
CO2 in the atmosphere just exceeded 415ppm for the first time in human history - wang42
https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/12/co2-in-the-atmosphere-just-exceeded-415-parts-per-million-for-the-first-time-in-human-history/
======
diafygi
I used to work at a fitness tech startup, but then when it didn't work out
(heh), I took a step back and wondered what industry I wanted to be a part of.
I wondered if a software engineer could help contribute to fighting climate
change, so I started asking around.

I found a job in solar, then eventually started my own clean energy software
company. Every day I wake up with the incredible feeling that I'm getting paid
to fight climate change. If feels good, and I'd like to encourage you to
consider joining the industry, too.

It turns out there's a huge need for software and other tech skills (data
science, sysadmin, etc.) needed for the energy transition. With the deployment
of so much "intermittent" generation like solar and wind, we need fuck tons of
software and communications infrastructure to run a new "flexible" grid. For
example, the California ISO is using neural networks to formulate the day-
ahead markets, and recently started letting aggregated demand response
providers (e.g. companies who manage smart thermostats) bid into the market as
distributed generators.

So if you're thinking what can you to help fight climate change, the best
thing you can do is get a job in the climate change fighting industry. Start
googling around for jobs with climate change keywords ("solar", "wind", "clean
energy", etc.). Start showing up to clean energy events (if you live in the
bay area, check out my bayareaenergyevents.com). There's so many people in
this space who came from other sectors, and it's incredibly easy to move up or
start your own company doing some specific thing you think is needed for the
fight. Also, feel free to reach out to me or read my previous comments on this
topic.

"They say we won't act until it's too late... Luckily, it's too late!"

~~~
MuffinFlavored
How
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19842240](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19842240)
could be captured at a consumer / DIY scale?

From their post:

> The only inputs to make the fuel are CO2 and water (both from the air) and
> electricity. The only outputs are fuel and oxygen.

\---

> instead [we] use a process that uses only electricity (no natural gas, etc)
> and does it at room temperature.

\---

> we absorb CO2 and water vapor from the air into an aqueous electrolyte.

\---

> We then react the CO2 in the water with a copper catalyst to directly make
> alcohols like ethanol, butanol, propanol, etc

> we have a carbon nanotube membrane that replaces it, extracting the alcohols
> from water in a single step at room temperature

I think the question boils down to: How to remove CO2 from air through
"aqueous electrolyte", then convert it to alcohols with "copper catalyst"?

~~~
diafygi
Hmmm, I'm sure the tech is great as well as the scientists and engineering
perfecting it. However, I consider this kind of tech important in a post-
energy transition world and probably a bad idea to pursue now.

Converting CO2 to hydrocarbons is a fundamentally an endothermic reaction
(e.g. it needs energy to happen), so given the limits on process and
thermodynamic efficiencies, it will always take more energy to convert CO2
back into gasoline than the energy you got from burning the fuel in the first
place. So it seems like what they are proposing is throwing 1x of one type of
energy (electricity) at undoing the effects of less than 1x of another type of
energy (fossil fuels used in transportation).

Maybe that would be a good idea if we had excess clean electricity generation
and couldn't effectively decarbonize transportation, but neither of those are
true.

First, we currently need all the clean electricity generation we can get our
hands on, and aren't anywhere close to fully decarbonizing the grid to the
point where we have excess capacity for stuff like this. Spending 1 megawatt-
hour on this for less than 1 megawatt-hour of impact when it could be use to
straight up replace 1 megawatt-hour of fossil generation is, I think, a waste
of resources right now.

Second, electrification of transportation is starting to happen exponentially,
so many of the things you were looking to offset in the short term will
probably just cease to exist over the next 10-20 years. The exception is air
travel, where the energy density and having propellants are super important,
but then you're competing with the price of producing biofuels as a carbon
neutral alternative. I suspect that biofuel production will be cheaper, simply
because the energy required to grow the algae or convert the cellulose is less
than the co2 reversal they are proposing here, but I could be wrong about that
for process reasons other than thermodynamics (e.g. capital expenses, etc.).
However, focusing on decarbonizing air travel is sooo far down the list of
priorities right now. There's so much more lower hanging fruit we should be
investing in.

Overall, I think spending energy sucking co2 out of the air and converting it
into fuel isn't a good idea right now. Maybe in the medium term if it can
compete with biofuels, and definitely in the long term after we've
decarbonized as much as possible and still need to remove co2 from the
atmosphere. But when I see investment dollars get thrown at this instead
contributing towards deploying 1:1 replacements of fossil fuels, I feel a bit
sad. Mostly because I know it will be used by propagandists for delaying
decarbonization efforts (e.g. "See? We have tech than can undo all these
fossil fuels we're emitting! So we're all good and don't need to electrify
transportation.").

