
Most Important Stat on the Planet: Alarm as Atmospheric CO2 Soars to Record High - FailMore
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/06/05/single-most-important-stat-planet-alarm-atmospheric-co2-soars-legit-scary-record
======
perfunctory
> Greta Thunberg—the 16-year-old Swedish activist who helped inspire the
> worldwide surge in youth climate mobilizations—argued that the success or
> failure of the global climate movement will be determined by one measure:
> "the emission curve."

> "People always tell me and the other millions of school strikers that we
> should be proud of ourselves for what we have accomplished," Thunberg wrote.
> "But the only thing that we need to look at is the emission curve. And I'm
> sorry, but it's still rising.

So sobering to here this from a 16-year old. There is so much of a self-
celebratory tone in some climate circles - "Great conference. Great event. We
sent a strong message. We are working on such and such fantastic technology.
The end of cool. This pledge. That promise". Sorry, your tech startup is worth
nothing while PPM is still rising.

In the context of the recent popular HN post [0], stop working your ass off.
Take a day off. And then another one. Go meet your friends you haven't seen in
a long while. Go for a walk. Better for climate and your mental health.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20116699](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20116699)

------
Circuits
The real problem is that the people who can do something about it are getting
paid by the oil companies not to. You know and I know it, its that simple,
they are being bribed.

~~~
IshKebab
It's easy to blame politicians and oil companies. That's not really the
ultimate cause though - it's and uncaring and growing population.

Most people still don't care about the environment - that's why politicians
don't care. And even fewer people care about overpopulation. I think they
don't even consider it to be a problem.

------
dr_dshiv
I find the focus on co2 a hard sell for public engagement with
environmentalism. Not quite "save the whales".

There is more to climate change and environmentalism than co2. I don't see co2
as anywhere close to "the most important stat on the planet"

~~~
KnightOfWords
It's the stat most directly related to 'possible future food production'.

~~~
dr_dshiv
Not "local precipitation"? Plants grow faster with more co2, as far as I
understand it.

------
imafish
I would really wish that this received the same kind of attention from people
in power, as it does from the younger generations.

~~~
partiallypro
It gets plenty of attention from the top, the problem is that most measures to
curtail emissions have negative economic impacts. You don't want to be the
Senator/Congressman that made foreclosures rise because factories went belly
up.

Also, at least in the West, the general consensus is that even if the US were
to cut emissions drastically it would hardly make a dent due to China and
India. So you'd cripple the US economy, but China and India would continue at
pace and become even more cost competitive. The only real solution is a global
binding resolution with audits, similar to nuclear treaties...not a Paris
Accord which was not binding and largely just fodder.

It's not an easy problem, it's certainly not as easy as the younger generation
seems to think when it comes to fixing. Not only is the environment at stake,
but so are people's paychecks and livelihoods. The Green New Deal did the
movement no favors by being completely outlandish and unrealistic in a global
economy.

~~~
imafish
In my opinion, this is the same as saying that we should keep using slaves for
manual labor, because it would hurt the economy if we set them free.

It should not be allowed to ruin the world for other people as a living. If
China and India keep doing that, we stop buying their stuff. However, if we
keep ruining the world for a living ourselves, it is very hard to point
fingers at others.

Also, there are still lots of money to be made in renewable energy and
emissionless energy consumption. Tax what you want less of, give financial
support to what you want more of.

~~~
partiallypro
You lost me at comparing an externality to literal slavery. I'm sure if you
lost your job and were without a job for a year or 3, you'd not sing the same
tune.

"If China and India keep doing that, we stop buying their stuff."

This would cripple the global economy and throw millions into poverty.

------
smartbit
[https://outline.com/5MbTfg](https://outline.com/5MbTfg)

------
edejong
Yet climate change scepticism is rising. Are we using the right rhetoric?
What’s wrong with the current approach?

~~~
program_whiz
The answer to this question isn't surprising -- people resist science that
doesn't fit their views for a reason, it means uncomfortable changes. Let me
list a few reasons some people may doubt/resist:

1\. If this were true, I would be wrong, and since all my experience suggests
I'm right, the evidence is probably wrong.

2\. So many times people have been sure of things, especially scientists, yet
they were shown to be wrong, so they are probably wrong again.

3\. These studies are being picked or even conducted because there is an
environmental agenda, I don't believe it because I'm sure we could conduct a
"study" that would reach the opposite conclusion, but all the scientists are
biased that way (just like global cooling in the 70s, or how Vioxx was deemed
"safe" by FDA scientists).

4\. If this is true, its proponents will cram a political agenda down my
throat, since I don't agree politically, but have no counter-proposal, I must
disagree with the evidence to avoid the politically losing confrontation.

5\. There are no viable plans to fix the problem, accepting the evidence would
put me in a psychological bind since there really isn't a way to solve it --
not recycling, driving less, nuclear, there is NO known solution right now, so
we must say this is false.

6\. People who say "just believe science" don't seem to believe science on
other fronts (e.g. gender differences), or have beliefs I see as obviously
wrong, so I can't believe they'd be right about this single item but wrong
about so much else.

7\. The people who are most pushing this agenda are obviously politcally, not
scientifically motivated, so I question the evidence due to "motivation".

8\. Overselling and shouting make me disbelieve your claims. Usually a calm
and reasonable approach sells, but you're telling me "change now or die", and
Al Gore said that 20 years ago and it didn't happen.

