydrogen production) or any of the huge number of industrial uses of heat. The amount of coal and oil burnt to produce industrial heat is mind-boggling.
People are meat eaters. If I was to run a campaign to keep the green movement unpopular, I’d promote enforced veganism as one of its core ideas.
The everyone-should-try-harder mentality doesn't work either unfortunately. It would be great if everyone rode bikes and went vegan but that's never going to happen so we have to stop making people feel bad for buying gas cars and eating cheeseburgers because it just causes division which ultimately hurts progress.
No that's not how the world works. Most of climate change happens not because some decrepit old man lives on his yacht but poor people in third world countries get their first air conditioners. As they should.
The only way is through. Most of are not going to be living the suffocating life you think we should. We will grow, innovate and accelerate out of this.
> Most of climate change happens not because some decrepit old man lives on his yacht but poor people in third world countries get their first air conditioners.
You're confusing acceleration with velocity. Poor people are far from the greatest per capita contributors.
Have you not done enough damage? Human societies are not stable without surplus bribery, the recent authoritarian regressions are a direct product of net 0 policies. Trump is your utopias creature..
The mechanism that makes people think this moralizing is effective also guarantees it isn't. Your suggestion is itself a demonstration of how your suggestion doesn't work.
You either:
1) for the greater good, accept this argument, stop doing what feels right to you because an unconvincing stranger told you to, and do something instead you think is wrong and doesn't work;
or 2) accept that no one else will do that either.
>We had the means to avoid this (strict vegan diets, ground based mass transit, dense development
In other words, live a privileged person's life in an expensive city, risk malnutrition with a complicated diet, and don't ever leave the country (on a plane).
As if the sources of climate change are you and me, and not industry in any way. It feels more like a way to say, live like me or almost literally burn in Hell.
The options are technology-will-save-us or everyone-spontaneously-does-the-right-thing-despite-not-wanting-to-do-it-and-in-many-cases-having-perverse-incentives. If the second one worked, everyone would be vegan, there would be world peace, no hunger, etc. We have one non-fantasy option and it's technology.
It is quite ironic that capitalism and the profit motive are now the best hope for staving off climate change, all thanks to the technologists and entrepreneurs that have mad renewables and storage so cheap.
The 2020s climate action movement in the US (and the UK) was disastrous in their strategy, action, and outcomes. I was there, I followed along because it seemed like the best way to get climate action, but things like Sunrise and XR at their very best did nothing. They focused on all the wrong people, focused on all the wrong levers. They turned allies into enemies, by "protesting" tech companies that were at the forefront of real action. They refused to acknowledge the massive effects of technology change, and the need for quick adoption, and the huge money saving nature of the solution.
I have zero patience for those attitudes now, the difference between a degrowther and a climate change denying politician are minimal in effect, and the effects are all that matter now.
Yes, this does happen. Solar farms have an albedo modification effect. The good news is that compared to fossil fuel sources, the albedo modification is "paid back" in less than a year due to lower GHG emissions:
"Small reduction in land surface albedo due to solar panel expansion worldwide"
If you download the supplementary information PDF, figure 19 shows a plot of GHG/warming payback times by site. The most common time is about 1 month. The greatest time they found was about 9 months. These times go down as solar panel efficiencies continue to creep upward, because solar panels in 2026 don't have lower albedo than in 2024, but they do have better light-to-electricity conversion efficiency.
Current levels of solar panel coverage on Earth are approximately 0%. If we ran the entire Earth on Solar power we’d need ~ half a million square kilometres, around 0.1 percent of the Earth’s surface.
A solar array makes the earth less reflective by a fixed amount, for as long as the array exists.
Every unit of fossil fuel we burn makes the earth permanently less reflective (or at least something on the order of 100 years). You could compare a 1GW solar array (for its lifetime) to a 1GW coal plant running for x days, though I don't have the value of x.
We're actually warming the earth in two ways... one is by increasing the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The other is simply by using energy; any use of energy means moving something to higher entropy and thus producing heat, even if that energy comes from 100% clean or renewable sources. However, nobody talks about this second way of heating the earth because it's about two orders of magnitude behind the first, i.e. for now pretty insignificant.
As for making the earth less reflective with PV panels... yes, you are right and most of that absorbed solar energy directly contributes to heating the earth because PV panels aren't anywhere near 100% efficient in converting in to electricity, but even the part that is converted to electricity will be become heat again in the end (like when it powers AI data centers).
For now that isn't a big concern because the greenhouse gases our civilization is releasing into the atmosphere do so much more heating than all the use of energy, but if we do become 100% renewable and survive that particular danger, then by Jevons' paradox we'll soon be using 10x to 100x more "clean" energy and be heating the earth all the same again.
>Then, to fix it, we'll need a massive Direct Air Capture industry that will have to operate for a century, and probably past that so we can hit and maintain a CO2 level of 250ppm.
Removing CO2 from seawater would be more efficient because some of the work is already done for you, and you'd be de-acidifying the ocean long term.
Direct Air Capture at any meaningful scale is predicated on mining billions of tons of refined minerals. The environmental impact of that would be so enormous that it will never be allowed to happen, never mind the severe resource crunch.
> Then, to fix it, we'll need a massive Direct Air Capture industry that will have to operate for a century, and probably past that so we can hit and maintain a CO2 level of 250ppm.
Which should probably be nuclear powered, at the required scale. So we could have taken the direct route, instead of solar, bess, wind, water, geothermal...(c.f. Alien, Aliens, 'Atmospheric Processor'...)
Anybody remembering the trash which was sold as 'lightbulbs' for about 15 years, before LED got somewhat acceptable colors? And prices? And longevity?
Mehw, lightbulb baad, eats too much waatt! So lets miniaturize CFLs to be able to screw them in lightbulb sockets! So they get warm because they are so small, the sockets have no airflow, and their own electronics go with a premature blow! Yay!
There hasn't been a question about this in a decade or more. There was no path, even theoretically, to stopping our CO2 emissions without dramatically lowering quality of life for maybe a couple billion people.
We won't slow climate change. We can build resilience to the effects, and we have good incentives to do so. But we'll keep burning fossil fuels for a very long time.
There was an obvious path that the environmentalists mostly opposed. A decade is plenty of time for massive scale buildout of nuclear power. If we'd started that a decade ago we'd be in a good position now.
Indeed. At this point I’d say that the “green movement” has done more damage to the planet than the fossil fuel industry.
The entire Western world (with the exception of France) pretty much stopped building nuclear power plants 40 years ago, because of a single accident that by its most pessimistic estimates killed fewer people in total than coal emissions kill every 3 days. It’s madness.