------
Avalaxy
What I don't understand is why this is so controversial. I clicked on a link
in the article, leading to this article:
[https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/06/new-study-shows-human-
deve...](https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/06/new-study-shows-human-development-
is-destroying-the-planet-at-an-unprecedented-rate/). The comment on it is
extremely dismissive about climate change. I see this on pretty much every
news website nowadays. First of all I don't see how man-made climate change is
even controversial with the amount of evidence we have, but furthermore I
don't see why we shouldn't transition to renewable energy asap anyway. Even if
climate change would be a hoax (which it is not), then why would it be a bad
thing to make changes to prevent it from happening anyway? Why would it be a
bad thing to get rid of air pollution? Why would it be a bad thing to switch
to an energy source that doesn't run out in ~20 years simply because it isn't
renewable?

~~~
lm28469
Because it's much easier to deny something that big than to take care of it.
We'd need a economic/cultural revolution at a global scale. Everything has to
scale down, no more ICE, not more plastic, no more food imported from the
other side of the world, reduce meat consumption, reduce traveling &c.

The current system is based on unlimited and exponential growth, everything
else is considered a failure. An unlimited growth in a finite environment
isn't possible, it's called instability.

The second problem is that many people convince themselves that "Science" will
save us, that we'll terraform Mars or that shifting to electric cars will be
enough, but that's too little, too late. Even if we'd hit our ecological
goals, and we're not, we'd be far from fixing the problem. We don't need to
slow down, we need a complete paradigm shift. It's like when you move form a
basic 40sq meter flat to a fancy 250sq meter house, going back is very hard.

~~~
MrBuddyCasino
> many people convince themselves that "Science" will save us

Why won't it? The main issue is where we get our energy from. There are
working methods that are CO2 neutral. I'm firmly in the "only science will
save us" camp.

> It's like when you move form a basic 40sq meter flat to a fancy 250sq meter
> house, going back is very hard.

I believe this is view harmful to the cause because it will only result in
pushback, and rightfully so. Only excess wealth creates the spare capacity to
care for the environment.

~~~
Angostura
> I'm firmly in the "only science will save us" camp.

The problem is that _just_ saying that, allows policy makers and public to sit
back and wait for the problem to be saved - without funding the science to do,
or take other necessary policy steps.

In a sense you can argue that science _has_ saved us - we have solar and wind,
nuclear and excellent battery tech.

So why aren't we "saved"?

~~~
oceanplexian
Science is primarily driven by private enterprise, that’s why. A business
without any demand has no reason to exist. If the sea rises, or weather
becomes more catastrophic, or oil becomes scarce, people will naturally devise
solutions and mitigations. You can already see this in places like Florida
where new construction techniques are being used to build houses that can
withstand hurricane force winds.

~~~
Angostura
You've provided a very good examnple of where private enterprise and the
markets fail. If the sea rises and weather becomes more catastophic, people
will indeed device solutions and mitgations.

Those mitigations won't necessarily include carbon reduction - they'll be
increased levee construction, abandonment of low-lying cities and building
codes adjusted so that '1 in a century' storms are encountered every couple of
years.

What we are trying to do at this point, ius _avoid_ such grim consequences,
_now_ and the market can't help us unless we promote panic, which isn't a
great strategy.

------
m12k
There is a relatively small group of companies/people who know better, but
would lose billions if this problem is addressed, they have an army of
lobbyists and media companies to push the hoax/not-our-problem-narrative, and
finally you have a huge undereducated part of the population who are already
skeptical of 'elitist' scientists even before the manipulation begins. This
problem also seems to be more extreme in the US compared to other western
countries due to e.g. the prevalence of Fox News and decades of creationism
leading the anti-science crusade. All in all, you can't really count on having
a shared definition of 'reality' any more, as this has now been politisized.

~~~
leereeves
There's a great deal of spin coming from the people warning about climate
change too. End of the world stuff.

Here's something to consider: during the Early Eocene period (roughly 50
million years ago) temperatures were 9C-14C higher than now and CO2 levels
were 1000-2000 parts per million [1].

And yet according to science, Earth was covered in forests from pole to pole,
mammals flourished, and the oceans were "teeming with fish and other sea
life". [2]

That's something you won't hear much about, because it doesn't fit the agenda.

1: [https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/early-eocene-
period](https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/early-eocene-period)

2:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene)

~~~
akie
What about all the people living in coastal areas or close to major rivers?
That’s like 50% of the population, in addition to much of our shared history
(buildings). It will all be under water and cause large migrations, unsettling
much of society. Is that not worth fighting for?

~~~
cagenut
it is a weird western media quirk that the first symptom people talk about is
sea level rise. I think its an accidental product of all the news reports
about melting ice caps and polar bears, so people have scoped the problem as
ice melting and water rising in their heads.

this is basically, to a first order approximation, wrong. sea level rise, even
in a nasty BAU/RCP8.5 scenario is really a next-century problem. we're talking
tens of centimeters.

meanwhile, vast swaths of the euphrates, indo-gangetic, nile and yellow river
deltas will suffer droughts and both successive and concurrent crop failures.

the flood of refugees from drought/famine/war into every city around the world
will vastly exceed the flood of water at their shoreline (this century).

~~~
akie
You're right, I didn't even mention the droughts and famines. I'm Dutch though
so perhaps I'm slightly biased or preoccupied :/

------
ux-app
I'm really depressed about climate change. There is no way to fix this from an
individual point of view. Society is impossibly reliant on fossil fuels.
Individuals going vegan, reducing consumption etc will have negligible effect.
The _only_ possible solution to all this is a technological solution that
requires zero sacrifice from individuals. Technology got us into this mess, If
we don't find a technological solution to this issue then all is lost.

A true tragedy of the commons.

