
No one gives a fuck about Climate Change - titojankowski
http://titojankowski.com/no-one-gives-a-fck-about-climate-change/
======
JimboOmega
Fousing on CO2 may give that kind of result, but if you focus on another
indicator, like say, sea ice, there's also charts for days, e.g.:

[https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/](https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/)

Truth is that CO2, unlike financial indicators, increase monotonously, and
even big changes at the national scale only introduce very subtle and gradual
changes to it. However, other indicators change much faster (and not as
monotonically).

~~~
titojankowski
I wonder how we could build more of a story around "monotonous" datasets. What
events could be called out on a monthly chart like
[https://99bitcoins.com](https://99bitcoins.com) A volcano? An explosion? A
factory fire? A change in fuel policies?

~~~
jlangemeier
The problem with CO2 is that it's a delayed process. We may not see the
results globally of changes in CO2 until years later; unless it's a very
localized event that affects the monitoring station
[https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2016/08/31/br...](https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2016/08/31/brief-
reprieve-from-400-ppm-era-may-be-thanks-to-a-hurricane/). And even then, those
small blips will be hard to call out/notice on a global scale (i.e. if we
factored in multiple monitoring stations). Since most shorter term changes in
CO2 will be localized and temporary, you're going to run into
[https://xkcd.com/1138/](https://xkcd.com/1138/).

That's not to say that it wouldn't be a good idea to do, if we could attribute
local events to local anomalies in CO2 we might be able to get people
"incentivized" to get something that monitors it in their area and get some
sort of gamification of groups trying to get their numbers lower.

~~~
titojankowski
Reminds me of those visualizations designed for magnifying tiny changes,
Eulerian Video Magnification:
[https://youtu.be/ONZcjs1Pjmk](https://youtu.be/ONZcjs1Pjmk)

Perhaps a potential application?

------
CiPHPerCoder
Focusing time on climate change has the benefit of being right. This is good
for the collective.

Focusing on blockchains has the benefit of being potentially profitable. This
is good for the individual trying to get ahead of their competition in the rat
race of life.

Guess which incentivizes human behavior more?

~~~
nonbel
Proof of work mining always struck me as very close to being ideal energy
credits.

If cheap energy is available then mining will be cheap, and thus you get
cheaper coins and cheaper fees, leading to inflation (and more spending). On
the other hand if energy becomes scarce, the currency will become more scarce
and expensive so you get deflation (and more saving). It looks like (in
theory) a nice feedback that encourages development of cheap/decentralized
energy sources.

~~~
titojankowski
Yea totally, cheap energy = cheap compute = cheap mining

~~~
nonbel
I can't tell if this is sarcastic or not. If so, what is wrong with the
reasoning?

~~~
titojankowski
Not sarcastic at all! That's how it could work. If you had free electricity,
mining would be awesome sauce: [http://www.coindesk.com/microscope-economic-
environmental-co...](http://www.coindesk.com/microscope-economic-
environmental-costs-bitcoin-mining/)