Nuclear power had already collapsed due to its own costs and timelines.
In hindsight it’s much easier to blame the accidents rather than face the structural problems nuclear power has.
Which has only been exacerbated by renewables and storage disrupting the global energy markets, forcing ”baseload” plants to become peakers. Against their will.
The problem is that we attempted to build nuclear power. It just didn’t deliver. There was massive state support behind it.
It is hard looking at Vogtle, Virgil C. Summer, Olkiluoto 3, Flamanville 3, Hinkley Point C, Hanhikivi and the countless cancelled projects and think: ”that’s what I want more of!!”
I remember seeing just a few years back, a Greenpeace postlet moaning about dangerous nuclear energy
I think it's pretty clear that nothing meaningful will be done because there's no shock value to entertain the "empaths" like there is with war and other stuff
Nuclear power is expensive. One of the most expensive ways to produce electricity when you capitalize expense of the construction of the plant into the electricty cost. Path forward is wind/solar + storage which is cheapest next to hydropower.
The Wiki page above didn't really go into it much, but how much of the cost of nuclear power is self-inflicted? I.e. regulatory costs and actually paying the cost of externalities up-front. And if we were more consistent at building such facilities and producing said fuel, would there be cost reductions from scale?
~99% of the cost is due to red-tape regulations. It's so obscene that they require certified backup genererators for the backup generators and 3-4 layers of fail safes. Then you need to wait YEARS to get all the permits and licenses. Oh and if you get preapproval for a componant (say the generators) but too much time has passed from installation until you actually are ready to go, you need to go through the process again, hence the constant delays. An actual nuclear power plant is actually stupidly cheap to run if you cut all the red tape. Stupidly. Like $50k of fuel produces $50 million of electricity good.
Edit because I forgot to mention this, if coal or ccgt were regulated like nuclear is, not a single one would be profitable. And even if you take into account every single death due to radiation poisoning (from any source) nuclear would still be the safest power source in the world. Literally worker deaths from installing wind power plants exceed it.
Nuclear power plants are ultimately not that different from coal power plants. Typical estimates for the capital costs of coal power are ~$4000/kW, which can be used as a lower bound for the costs of nuclear power.
The costs are high, because construction industry has suffered from poor productivity growth for decades. Renewables are getting cheaper, because they rely more on mass-produced stuff and less on hiring people to construct a big building to house the power plant. Regulatory costs of nuclear power also largely come from poor quality control in construction industry. Regulators require something specific, subcontractors try doing that but often don't get it right, and regulators order them to tear it down and try again.
I was a kid in the early 90s and my school book mentioned climate change and need to change energy sources. This could have been, if not prevented, at least greatly mitigated. We have had plenty of time. But well, I guess that our species is not that intelligent after all. Too bad, maybe the next one will be better...
Interestingly, financial markets are a good place to see the “price” of some environmental issues. As made up example: “Should I buy bonds that are backed by electricity sales from a yet-to-be-built hydroelectric dam? Will there be enough rainfall to fill the reservoir reliably? I’ll have to receive a higher interest payment to offset that risk.”
A real example: The City of Galveston, Texas is having to pay higher interest on municipal bonds because of water shortage and sea-level rise risks.
Supposing all anthropogenic emissions went to zero today, we'd still keep warming almost as far as three degrees with all of the disasters and famines that entails, because there's a lag time between existing emissions and their effects.
We need massive bounty programs that pay out irrespective of nationality for every possible kind of improvement and gain to carbon capture technology if we want to prevent 90% of all land on Earth between 30°N and 30°S from slowly turning into copies of the uninhabitable stretches of the Middle East.
Global warming is much faster in the higher latitudes. It has not significantly impacted the region you mentioned much at all. Most impact has been due to intensification of natural cycles like the Indian Monsoons, the Atlantic hurricane season and El Niño, which are not really limited to that particular area of the Globe. The idea that the problem with global warming is that parts of the world will just become too hot to live seems to be mostly misguided.
How could this happen? I've faithfully sorted all of my recyclables into their respective bins to maximize profit for my city's garbage collection just like they asked
They tell you you have a particular type of power. You have the power to sort your trash, nothing wrong with that. But what's left off and out is you have the power to change what dozens, thousands, millions, and billions of people do. "Carbon footprint" was a marketing trick played by the oil industry. It worked great.
What's needed now is something like a "carbon wave", where you evaluate your impact by how quickly you move the entire world forward.
We've gone the "crowdsorting" route but if we didn't go this way the fees for garbage collection would be higher and the city's garbage collection company would still make profits, that's a constant.
The top 10% richest humans emit about half of all emissions.
Decile 10 (richest): ~48%
Decile 9: ~15%
Decile 8: ~10%
Decile 7: ~8%
Decile 6: ~6%
Deciles 1 through 5 combined: ~12%, so about 1 to 3% each
I wouldn't necessarily focus on it, but it's something good for your mental model of how to solve the challenge.
The reason I say I wouldn't focus on it is I'm coming around to the idea that "carbon footprint" is effectively a marketing campaign brought on by oil companies to have us focus our individual power where it has the lowest leverage - sorting trash, our own individual emissions, etc, Instead of mobilizing hundreds, thousands, millions, and billions of people to change policy and technology.
Sources like this: www.oxfam.org.uk/media/press-releases/richest-1-emit-as-much-planet-heating-pollution-as-two-thirds-of-humanity-oxfam/
The figures aren't based on real measurements of what every person actually emits, they're based on a model that allocates consumption-based CO2 emissions across income groups.
Regardless of that, I agree that making useful policy changes is important, replacing some plastic straws won't make a huge change, but getting rid of coal will.
So that means if you buy something made of steel, and the steel was made in India, you get assigned that part of India's emissions, counted as your emissions. The whole concept of "your emissions" then is based on blaming the blaming the consumer, the buyer, for what the emitter, the seller, did. Implicitly the buyer has a duty to control the seller in the other country, but the sellers (and their legislature) are unable to make choices.
That "top 10% richest" means the 10% of the planet, 800,000,000 people, which is the richest 10%. (It could be understood differently, as if it meant those earning more than 90% of the maximum income anybody has.)
European Union annual CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions have decreased by over 30% since 2005 (no, not just by getting their stuff manufactured in China).
We already know we need to pump the breaks on AI for a host of safety issues. However, perhaps the biggest concern is the sheer scale of electricity generation they require. One hyperscale data centre can require electricity equivalent to a fair sized city. Many data centre builders are keen to claim they'll use renewable energy sources... eventually. They'll just suck power off the grid "temporarily" or rely on "clean" natural gas for a few years. There are a decent number of states, provinces, etc. whose total emissions will double in a matter of months. Could the timing possibly be worse?