~~~
jussij
The first step to doing something about climate change is to vote for a
political party that actually believes in climate change.

~~~
ux-app
> vote for a political party that actually believes in climate change.

hahahahahaha ooooh boy, that is some grade A wishful thinking.

Here's a thought... try to convince the average Joe to not turn on his air
conditioning on a hot day "for the environment".

see how that goes.

We are a selfish species that deserves to go extinct. Have you ever considered
that?

~~~
jussij
> Have you ever considered that?

The problem is not the air condition or the electricity needed to run the air
conditioner.

The problem is the electricity was generated by burning a fossil fuel and that
causes massive amounts of CO2 pollution.

So the solution is quite simple.

Just tax, and tax hard any electricity producer that is creating CO2
pollution.

What will happen is for a short time Joe's electricity bill will go up and he
will put his air con on low.

But in the longer term market forces will quickly find ways to make
electricity without producing CO2 just so that they can sell cheaper
electricity to Joe and have him once again cranking up his air con to full.

Right now there is no real cost to creating CO2 pollution so of course there
is no incentive to stop producing CO2.

------
KingMachiavelli
It's been pretty well established and even discussed on HN that higher CO2
levels impairs some facets of human cognition. I quick glance at some of the
research suggests that this impairment can begin around ~700ppm. Having higher
and still increasing atmospheric CO2 levels means indoor concentrations will
make diffusion between indoor and the outdoor even slower.

On the climate related side, the graph of CO2 levels for the last 10,000 years
is very consistent, around 260ppm, up till recently. We should have just as
concerned (or were) when it crossed 300ppm, 400ppm, etc.

On a more political note, while some/most climate change deniers at this point
are likely ignoring evidence - having graphs with non-zero axis can be called
out as a bit misleading which makes the increase relatively larger than it
actually is; visually it's at ~230% of it's normal level when it's actually
'only' 157% compared to baseline. Graph manipulation has been used to in the
past to spread false information about global warming/climate change so I
think it's especially important to make everything above board. It only takes
a few people spreading the graph around with the axis cropped out and then
everyone will cry 'fake news'.

~~~
assblaster
Wouldn't increased production of bicarbonate in response to high CO2 offset
and reverse any change in cognition?

~~~
phonypc
Pretty much my reading of it. Simply getting up and _walking around_ would put
far more CO2 into your blood than such a small change in atmospheric
concentration.

I don't really understand the level of credulity here on associations between
CO2 and mental impairment.

------
MarkMc
Here's an article with headline, "Major Climate Report Describes a Strong Risk
of Crisis as Early as 2040": [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-
climate-repo...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-
report-2040.html)

And yet it says, "The report details the economic damage expected should
governments fail to enact policies to reduce emissions. The United States, it
said, could lose roughly 1.2 percent of gross domestic product for every 1.8
degrees of warming."

So an extreme rise in temperature of 3.6 degrees could reduce US GDP by 2.4%?
That's about 18 months of average growth. That doesn't seem like a crisis to
me - what am I missing?

~~~
conistonwater
I think you're reading that sentence as if that's the only effect on the US.
Also assuming the effect is linear in the change in temperature (is it
really?).

------
apo
>For the first time in human history — not recorded history, but since humans
have existed on Earth — carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has topped 415 parts
per million, reaching 415.26 parts per million, according to sensors at the
Mauna Loa Observatory, a research outpost of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Agency.

I find the tone of these articles very counterproductive. The article
hyperventilates over the number, but fails to treat it as a scientific result
- one that's open to question by anyone.

Case in point: like most articles on this topic this one totally ignores the
fact that the Mauna Loa station lies just 4 miles from an active volcano.
Active volcanos spew CO2 into the atmosphere naturally.

Given these simple facts, how can this observatory's data be trusted? That's
an _obvious_ question every single person reading the article should have.

Nevertheless, you have to dig for the answer. Here's an explanation:

> ... The observatory is located on the northern slope of the mountain, 4
> miles away from and 2,600 feet lower than the summit, which is 13,675 feet
> above sea level.

> ...

> Most of the time, the observatory experiences “baseline” conditions and
> measures clean air which has been over the Pacific Ocean for days or weeks.
> We know this because the CO2 analyzer usually gives a very steady reading
> which varies by less than 3/10 of a part per million (ppm) from hour to
> hour. These are the conditions we use to calculate the monthly averages that
> go into the famous 50-year graph of atmospheric CO2 concentration.

[https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/mauna-
loa-...](https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/mauna-loa-
co2-record/)

But even this article is vague about how interference from volcanoes is
scrubbed.

The politicization of the issue of human-induced climate change has wrecked
our ability to discuss this as the scientific phenomenon that it s. This leads
to the very antithesis of science: facts that can never be questioned.

~~~
stirbot
This clever thought is common enough to have a page on Skeptical Science.

[https://skepticalscience.com/co2-measurements-
uncertainty.ht...](https://skepticalscience.com/co2-measurements-
uncertainty.htm)

~~~
apo
Unfortunately, that page says nothing about the corrections to the data that
are required for the close proximity to active volcanoes.

Again, it's a very obvious question that's simply brushed aside by most
sources. I'd be interested in finding just one that talks in any meaningful
way about the algorithm used to correct the data from Mauna Loa specifically.

------
chunkyslink
I'm fairly sure that meat production and farming for human consumption is the
best way to have a quick global impact on climate change, slowing
deforestation and slowing species extinction.

Fossil fuels are the wrong target for a quick win (which we need).

Caveat: I eat meat once a week now.

~~~
steve_taylor
You’re talking about changing most of the world’s diet. Good luck with that.

~~~
chunkyslink
There are no 'diets' on a dead planet. Good luck with choosing your diet then.

~~~
eMSF
Few care to have a discussion with hyperbolics.

------
perfunctory
This might be off topic but I just don't know what else to do. I don't
understand why we're not in full-on panic mode yet. It makes me scared. Really
scared. As in I've never been so scared in my life.

We knew about climate change for decades. Scientists keep producing report
after report after report. Every one grimmer then the preceding. Yet the
global GHG emissions just keep going up. Governments and politicians have
failed to act. I am tired of waiting for systemic change. I am tired of
waiting for technological breakthrough.

While we should keep fighting for systemic change, I begin to believe
individual action is paramount and a prerequisite for any broader change to
take place. The time for signing petitions is over. It's time to act. There
are no low-hanging fruits here. There will be no silver bullet. There will be
lots and lots of tweaks across the board.

People don't like being told what to do. I get that. But I am not a politician
telling you what to do. I am your peer crying for help. Please do something.
Please don't say "most people" wan't sacrifice this or that. I am not talking
to most people. I am addressing you, the HN crowd.

So what an honorable member of the HN community can do

\- Stop flying to conferences. Go to a local meetup. It's fun. And cheaper. If
you really need to get out of town, take a train. Don't think about it as not
flying for the rest of your life. Rather, can we declare a moratorium on
conferences for like three years? Let's hope by then Prometheus will give us
carbon-neutral jet fuel
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19842240](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19842240)

\- Shift your investments from fossil to green. If you can't find enough
worthy greens, shift it to anything else. Some say it won't impact your
returns [http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/the-mythical-
per...](http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/the-mythical-peril-of-
divesting-from-fossil-fuels/) Move your deposits and savings to a more
sustainable bank. This might be one of the most underappreciated yet simple
and powerful tools
[https://fairfinanceguide.org](https://fairfinanceguide.org)

\- Work less. Work part time, and part of that part time remotely. Reduce your
commute. If your boss won't let you, find a job that will. In the current job
market you can negotiate almost anything, and remote work must be the easiest
thing to negotiate. [http://cepr.net/documents/publications/climate-change-
worksh...](http://cepr.net/documents/publications/climate-change-
workshare-2013-02.pdf) A firm lets its employees work four days a week while
being paid for five. Everyone is happy, lower electricity bills, fewer cars on
the road [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/world/asia/four-day-
workw...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/world/asia/four-day-workweek-new-
zealand.html)

\- I noticed that this one is quite controversial but I'll mention it anyway.
Reduce your meat consumption as much as you can. It's fine to not go fully
vegan, but make meat a special treat, something you are looking forward to,
not an everyday snack. They say these new vega burgers are not too bad.
[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/30/dining/climat...](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/30/dining/climate-
change-food-eating-habits.html)

Apparently it takes 3.5% of the population to take an active stance to cause a
change
([https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=YJSehRlU34w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=YJSehRlU34w)).
I don't know how true it is or if it applies in all circumstances. But I want
to believe it's true. That's what makes me tick.

~~~
wtdata
The problem is that most of the ideas you propose - although good - only have
force in the West.

Western countries are not the major culprit at the moment. EU has decreased
their CO2 emissions by 20% during the last 30 years. USA has maintained them.
China and India, increased them by 300% and China alone now emits more CO2
than USA, EU and Canada combined.

This is not to say that Western countries can just cross their arms and do
nothing, but, they are not the ones that are going to change the picture and
all this discourse about global warming has been turned in an anti-West
political weapon that never addresses the real issues and never has the
courage to point their finger at the countries that are the biggest problem at
the moment.

This way, I fear no real change will happen until it's too late.

~~~
pavlov
China is taking the problem seriously. Although their one-party rule is
deplorable for human rights, it enables China to move rapidly on major
technological issues like this because the economy is shaped by edicts from
the top.

Anyone in the West who's trying to shift the blame to China is deluding
themselves. We need to fix our politics so we can move with the same
determination as China on this specific issue, not the other way around.

~~~
assblaster
If they're taking it seriously, why do they keep building coal power plants,
building ghost towns, and manufacturing products that won't be sold just to
inflate their GDP numbers?

------
nik61
I'm no climate change denier, but there is a complexity to the effects which
NASA has identified (and recently updated)
[https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-
fer...](https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-
fertilization-greening-earth) In particular the Sahel, famously arid and
increasing in size a few decades ago, is now becoming more fertile again to
the extent that people are moving back there.