From a warming perspective, it's utter madness to let this build-out proceed unimpeded. New data centres should be required to be net-zero at power-up. Unfortunately, it's a race and the U.S. side of it has an administration that is actively rolling back policies that fight climate change.
Data centers seem tangential to any real problem. The grid should be converting to green energy and regulation that says datacenters must also be power stations is backwards.
A gigawatt is a gigawatt. If you need a gigawatt, you pay for the generation and infrastructure to provide it, whether you're a million people or a single data-centre. The jursidictions that require data-centres to provide their own generation and electrical infrastructure are completely within their rights.
A gigawatt is a gigawatt. Power stations are more efficient the bigger they are. Put data centers in industrial zoning so the infrastructure for both power and water is already there. It's so obvious. Leave the power generating to the power companies. Yes, obviously again, the datacenters should pay for their gigawatts and solar on the roof will help keep the bill down.
Our environment will collapse and the fat cats will still deny it and convince most of us that it was our fault and that nothing could be done and that we should just buy their anti-environment-collapse products to protect ourselves.
> Our environment will collapse and the fat cats will still deny
It is, and they are. We keep hitting record X Y and Z temperatures, cyclones, etc, and they're on the brig shouting "it ain't global warming you morons"
>Climate scientist Bill Hare, CEO of Climate Analytics, said that "although UNEP does a good job of describing the hole we've dug ourselves into, it does a poor job of showing us that there's a way out."
I need to say WTF, the way out is to stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. That means stop using fossil fuels. How many times does this need to be said ? Already it probably has been said millions of times.
Well said. At this point I’ve literally read many thousands of HN comments about climate change over the past two decades that boil down to “we just need magically overcome the unprecedented global scale of the collective action problem we face!”
It’s surreal how quickly this went from being the most important problem in the world to barely being on anyone’s mind, all in less than a decade. I had plenty of problems with the fear-mongering and doomed-by-2030 predictions, but the current situation, where we seem basically fine with doing nothing, is genuinely scary. Technology has its limits, billions of people still aspire to a European standard of living, and global population isn’t expected to peak until near the end of this century.
I just hate this post-Trump, post-Covid, post-Russia-Ukraine-war world. I don’t know what the trigger was, but there must have been a point where things just went to shit. And here we are: an increasingly ultra-capitalistic dystopia where wealth seems to be the only thing that matters.
It’s way easy to preach vegan diets, solar/wind installations, etc. from the comfy chairs by the citizens of first world countries. But for someone living in a dirt poor country, climate change is the last thing in their mind even though they might be the hardest hit population. For them it’s about survival and meeting basic human needs.
At this point its not preached from comfy first world countries, but rather countries that are getting unbareably hot in the summer. So much that more and more people are going to die each year as a result
It is actually worse than preaching because based on your comment it's pure ignorant superiority. You think 40 degrees celcius for few days in the summer is the apocalypse, then try living in an indian village where the temperatures reaches 50 degrees for one month, where you have to walk miles to get a barrel of water to drink. And then imagine having to live there for the whole life.
Also now you say because there were heat waves in Europe it's not preaching, then what's the excuse before that?
more than 75% of Indians think global warming is happening and say they are worried about it. They think that global warming will harm people in India.
People in India (more in north then in south) report having personally experienced severe heat waves and the effects of global warming, and think that global warming will harm them, their families, and their communities.
Turns out that people living in place with 50 degress who "have to walk miles to get a barrel of water to drink" dont want more extreme weather all that much
Solar/wind installations are demonized from comfy chairs by the citizens of first world countries. Anti environmental agenda is agenda of rich conservatives, CEOs and their western right wing friends.
Dirt poor countries do care about climate change per polls.
This is mostly the UN’s own fault. Nation governments refrain from getting “hardcore” on this because the better options are expensive and they don’t want to be undercut by another country. The UN is supposed to somehow use its deep diplomatic negotiating and deal-making skill to find and enforce agreement between these states so we all adopt the changes together… and penalise the hold-outs (we all know who) together.
I'm mostly stopped feeling autistic since adolescence, but climate change is one of those times. It's obviously real, and it's also obvious that shuffling chairs in developing countries is rounding to zero effect. We're converting to cleaner energy anyways because of pollution and better economics, so the push for decarbonization in itself is... what do you call a rounding error when it's already rounding to zero?
And it's FAR from hopeless. Again, global warming is obviously happening. But the amount of adapting and reacting to it is virtually nil. Installing AC. Tree cover in every city. Start serious discussions on what level of risk we want with geoengineering.
Because yes, there absolutely is an acceptable risk level with geoengineering. Planting trees is that. Carbon capture is also that. And better and more effective tech will definitely be available.
But we're in a social climate where I don't even dare write down examples of what those more effective methods would be, because if you're not luddite enough you're the enemy.
In the context of climate change, it is the opinion that more industrialization and technologization cannot help solving the problem, except in a few narrow acceptable directions (solar, wind, hydrogen etc).
An example would be the european reaction to AC. It's a way of using technology to solve warming, its costs are perfectly acceptable, but it is still frown upon because... well, it's beyond the scope of a HN comment to diagnose why, but it's an example of technology being able to mitigate a problem but not being allowed to.
> An example would be the european reaction to AC.
That was over hyped in the media, particularly American.
It's largely senior citizens who oppose AC - they've spent most of their lives in a different climate and would rather not have to handle such an expense.
Meanwhile in some European countries like France demand for AC units doubled this year.
Because if I can do nothing and make you do it, you solve it for me, for free. They'll make some argument (like western nations having used up the energy (and paid for it), and want to make them pay for it again. Now get to work, taxpayer!
Because for most countries (and certainly for the largest oil producer in the world, Russia), global warming saves greatly on winter fuel use and increases agricultural harvests AND allows them to keep their population happy (because nothing keeps populations calm like cheap fuel/energy). That is the net effect, today.
Because for a lot of countries that really are the beneficiaries of causing global warming, ie. the oil producer countries, Russia, Saudi Arabia, US, Venezuela, Norway, and many small ones Azerbeidjan, causing global warming (ie. selling fossil fuels) is often the only reason they have an economy (mostly all except the US). So they demand a LOT of money, for free, to stop it. And nobody will pay that.