~~~
rnentjes
So you're saying the climate is changing?

But seriously, the article you link to is directly stating rising CO2 levels
as one of the causes as CO2 is good for plants.

~~~
akvadrako
The point is that a changing climate doesn't imply a specific policy must be
adapted. The overall effect might even be positive.

~~~
Symmetry
The first half degree Celsius of human induced warming was quite probably a
good thing on net. There's really no way that the fifth half degree will be
anything but a catastrophe.

------
blisterpeanuts
Rising CO2 and temperatures is definitely a problem, but isn't technology
making a difference already? There are millions of hybrid cars on the road
just in the U.S., for example, and already over half a million EV's.

China and India are poised to manufacture and use millions of EV's and we are
about to see a flood of very low price electric vehicles from these countries.

An electric truck maker is opening a plant in Ohio. Fracked natural gas, which
is the "cleanest" fossil fuel, is replacing "dirty" coal in electric power
plants. Residential solar is booming as prices drop and house batteries become
a realistic way to store the power. In Massachusetts, for a few extra dollars
a month you can now opt to purchase "green" electricity.

Research into better batteries, better solar panels, and more efficient hybrid
vehicles and EV's is proceeding apace.

All of these technologies are bound to reduce greenhouse gas production not
just in the developed countries but also in the places where it really counts
--the billions of people of China, India, and Africa.

People are composting and gardening at record levels in the U.S. Interest in
composting and recycling is now widespread.

If we accept that we have produced too much CO2 and need to scale back on
burning stuff and allow the atmosphere and ecosystem to return to a _status
quo ante_ then some legislative efforts to institute and continue tax
incentives to spur technology seems like the right thing to do.

~~~
perfunctory
> but isn't technology making a difference already?

not really. If you look up emissions charts, they just keep going up.

------
alexandercrohde
For those wanting to discuss solutions, and not just problems, how about a
wide-ranging carbon tax?

Specifically, a carbon tax set at _The cost of recapture_ that then goes
toward recapture (within the US, audited).

So for example, if this were applied to gasoline, it would just over double
the cost but give zero-emissions. This is something engineers like us could
easily afford in our personal lives. Worst case scenario, I imagine all things
we buy would double in price.

However, as billions (if not trillions) get spent on such a technology it
would hopefully get more efficient.

So perhaps a rollout schedule of: 2020 - 1% of recapture cost 2021 - 2% of
recapture cost 2022 - 4% of recapture cost 2025 - 10% of recapture cost (and
so on)

Basic food items for survival could have their capture cost subsidized by the
government, so as not to harm those on the brink of poverty.

The brilliancy of this simple economic solution is that if meat produces way
too much carbon, the cost will start to reflect that, and people will
gradually move to more efficient foods or have an incentive to find a way to
make more carbon-neutral ways to make meat.

~~~
paraschopra
> This is something engineers like us could easily afford in our personal
> lives

This is a clue on why just carbon tax won't do. An extra tax would hit the
people who're most economically stressed while the top 10% will continue
living their lives as is. Any tax on carbon should be accompanied with a
negative tax or UBI for the low income earners. Moreover, since 50% of
emissions are done by the top 10% income earners [1], there should ideally be
a higher income tax which should direct go into funding R&D of carbon capture
systems.

[1] [https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/extreme-carbon-
inequality](https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/extreme-carbon-inequality)

------
VMG
This could have been avoided by using Nuclear power.

~~~
SiempreViernes
We are already using lots of Nuclear power, turns out it didn't help!

Nuclear power is slow to build safely, and if we had started to build all that
power decades ago of the sake of avoiding climate change you are already in
the bizzaro timeline where the regime _cared about climate change decades
ago_.

~~~
VMG
> We are already using lots of Nuclear power, turns out it didn't help!

Of course it did. Lots of CO2 emissions were avoided. It helped much more than
all wind and solar combined.

Of course regimes didn't care, and their refusal to build new nuclear power
plants proves they still don't care.

------
maypeacepreva1l
This is scary because of our current political situation. Even when nature is
on our side we have mindless headstrong morons heading nuclear states and we
seem to be in verge of war. People do not trust science and still believe in
afterlife and heaven or hell rather than believing in our planet and its
current problems. Amount of CO2 is definitely going to trigger extreme climate
change and that is going to destabilize our geopolitics, and we simply are not
ready for that change. We should start making life style changes for the sake
of millions of species that are getting extinct and also to start a culture of
responsible citizen of earth.

------
steve_taylor
The Bible gives man dominion over the Earth. Presumably, that’s a license to
do whatever we want with it without consequence. The Bible predicts an
apocolypse driven by supernatural forces, not one of man’s making. There’s no
room for both, therefore the one in the Bible is true and the one predicted by
heathens is false. This is why Christians, specifically, tend to dismiss man-
made global warming.

Also, there’s a lot of fear out there that renewable energy means less jobs,
especially across the entire coal mining supply chain. There’s a fear that
transitioning to a renewable energy economy means a transition from dumb jobs
to smart jobs.

~~~
lumberjack
Just want to point out that "Christians" in this context refers to some sects
of Christianity in America and these beliefs are not the norm amongst
Christians worldwide. Actually I hazard, not even the norm amongst Christians
in the US.

~~~
pavlov
As someone who grew up a mainstream European Lutheran, the views of American
evangelical Christians have always seemed more like a doomsday cult than
anything based on Jesus's teachings.

It boggles my mind that these people have taken over the definition of
Christianity in such an influential country. I imagine my feelings about
evangelicals are roughly the same as how mainstream muslims feel about Islamic
State.

~~~
orbifold
Which is why they were forced out of Europe in the first place.

------
polskibus
Can anyone recommend a reliable, self calibrating CO2 sensors that could be
used with raspberry pi and similar or that could transmit data via BLE or
wifi?

~~~
scaphandre
The 'Netatmo' home weather stations record CO2 level. Mine shares over wifi. I
get around 400ppm with windows open for a while, or 1200ppm with windows
closed.

I don't know what the calibration mechanism is, nor the specificity.

It's around $100 on Amazon - [https://www.amazon.com/Netatmo-Weather-Station-
for-Smartphon...](https://www.amazon.com/Netatmo-Weather-Station-for-
Smartphone/dp/B0095HVAKS)

------
novaRom
Overpopulation is real. We moved from 4 billions in 1974 to current 7.7
billions in 2019. Projections are more than 11 billions around 2100.

~~~
rocgf
Which is really the problem, isn't it? However, no politician says this
publicly because Western economies are built on a gigantic Ponzi scheme where
we need more and more people to be born and create wealth for our ever-
increasing retirements.

Am I simplifying things excessively here?

------
yjhoney
This Ted talk gave me hope to reverse climate change and seems plausible:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI&t=163s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI&t=163s)

Does anyone know / have experience whether this actually works?

~~~
perfunctory
That was a good talk but that alone will not be enough. No single solution
will be enough. We need lots and lots of solutions across all sectors of
economy. And while we are waiting for those solutions to materialise we should
do our bit and start consuming less.

------
nec4b
I would really like to understand those who are angry, feel helpless or are
depressed because climate is changing. What is the thing makes you feel bad:
is it the change itself, the direction of the change or maybe the cause of the
change?

------
torgian
Ive almost lost hope at this point; while I will continue to support green
movements and live closer to green, I don’t hold any faith that things will
change.

If they do, great. Otherwise, prepare your children for a world where their
children may be less intelligent due to higher concentrations of Co2. Water
will be expensive. People will wear masks everywhere and only rich people can
afford houses with completely pure air.

I truly hope it doesn’t come to this, but my fear is that when pollution gets
to a certain point, those in charge will basically say “fuck it” and let
things run their course.

~~~
fifnir
>prepare your children

If you're stressed about the environment you shouldn't be having children

~~~
neuronic
Yes, but maybe his children will contribute in massively positive ways that
end up negating their negative climate impact.

Every child is also a chance.

~~~
IshKebab
Maybe but it's extremely unlikely. Think about the amount of damage a single
person does to the environment. It would take a truly insane effort for
someone to have a beneficial effect on it (assuming the live in civilisation).

------
dana321
[https://www.kane.co.uk/knowledge-centre/what-are-safe-
levels...](https://www.kane.co.uk/knowledge-centre/what-are-safe-levels-of-co-
and-co2-in-rooms)

------
maelito
Are methane or black carbon converted to CO2 equivalents and included in that
metric ? If not, why aren't they published along with the CO2 curve ?

------
orloffm
Realistically, can anything be done without turning off electricity at the
whole globe at once? "Going Amish", one might say?

It's not just about burning coal or going green, we are also using resources
which are not replenishable. Even if all cars become electric and we switch to
nuclear power and start eating bugs, we'll keep producing plastic, chemical
substances and so on.

------
mehrdadn
Wondering what you can do? Especially for liberals? My idea of where to start:
shame your company into phasing out business trips. I know we all like to
travel but it needs to stop being seen as a work perk and start being seen as
a liability. We put internet cables across the oceans and continents for a
reason -- so we travel less, not more. Find a way to reward those who refuse
to go -- maybe have a fun local hangout or whatever. Get your supervisor chain
to stop making someone fly every month/week/whatever. Because every cross-
continental/trans-atlantic flight (very roughly) emits around 20% [1] and 100%
[2] of your _entire year 's worth of driving_.

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/climate/airplane-
pollutio...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/climate/airplane-pollution-
global-warming.html)

[2]
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/sep/09/car...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/sep/09/carbon-
emissions-planes-shipping)

------
mrhappyunhappy
Good site I came across from a ted talk, lists problems and solutions:
drawdown.org

------
gavanwoolery
Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but is a volcano the best place for an
unbiased CO2 observatory? Even if dormant, I assume that CO2 vents out of the
volcano naturally? Please note I am not trolling or trying to be skeptical,
this is just an honest question.