The last argument even goes for countries that are not direct oil or coal producers, like India or China but it's effectively the same argument (China runs on coal, and the country works on exports. Without energy no exports, so their coal usage is still increasing. Ie. same argument as above, they only have an economy because they're causing global warming, just more indirectly than Saudi Arabia)
Because WW2 was won with oil, and so countries that either want to start a war ("or" fear they'll be the target of the next big war) want access to oil. This goes especially for China, and to a lesser extent for India and even for EU countries (ie. for the ones that matter, France and Germany)
Summary: because most governments care about various things ... and not at all about people, about you. Mostly governments not even about their own people and certainly not about the climate where you live. They have a million concerns, a lot of which require fossil fuels, and for the people that compose those governments, climate change just doesn't matter.
Plus, if they can just do nothing, you still have to solve global warming. So doing nothing, aside from being very profitable, is also a great tactic to get you to fix it.
When you find yourself stuck in a hole the first step to solving the problem is to stop digging. We're still digging at a superhuman speed. Meanwhile here you are talking about how you aren't worried because ladder building technology is really coming along, but nobody wants to talk about ladders.
I agree with your message overall, but this kind of, I dunno, martyrdom posturing ("But we're in a social climate where I don't even dare write down examples of what those more effective methods would be, because if you're not luddite enough you're the enemy.", "it's not socially acceptable to discuss alternatives to orthodoxy") is funny to see on HN. This is not Xitter or Reddit, no one is going to ban or attempt to dox you and get you fired for saying "We should seriously consider injecting reflective stuff into stratosphere" here. In fact, your message will likely even have a positive rating overall.
Geophysically, there are 3 pillars to climate stabilization:
1. Emitting fewer greenhouse gasses. Need to do that more than ever, but we are now in overshoot so…
2. Actively remove greenhouse gasses from atmosphere. Will need to do that, but land use and dirty energy trends away from net negative. Also, it’s a 100 year project once started.
3. Shade Earth. Not regions, The whole globe. There are two ways to do that:
a. Stratospheric aerosols
b. Planetary sunshades in space, at Sun-Earth L1.
That’s the whole solution space, conceptually. As long as we continue to fail within that space, we will suffer compounding effects of unmitigated climate change.
Two of these things will definitely work. One of them is completely untested, poorly understood and with potentially massive consequences for the climate and food production.
> Actively remove greenhouse gasses from atmosphere. Will need to do that, but land use and dirty energy trends away from net negative. Also, it’s a 100 year project once started.
I once did the math, assuming we have enough resources to build a lot of solar panels. Assuming current efficiency levels of solar panels and current commercial feasible levels of direct air carbon capture (DAC), if we annually allocated an amount equal to our current annual solar panel production to building large solar farms dedicated to powering DAC plants, in about 150ish years those plants would be capturing each year an amount about equal to our current total annual emissions.
If we keep expanding solar panel production we could shorten that timeline and build more than just enough to breakeven. The area for those solar farms would be about 1/15th the area of the 5 largest subtropical deserts.
What would we do with all the carbon extracted? That's not really a problem. If we can't think of a good use for it, just mount the solar panels powering the DAC plants a few meters off the ground, convert the carbon to graphite, and dump it under the solar panels. Spread evenly it would only be a few mm thick.
From my understanding, the West never truly committed to that goal.
It just said so as a PR thing, so that the much more affected countries quiet down, because "hey hey we said 1.5°". "Oops, sorry, we tried".
The West knows that it will manage even with more than that, but it also knows that not everyone will.
Jury's still out on whether the neglect is just due to apathy or because it might be beneficial. Only time will tell.
El Niño this year is going to be especially crazy, worst in human history by a large margin looks like. I'm putting together El Niño Climate Week to work on averting the worst impacts. It's a good opportunity to move the conversation forward about how our climate is changing very quickly.
My projects tend to be pretty good schelling points for people that like to take action, in case you're finding the comments here frustrating ("I'm not surprised", "we just need to X", "we're doomed", "it will be fine", etc etc etc)
Modern economies are addicted to growth, and asset prices are pinned to showing continued growth more than ever. As soon as any global power proposes to take a beat and re-evaluate the trajectory of innovation, they will be left behind. Global leadership is also effectively non-existent and aside from trade, no one seems to be able to really make inroads on big ticket issues. In a time where we need more collaboration that ever, governments seem to be skewing more nationalistic than ever.
Well, to be fair, the whole "enough growth" thought happened to spring into existence at the exact moment where we (the west) have comfortable living standards.
Something other developing nations would need growth for to achieve.
So that's kinda interesting, because degrowth is seen as this conceptual antagonist to the people letting the global south burn, but they both are letting them down - just marginally differently.
Perfect example of "left behind" is EU, shooting itself in leg for many years with dubious results in terms of ecology ... and negligible in global scale.
I think the conversation here is making me more depressed than the news. The number of people who don’t believe collective action is possible, who somehow believe the current techno-capitalist model is determined by god or history or whatever, who don’t have any particular knowledge about history, economic development, etc but are very happy to very loudly yell that the only thing we can do is more of the same but maybe faster - man, y’all call yourselves hackers, but you sure are an incurious and gullible lot.
There are long histories of cultures managing collective resources democratically over extremely long periods. Both the water temples of Southeast Asia and the rituals around salmon runs and controlled burns in the Pacific Northwest maintained careful husbandry of scarce resources across time periods that extend well beyond the time period since the tragedy of the commons was discovered by the same people who are asserting that kind of coordination to be impossible. This is a cultural problem, and it’s with our culture, not humanity writ large.
With regards to concrete solutions, we could stop pretending that financial optimization and private equity is anything other than looting at scale, we could stop pretending that it’s the god-given destiny of every imaginable product to get shittier and require more rapid disposal and replacement, we could stop imagining that Jeff Bezos shooting people into space is the sign of a functioning economy, but very very directly, we could start actually taxing people and corporations for the long-term effects of their actions, we could prosecute people who attempt to buy, bribe, or market their way past social issues, and we could start incorporating the full cost of, eg, offsetting category 5 hurricanes and large scale droughts or heatwaves in our calculations of the benefits of our modern supply chains and globalized markets. All of those things would be fine starts to drive policy in the directions we want. All of them run afoul of the current winners of the current systems, which is why they’ve been tarred as the unrealistic fantasies of people who aren’t interested in spending the rest of their lives in hermetically-sealed air conditioned boxes so Sam Altman and Elon Musk don’t have to go to therapy.
With respect, those examples are about tiny heterogeneous populations and do not involve tremendous sacrifice. The actions required to make meaningful difference for climate change are orders of magnitude larger.
And your solutions are basically “we could all change our view and start taking coordinated collective action together”, which is not actionable. I mean, it clearly hasn’t happened, and you can villainize whoever you want about that, but the problem remains. You can declare that the problem is cultural, but the problem remains. You can blame Elon or Sam or Trump, but the problem remains. People do not vote for what you want, politicians do not do what you want, and that’s not even getting into the fact that we need action that requires great sacrifice from the majority of the globe, and quickly. What are we actually going to do about it? Do you have anything tangible that people can do today that will make any difference whatsoever? Because if not, why waste my life shaking my fist at the clouds?
You’re underestimating both the size and the heterogeneity of those cultures. Politics attains anywhere with a population that exceeds Dunbar’s number, and both of those cultures were easily in the tens to hundreds of thousands. They’re also just two examples out of many - most of human civilization has managed to handle this over time.
And, yes, the solution here is in fact that we change our behavior and build political alliances, starting at the local level and building up. The datacenter fights are a good place to look if you’d like a blueprint, as are the anti-Flock movements, and Minneapolis if you want to see what sharper action looks like. I don’t know what else you’re expecting with regards to “what to do” - I’ve never heard of any effective magic wand, any solution here involves getting off your ass and advocating for what you want.
And, we hack this the way we hack everything else: by actually understanding the system and how it works, not just listening to what we’re being told by the people who built the system, by identifying places of high leverage within the system, and by using those to enact change in the system. To just sit around and say “well, my Econ professor said we’re fucked, so I guess that’s that” is just fucking lazy.
You know, as a follow-up to “democratic populations making sacrifices at scale” - have you _looked_ at the US lately? Our lifestyle is atrocious - we work shitty jobs too many hours, drive everywhere, live in isolating suburbs in crappily-built and ugly houses surrounded by bland box stores hawking shitty wares that break by design, restaurants hawking garbage food by the truckload, and grocery stores that are a bare minimum box-checking exercise with crappy produce and shitty meat, and that’s before you get to the meat factory we call a healthcare system. One trip to a proper first world country ought to be enough to disabuse us of the notion that our choices are value-neutral. It seems like we’ve already collectively sacrificed a ton for the sake of enriching the same people telling us collective sacrifice is impossible.
climate change became to be discussed as an issue since the 80s. I am in my late 40s and I have been hearing about since forever, and yet so little has been done since then. Now you can understand why I, as probably many here, have zero faith in this being solved in any sensible way.
Go and get depressed... or maybe go and eat your Brazilian meat burger, drive your SUV and book your flight to Hawaii, it won't last long.
What’s always struck me as interesting about these conversations is that both you and I and many, many of the other people we talk to are willing to make significant life changes to deal with this problem, and yet we all seem convinced the blocker here is that everyone else is an asshole.
It seems to me that assholes do in fact exist, but by all measures make up a much smaller percentage of the population than we’ve been lead to believe, and so the notion that a bulk majority of people would act in the interests of others and humanity at large is perhaps not the unthinkable notion we’ve been told. It might be that the actual action here is to recognize the people telling us everyone else is an asshole are trying to pull the wool over our eyes and treat them accordingly.
I tend to attribute most problems to low intelligence and/or ignorance more than plain asshole-ness. I don't disregard the complexity of fixing climate change, and the need for global cooperation, but we have had plenty of time and too little was done, even in more peaceful times than today.
I think that the problem won't be solved by us, it will balance itself out. A bigger chunk of the planet will become more hostile, human population will shrink, we will live at much lower scales, consume less and pollute less, for thousands of years to come.
I think the problem is not recognizing the assholes as a separate problem from the ignorance. Ignorant people hear “giant impending calamity that will harm you and your neighbors” and think, “oh, we should do something about that!” They’re currently not doing so because a cabal of assholes has spent half a century muddying the public waters.
And, regarding “living at lower scales and polluting less” - consider how many things in your life are sold to you as disposable items and how many don’t need to be, and how many things can be produced in a substantially more sustainable fashion without negatively impacting their utility or quality. The average person can live an extremely rich, fulfilling, and comfortable life on a low carbon budget.
I mean, I damn sure hope we can do both in parallel, because if we’re gonna wait for everyone to reach enlightenment, we’re sure not gonna make it in time.
198 comments
[ 12.8 ms ] story [ 405 ms ] threadThe only hope now is exponential growth of (solar and wind)+batteries making other sources uneconomic. This seems to be slowly happening, so I hope we hit the exponential curve soon and we're there quicker than we expect.
This only stops it.
Then, to fix it, we'll need a massive Direct Air Capture industry that will have to operate for a century, and probably past that so we can hit and maintain a CO2 level of 250ppm.
We had the means to avoid this (strict vegan diets, ground based mass transit, dense development & re-wilding, energy transition) but people made money doing the opposite. And more people made money sabotaging solar+battery pricing in the US.
So we get to watch the world burn down around us.
Wildlife hunt diet has zero emmisions! It reduces CO2 emmisions!
I admire anyone and everyone who wants to be a vegetarian/vegan. Expecting the rest of the world to follow suit is a fools errand.
You say it's for the benefit of "decrepit old men," but the fact is that more and more of the globe is being lifted out of poverty and living more comfortably than ever before. The unfortunate fact is that global warming is an unstoppable force now, humans would have to go extinct for it to waiver.
I'm not saying we should do nothing, but I am saying that your framing is exactly why no one listens to global warming advocacy. We are powerless against it, not because of governments, but because people are living better and no one is going to sacrifice that; and even if they did the math doesn't add up to reverse course. The people that say we should all be sacrificing are often the richest among us that don't even know what sacrifice entails, contrary to your point.
This is ignoring that _not_ solving global warming will make everyone's life worse regardless.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/aug/31/turkmeni...
But sure, go for it. Logic be damned.
This right here, the absolutely preposterous idea that giving up kids is somehow climate action, is exactly the nonsense that a climate activist should never tolerate.
You think climate action is everybody stopping having children?! You think extinction of the human race is the only option?!
"Of course not!" You say, so clearly we must have some children. But how many? If we drastically reduce our population, we will continue with the same broken systems, same energy systems, etc.
Only by keeping society running do we have the energy to switch our society's engine to zero carbon energy sources.
It's insulting to tell people not to have children, it's not realistic, but worst of all, it's not a climate solution to not have children.
"Don't have kids" is just Malthusian nonsense from a prior environmental era, uncritical thinking, pure slop.
And it greatly harms actual climate action when this extremely stupid idea gets associated with the climate movement. Stop. Just stop.
Telling people not to have kids may not be realistic, but... it's also happening already.
Imagine you're a hyper-partisan and you learn that 'the other side' is spreading messaging amongst themselves encouraging each other to not have children. You're going to be doing backflips, because it's just the collective suicide of an ideology.