~~~
calcifer
> Please note I am not trolling or trying to be skeptical

You may not be trolling but you _are_ being skeptical. Specifically, the way
you worded your question ("unbiased observatory") makes it sound like the
scientists who put it there did so not for scientific reasons, but for some...
agenda?

Personally, since I'm not an expert on environmental sciences, I have no
trouble believing the observatory is there for perfectly sound scientific
reasons.

~~~
gavanwoolery
I assume they put the observatory at that site for a reason as well, I just
want to learn why. I honestly have no agenda and personally do believe in
anthropogenic global warming. :)

~~~
calcifer
Fair enough, it's probably the "unbiased" that kinda rubbed me the wrong way
:)

~~~
gavanwoolery
I hear you, it is often hard to decipher intentions online - anyhow, I
answered my own question using the power of Google:
[https://skepticalscience.com/mauna-loa-volcano-
co2-measureme...](https://skepticalscience.com/mauna-loa-volcano-
co2-measurements.htm)

~~~
calcifer
Nice find! TLDR below:

> Why Mauna Loa? Early attempts to measure CO2 in the USA and Scandinavia
> found that the readings varied a lot due to the influence of growing plants
> and the exhaust from motors. Mauna Loa is ideal because it is so remote from
> big population centres. Also, on tropical islands at night, the prevailing
> winds blow from the land out to sea, which effect brings clean, well-mixed
> Central Pacific air from high in the atmosphere to the observatory. This
> removes any interference coming from the vegetation lower down on the
> island.

> But how about gas from the volcano? It is true that volcanoes blow out CO2
> from time to time and that this can interfere with the readings. Most of the
> time, though, the prevailing winds blow the volcanic gasses away from the
> observatory. But when the winds do sometimes blow from active vents towards
> the observatory, the influence from the volcano is obvious on the normally
> consistent records and any dubious readings can be easily spotted and edited
> out.

------
torpilla
Plant life matters called. They said thank you.

------
agumonkey
some study said that 150 trees per living human being would alter the
atmosphere a bit

let's get ready

------
nudq
I think I've seen cute infographics on what a tiny, tiny fraction of earth
history is "human history".

~~~
consp
10-20 mil. years is enough for changes in the atmosphere to happen which is
why this is relevant. Yes, it is a tiny fraction but is quite relevant in the
sense of our 'recent' geological history.

------
jo-wol
Tomorrow it will be 416 ppm first time in human history!

------
blablabla123
This looks like the famous hockey stick curve

------
indigo62018
and this is 416th comment... coincidentally

------
diafygi
> an army of lobbyists and media companies to push the hoax/not-our-problem-
> narrative

I've noticed on most of the climate change posts on HN that they 1. fall off
the front page very quickly (due to systemic flagging?) and 2. every single
comment that's pro-fighting-climate-change has a "skeptical" reply that hits
all the denier FUD talking points. For example, your comment has a reply
saying both sides exaggerate, thus muddying the point you're trying to make.
Classic whataboutism talking point.

What I don't understand is if HN mods see this going on and can tell if the
person is a shill or an actual climate denier. Statistically, replies in these
threads should skew heavily towards pro-fighting-climate-change, but even in
this post, it seems like every other reply is denier talking points. It is
really starting to make me think that HN doesn't care about stopping shills.

~~~
rayiner
> What I don't understand is if HN mods see this going on and can tell if the
> person is a shill or an actual climate denier. Statistically, replies in
> these threads should skew heavily towards pro-fighting-climate-change, but
> even in this post, it seems like every other reply is denier talking points.
> It is really starting to make me think that HN doesn't care about stopping
> shills.

People on HN are rational and thus see through most of the “pro-fighting-
climate-change” posts, which address easy non-solutions.

To keep the temperature increase to 2C, we have to immediately cut CO2
emissions by 19GT. That takes the world back to 1990. And if you don’t want
India and China to be mired in extreme poverty like they were in 1990, you
really have to take the developed world to zero. Under other models, we have
to go to zero carbon emissions tomorrow world wide. You cannot “fight climate
change” while buying vegetables shipped across state lines and coffee shipped
from overseas. You can’t go on international vacations and post pictures on
Facebook. You can’t live in trendy places like Austin that require year-around
heating and cooling. You can’t participate in the mass consumer economy at
all—25% of your carbon footprint is non-food stuff you buy. (Just the consumer
stuff your average American buys amounts to 5-10x the total carbon output of
your average Bangladeshi.) You can’t work in advertising—in a zero carbon
output economy the consumerism that feeds advertising companies can’t exist.

There is also the major problem of "climate change angles" on things that
don't actually help avoid climate change. Take high-speed rail, for example.
To offset the carbon realized by building California's HSR, the system would
have to have over 10 million riders per year, more than the entire Amtrak
northeast corridor: [https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2011/11/how-green-
hig...](https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2011/11/how-green-high-speed-
rail/492). (It is ludicrous to expect that a rail link between two enormously
car-dependent metro areas, that goes through extremely low-density areas in-
between, would somehow have the ridership of the densest corridor in the
country, connecting some of the cities with the most well-developed intra-city
and commuter rail systems.)