No, they don't. If that was true, we'd have prehistoric values. (It would mean you could turn matters of culture into genetic arguments, which is fun, I see the temptation, but it's just not true.)
It's similar with most views and values. Your children will mostly share all of them with you once they reach a certain age. It's something I can even feel happening with my own parents as I age, rather to my distaste. hahah. Anyhow, yeah - there's about a zillion studies on this topic and you can find that parents values are most predictive of those of their children.
In looking up some literature on it, it turns out that some studies have even studied and found what I alluded to of people trending ever more towards their parents values as they age. [1] They call it 'delayed activation'. But anyhow, yeah they found the exact same thing where our values become even more alike as we age. Pretty interesting stuff! And I think it makes the age aspect quite critical. I assumed I was one of those exceptions referenced above, yet reality had other plans in mind, in spite of my protestations.
[1] - https://sci-hub.si/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...
However putting kids on a pedestal is silly. If we push our civilization above earths sustainable carrying capacity, we are fucked. In isolation having them is beautiful, in the aggregate it can be bad.
Most of all, when people say "don't have kids for the environment" it actually really hurts environmental action. Pretending that self-sacrifice is inherently environmental action, that we will save the world through sacrifice, is just one of those weird ways that Christian religion has worked its way into people's every day life.
We save the climate by stopping ALL emissions, and then also in the later half of the century actually sequestering CO2 at a pretty consistent rate. We don't get to that by halving the population, that's not a solution in any way. It's not going to be easier to get to zero emissions with half the population, if anything it's going to be harder. And we definitiely won't be sequestering CO2 in the later half of the century if we're dealing with all the challenges of reducing the population by any significant amount.
I'm willing to wag my finger at you, not about sacrifices, but falsely equating climate action with sacrifices. Climate action is one thing and one thing only: reducing emissions and eventually reversing some of them. It is not sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice.
Wholeheartedly agree
Mass transit and dense development are potentially doable, but at this point the suburban sprawl + car model has been popular in the US for decades and it would feel like a downgrade for many people to live in smaller places in more heavily urbanized environments. I think that many Americans don't even have a clear idea of what it would look like to raise kids in a multi-story residential building in a city without it seeming like poverty.
Also, in some parts of the US, mass transit and dense urban living run into the problem of anti-social behavior including street violence. Many of the people in the US who care the most about stopping climate change also oppose the kind of intensive policing that would be required to keep crazy dangerous people off buses and clean up troubled neighborhoods enough that the average person would feel safe living there. Violent crime rates have largely been going down since the early 90s, but are still much higher than in Europe. One of the reasons for the high rates, through definitely not the only reason, is the availability of guns, but getting US right-wingers to accept gun restrictions is probably even less probable than getting US left-wingers to accept major crackdowns on street crime.
sabotage achieved
If we need to make such drastic changes to human consumption, have people considered if we have a overpopulation problem?
People are meat eaters. If I was to run a campaign to keep the green movement unpopular, I’d promote enforced veganism as one of its core ideas.
We need to use AI to solve for global warming.
Is there a more appropriate use for AI?
The only way is through. Most of are not going to be living the suffocating life you think we should. We will grow, innovate and accelerate out of this.
You're confusing acceleration with velocity. Poor people are far from the greatest per capita contributors.
You either:
1) for the greater good, accept this argument, stop doing what feels right to you because an unconvincing stranger told you to, and do something instead you think is wrong and doesn't work;
or 2) accept that no one else will do that either.
In other words, live a privileged person's life in an expensive city, risk malnutrition with a complicated diet, and don't ever leave the country (on a plane).
As if the sources of climate change are you and me, and not industry in any way. It feels more like a way to say, live like me or almost literally burn in Hell.
The 2020s climate action movement in the US (and the UK) was disastrous in their strategy, action, and outcomes. I was there, I followed along because it seemed like the best way to get climate action, but things like Sunrise and XR at their very best did nothing. They focused on all the wrong people, focused on all the wrong levers. They turned allies into enemies, by "protesting" tech companies that were at the forefront of real action. They refused to acknowledge the massive effects of technology change, and the need for quick adoption, and the huge money saving nature of the solution.
I have zero patience for those attitudes now, the difference between a degrowther and a climate change denying politician are minimal in effect, and the effects are all that matter now.
"Small reduction in land surface albedo due to solar panel expansion worldwide"
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01619-w
If you download the supplementary information PDF, figure 19 shows a plot of GHG/warming payback times by site. The most common time is about 1 month. The greatest time they found was about 9 months. These times go down as solar panel efficiencies continue to creep upward, because solar panels in 2026 don't have lower albedo than in 2024, but they do have better light-to-electricity conversion efficiency.
Every unit of fossil fuel we burn makes the earth permanently less reflective (or at least something on the order of 100 years). You could compare a 1GW solar array (for its lifetime) to a 1GW coal plant running for x days, though I don't have the value of x.
As for making the earth less reflective with PV panels... yes, you are right and most of that absorbed solar energy directly contributes to heating the earth because PV panels aren't anywhere near 100% efficient in converting in to electricity, but even the part that is converted to electricity will be become heat again in the end (like when it powers AI data centers).
For now that isn't a big concern because the greenhouse gases our civilization is releasing into the atmosphere do so much more heating than all the use of energy, but if we do become 100% renewable and survive that particular danger, then by Jevons' paradox we'll soon be using 10x to 100x more "clean" energy and be heating the earth all the same again.
Then note that a higher temperatures will increase the radiative losses.
100x heat release and it's still about 1% of solar gain.
Removing CO2 from seawater would be more efficient because some of the work is already done for you, and you'd be de-acidifying the ocean long term.
I am not very surprised, since the people voted for the "drill baby drill" president?
I wouldn't classify that as anemic.
Which should probably be nuclear powered, at the required scale. So we could have taken the direct route, instead of solar, bess, wind, water, geothermal...(c.f. Alien, Aliens, 'Atmospheric Processor'...)
Anybody remembering the trash which was sold as 'lightbulbs' for about 15 years, before LED got somewhat acceptable colors? And prices? And longevity?
Mehw, lightbulb baad, eats too much waatt! So lets miniaturize CFLs to be able to screw them in lightbulb sockets! So they get warm because they are so small, the sockets have no airflow, and their own electronics go with a premature blow! Yay!
We won't slow climate change. We can build resilience to the effects, and we have good incentives to do so. But we'll keep burning fossil fuels for a very long time.
The entire Western world (with the exception of France) pretty much stopped building nuclear power plants 40 years ago, because of a single accident that by its most pessimistic estimates killed fewer people in total than coal emissions kill every 3 days. It’s madness.
In hindsight it’s much easier to blame the accidents rather than face the structural problems nuclear power has.
Which has only been exacerbated by renewables and storage disrupting the global energy markets, forcing ”baseload” plants to become peakers. Against their will.
It is hard looking at Vogtle, Virgil C. Summer, Olkiluoto 3, Flamanville 3, Hinkley Point C, Hanhikivi and the countless cancelled projects and think: ”that’s what I want more of!!”
I remember seeing just a few years back, a Greenpeace postlet moaning about dangerous nuclear energy
I think it's pretty clear that nothing meaningful will be done because there's no shock value to entertain the "empaths" like there is with war and other stuff
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity
Edit because I forgot to mention this, if coal or ccgt were regulated like nuclear is, not a single one would be profitable. And even if you take into account every single death due to radiation poisoning (from any source) nuclear would still be the safest power source in the world. Literally worker deaths from installing wind power plants exceed it.
The costs are high, because construction industry has suffered from poor productivity growth for decades. Renewables are getting cheaper, because they rely more on mass-produced stuff and less on hiring people to construct a big building to house the power plant. Regulatory costs of nuclear power also largely come from poor quality control in construction industry. Regulators require something specific, subcontractors try doing that but often don't get it right, and regulators order them to tear it down and try again.
A real example: The City of Galveston, Texas is having to pay higher interest on municipal bonds because of water shortage and sea-level rise risks.
We need massive bounty programs that pay out irrespective of nationality for every possible kind of improvement and gain to carbon capture technology if we want to prevent 90% of all land on Earth between 30°N and 30°S from slowly turning into copies of the uninhabitable stretches of the Middle East.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-st...
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/CO2-emissions-and-respec...
The answer there is >6C global increase, and that would cause disaster movie scenarios.
Anything and everything we can do to stop that is important.
What's needed now is something like a "carbon wave", where you evaluate your impact by how quickly you move the entire world forward.
There's a new book on this to that just arrived to me last week: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-carbon-wave-leah-c-stok...
Decile 10 (richest): ~48%
Decile 9: ~15%
Decile 8: ~10%
Decile 7: ~8%
Decile 6: ~6%
Deciles 1 through 5 combined: ~12%, so about 1 to 3% each
Sources like this: www.oxfam.org.uk/media/press-releases/richest-1-emit-as-much-planet-heating-pollution-as-two-thirds-of-humanity-oxfam/
- Electricity + heat production ~40–42%
- Industry + manufacturing ~20–22%
- Road transport ~12–13%
- Deforestation & land-use change ~10%
- Direct fuel use in buildings ~5–6%
- Aviation ~2–3%
- Shipping ~2–3%
- Rail, pipelines & other transport ~1%
- Flaring / other energy & industrial sources ~2–4%
I'm guessing the private jets is what you're hinting at? Aviation above includes all flights, not just private jets.
Decile 10 (richest): ~48%
Decile 9: ~15%
Decile 8: ~10%
Decile 7: ~8%
Decile 6: ~6%
Deciles 1 through 5 combined: ~12%, so about 1 to 3% each
I wouldn't necessarily focus on it, but it's something good for your mental model of how to solve the challenge.
The reason I say I wouldn't focus on it is I'm coming around to the idea that "carbon footprint" is effectively a marketing campaign brought on by oil companies to have us focus our individual power where it has the lowest leverage - sorting trash, our own individual emissions, etc, Instead of mobilizing hundreds, thousands, millions, and billions of people to change policy and technology.
Sources like this: www.oxfam.org.uk/media/press-releases/richest-1-emit-as-much-planet-heating-pollution-as-two-thirds-of-humanity-oxfam/
Regardless of that, I agree that making useful policy changes is important, replacing some plastic straws won't make a huge change, but getting rid of coal will.
From a warming perspective, it's utter madness to let this build-out proceed unimpeded. New data centres should be required to be net-zero at power-up. Unfortunately, it's a race and the U.S. side of it has an administration that is actively rolling back policies that fight climate change.
It is, and they are. We keep hitting record X Y and Z temperatures, cyclones, etc, and they're on the brig shouting "it ain't global warming you morons"
The Industrial party of the last 2 centuries is over. We should love the trees, the animals, the land and leave ASAP from the cities.
Unfortunately, the plutocracy has different plans.
I need to say WTF, the way out is to stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. That means stop using fossil fuels. How many times does this need to be said ? Already it probably has been said millions of times.
I just hate this post-Trump, post-Covid, post-Russia-Ukraine-war world. I don’t know what the trigger was, but there must have been a point where things just went to shit. And here we are: an increasingly ultra-capitalistic dystopia where wealth seems to be the only thing that matters.
Also now you say because there were heat waves in Europe it's not preaching, then what's the excuse before that?
People in India (more in north then in south) report having personally experienced severe heat waves and the effects of global warming, and think that global warming will harm them, their families, and their communities.
Turns out that people living in place with 50 degress who "have to walk miles to get a barrel of water to drink" dont want more extreme weather all that much
Dirt poor countries do care about climate change per polls.
Which polls? the ones by Western NGOs that made out of thin air?
And it's FAR from hopeless. Again, global warming is obviously happening. But the amount of adapting and reacting to it is virtually nil. Installing AC. Tree cover in every city. Start serious discussions on what level of risk we want with geoengineering.
Because yes, there absolutely is an acceptable risk level with geoengineering. Planting trees is that. Carbon capture is also that. And better and more effective tech will definitely be available.
But we're in a social climate where I don't even dare write down examples of what those more effective methods would be, because if you're not luddite enough you're the enemy.
An example would be the european reaction to AC. It's a way of using technology to solve warming, its costs are perfectly acceptable, but it is still frown upon because... well, it's beyond the scope of a HN comment to diagnose why, but it's an example of technology being able to mitigate a problem but not being allowed to.
That was over hyped in the media, particularly American.
It's largely senior citizens who oppose AC - they've spent most of their lives in a different climate and would rather not have to handle such an expense.
Meanwhile in some European countries like France demand for AC units doubled this year.
Because for most countries (and certainly for the largest oil producer in the world, Russia), global warming saves greatly on winter fuel use and increases agricultural harvests AND allows them to keep their population happy (because nothing keeps populations calm like cheap fuel/energy). That is the net effect, today.
Because for a lot of countries that really are the beneficiaries of causing global warming, ie. the oil producer countries, Russia, Saudi Arabia, US, Venezuela, Norway, and many small ones Azerbeidjan, causing global warming (ie. selling fossil fuels) is often the only reason they have an economy (mostly all except the US). So they demand a LOT of money, for free, to stop it. And nobody will pay that.