Then there is stuff like LEED construction: [https://www.imt.org/should-i-
stay-or-should-i-go-the-embodie...](https://www.imt.org/should-i-stay-or-
should-i-go-the-embodied-carbon-of-new-and-existing-buildings). Companies are
patting themselves on the back, tearing down old buildings and putting up new,
LEED-certified buildings. Except that it will take 25-75 years to offset the
upfront carbon footprint of new construction versus reusing existing
construction, for longer than current climate-change timelines allow.

Unless you’re espousing these solutions, and present credible ways of
achieving them, you’re not “fighting climate change.”

~~~
acidburnNSA
I had an argument with my SO about how very few people truly believes in
climate change enough to change their lifestyle. It's mostly virtue
signalling. This was while planning a flight to London with about 4000 lbs CO2
for the two of us.

In Seattle, you can sit on a chilly day on the porch of a popular restaurant
and overhear people lamenting climate change while they sit under a row of 8
large blasting fracked gas heaters.

People don't want to go out of their way to think and change. It's a difficult
PR problem due to human nature.

I'm trying to build advanced nuclear fission reactors to fight climate change
but unfortunately burning oil is more popular in the polls.

~~~
ForHackernews
I'm sorry, but this is such an irritating argument. In the absence of any
coordinated action, why should I make my lifestyle worse just so you can use
up my portion of our shared CO2 budget?

This is the exact same argument as "well if you advocate for higher taxes, why
don't you voluntarily donate more money to the government?" It's a dumb
argument in that context and still a dumb argument in this one.

The key part of shared sacrifice is that it's _shared_.

~~~
rayiner
Let me restate your point, because it’s a good one. The gist of your point is,
if there is no collective action, then nothing will change, and “why should I
make my lifestyle worse” if nothing will change?

The next step to realize is that, in the US, our “shared CO2 budget” is zero,
possibly negative, in light of continued development in China, India, and
Africa. Imagine how much CO2 emissions could be reduced if everyone in the US
became vegan tomorrow. Now, realize that Chinese development in _last year
alone_ went up by enough to offset the _entirety_ of that hypothetical
savings.

Why “should I make my lifestyle worse” when development in India, China, and
Africa is going to increase global CO2 output by multiples of the entire
output of the US and EU combined?

~~~
ForHackernews
My personal opinion is that citizens of democracies need to demand urgent
action from their government, and that action will include wealth transfer to
developing nations to help them decarbonize and trade sanctions and
theoretically even war (or at least the threat of war) against authoritarian
countries that refuse to meet their global obligations.

This is a global problem, and it requires global action to have any hope.

For what it's worth, I think the risk of Chinese and Indian pollution is
overstated. At least the Chinese government accepts that climate change is a
real threat (unlike the current US administration) and is moving (too slowly,
but still) in the right policy direction.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Aren't Chinese moving faster than pretty much everyone? Last I checked, they
were pretty into reducing use of coal, and deploying a lot of nuclear power
plants instead.

Agree about wealth transfer to developing nations, and honestly I'd also love
to see _IP transfer_. Developing nations have the right to the same life-
saving and life-improving technologies the West enjoys, but they also have the
opportunity to leap-frog and skip the high-carbon-footprint parts, the way
they did with phones (skipping landlines and going straight to cellular). We
should at least _strongly encourage_ them to do that leapfrogging - though
preferably by subsidizing it instead of threatening war.

~~~
rayiner
> Aren't Chinese moving faster than pretty much everyone? Last I checked, they
> were pretty into reducing use of coal, and deploying a lot of nuclear power
> plants instead.

China currently has so many coal plants under construction that their output
exceed’s the US coal industry’s entire output. China’s goal is to have 20% EVs
in the consumer vehicles market by 2025. That means China will put 100 million
new ICE vehicles on the road over the next 5 years, and will continue to put
tens of millions of additional ICE vehicles on the road each year after that.
China is building whole new cities. Construction releases enormous amounts of
CO2. Construction releases so much CO2 that a fancy new LEED building takes
decades to pay off its construction footprint with energy savings. From 2000
to 2015, China added over 6 gigatons of CO2 output. That’s more than the
entire US. In 2017, China added 120 megatons of CO2 output while the US cut 40
megatons.

------
dana321
Must be all the bitcoin mining!

~~~
chunkyslink
I'm not sure why you are being downvoted. Mining is very inefficient

~~~
nudq
> Mining is very inefficient

Compared to what?

------
novaRom
Basically all civilizations end like this. There were many before, there might
be some in the future.

If we'll destroy biology completely we still have a small chance a new type of
existence can emerge - silicon based intelligent form, what we call AI right
now. It probably can survive without oxygen, even without planet. But it's a
big MAYBE yet.

------
lm28469
Man the chinese are taking the hoax way too far. /s

We need a major shift in our ways of producing/consuming and on our quest for
progress at all cost. We're heading for major issues, even in the short term.
Humanity is committing suicide and taking Life with her.

[https://reliefweb.int/report/world/climate-migrants-might-
re...](https://reliefweb.int/report/world/climate-migrants-might-reach-one-
billion-2050)

[https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/el...](https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/)