The last argument even goes for countries that are not direct oil or coal producers, like India or China but it's effectively the same argument (China runs on coal, and the country works on exports. Without energy no exports, so their coal usage is still increasing. Ie. same argument as above, they only have an economy because they're causing global warming, just more indirectly than Saudi Arabia)
Because WW2 was won with oil, and so countries that either want to start a war ("or" fear they'll be the target of the next big war) want access to oil. This goes especially for China, and to a lesser extent for India and even for EU countries (ie. for the ones that matter, France and Germany)
Summary: because most governments care about various things ... and not at all about people, about you. Mostly governments not even about their own people and certainly not about the climate where you live. They have a million concerns, a lot of which require fossil fuels, and for the people that compose those governments, climate change just doesn't matter.
Plus, if they can just do nothing, you still have to solve global warming. So doing nothing, aside from being very profitable, is also a great tactic to get you to fix it.
1. Emitting fewer greenhouse gasses. Need to do that more than ever, but we are now in overshoot so…
2. Actively remove greenhouse gasses from atmosphere. Will need to do that, but land use and dirty energy trends away from net negative. Also, it’s a 100 year project once started.
3. Shade Earth. Not regions, The whole globe. There are two ways to do that:
a. Stratospheric aerosols b. Planetary sunshades in space, at Sun-Earth L1.
That’s the whole solution space, conceptually. As long as we continue to fail within that space, we will suffer compounding effects of unmitigated climate change.
This will not address the acidification of the oceans which is very bad but something is better than nothing.
Carbon capture is way too slow to work. It’s a rounding error.
I once did the math, assuming we have enough resources to build a lot of solar panels. Assuming current efficiency levels of solar panels and current commercial feasible levels of direct air carbon capture (DAC), if we annually allocated an amount equal to our current annual solar panel production to building large solar farms dedicated to powering DAC plants, in about 150ish years those plants would be capturing each year an amount about equal to our current total annual emissions.
If we keep expanding solar panel production we could shorten that timeline and build more than just enough to breakeven. The area for those solar farms would be about 1/15th the area of the 5 largest subtropical deserts.
What would we do with all the carbon extracted? That's not really a problem. If we can't think of a good use for it, just mount the solar panels powering the DAC plants a few meters off the ground, convert the carbon to graphite, and dump it under the solar panels. Spread evenly it would only be a few mm thick.
The West knows that it will manage even with more than that, but it also knows that not everyone will.
Jury's still out on whether the neglect is just due to apathy or because it might be beneficial. Only time will tell.
El Niño this year is going to be especially crazy, worst in human history by a large margin looks like. I'm putting together El Niño Climate Week to work on averting the worst impacts. It's a good opportunity to move the conversation forward about how our climate is changing very quickly.
https://elninoclimateweek.com
My projects tend to be pretty good schelling points for people that like to take action, in case you're finding the comments here frustrating ("I'm not surprised", "we just need to X", "we're doomed", "it will be fine", etc etc etc)
Something other developing nations would need growth for to achieve.
So that's kinda interesting, because degrowth is seen as this conceptual antagonist to the people letting the global south burn, but they both are letting them down - just marginally differently.
Do you have any specific, actionable proposals to solve this problem that don’t rely on us magically solving the collective action problem?
A vague sense that “we can do it if we just try!” is no better than what you’re decrying.
With regards to concrete solutions, we could stop pretending that financial optimization and private equity is anything other than looting at scale, we could stop pretending that it’s the god-given destiny of every imaginable product to get shittier and require more rapid disposal and replacement, we could stop imagining that Jeff Bezos shooting people into space is the sign of a functioning economy, but very very directly, we could start actually taxing people and corporations for the long-term effects of their actions, we could prosecute people who attempt to buy, bribe, or market their way past social issues, and we could start incorporating the full cost of, eg, offsetting category 5 hurricanes and large scale droughts or heatwaves in our calculations of the benefits of our modern supply chains and globalized markets. All of those things would be fine starts to drive policy in the directions we want. All of them run afoul of the current winners of the current systems, which is why they’ve been tarred as the unrealistic fantasies of people who aren’t interested in spending the rest of their lives in hermetically-sealed air conditioned boxes so Sam Altman and Elon Musk don’t have to go to therapy.
And your solutions are basically “we could all change our view and start taking coordinated collective action together”, which is not actionable. I mean, it clearly hasn’t happened, and you can villainize whoever you want about that, but the problem remains. You can declare that the problem is cultural, but the problem remains. You can blame Elon or Sam or Trump, but the problem remains. People do not vote for what you want, politicians do not do what you want, and that’s not even getting into the fact that we need action that requires great sacrifice from the majority of the globe, and quickly. What are we actually going to do about it? Do you have anything tangible that people can do today that will make any difference whatsoever? Because if not, why waste my life shaking my fist at the clouds?
And, yes, the solution here is in fact that we change our behavior and build political alliances, starting at the local level and building up. The datacenter fights are a good place to look if you’d like a blueprint, as are the anti-Flock movements, and Minneapolis if you want to see what sharper action looks like. I don’t know what else you’re expecting with regards to “what to do” - I’ve never heard of any effective magic wand, any solution here involves getting off your ass and advocating for what you want.
And, we hack this the way we hack everything else: by actually understanding the system and how it works, not just listening to what we’re being told by the people who built the system, by identifying places of high leverage within the system, and by using those to enact change in the system. To just sit around and say “well, my Econ professor said we’re fucked, so I guess that’s that” is just fucking lazy.
Go and get depressed... or maybe go and eat your Brazilian meat burger, drive your SUV and book your flight to Hawaii, it won't last long.
It seems to me that assholes do in fact exist, but by all measures make up a much smaller percentage of the population than we’ve been lead to believe, and so the notion that a bulk majority of people would act in the interests of others and humanity at large is perhaps not the unthinkable notion we’ve been told. It might be that the actual action here is to recognize the people telling us everyone else is an asshole are trying to pull the wool over our eyes and treat them accordingly.
I think that the problem won't be solved by us, it will balance itself out. A bigger chunk of the planet will become more hostile, human population will shrink, we will live at much lower scales, consume less and pollute less, for thousands of years to come.
I hope I will be proven wrong.
And, regarding “living at lower scales and polluting less” - consider how many things in your life are sold to you as disposable items and how many don’t need to be, and how many things can be produced in a substantially more sustainable fashion without negatively impacting their utility or quality. The average person can live an extremely rich, fulfilling, and comfortable life on a low carbon budget.