Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

We're seeing record shattering temperatures in different parts of the world a lot this yet - yet the article doesn't even mention climate change. As long as we keep shoveling meat into our faces 5x per day and the population keeps expanding at break-neck rate, we have massive heatwaves and endless storms to look forward to. And then that road will come to an end, and it won't be pretty.



> As long as we keep shoveling meat into our faces 5x per day

Right, because that's your biggest problem.

It couldn't be the fossil fuels used for transportation (29%) or the industry that produces the goods and the raw materials like cement (22%), the production of electricity (28%), or even the commercial and residential emissions (12%).

Oh no, our biggest problem has to be agriculture (9%). And let's not talk about the use of fertilizers, or of the transportation of food for thousands of miles before it reaches the table. Let's also not talk about the practice of burning crop residues, or of the seas of plastic.

The problem has to be meat and the solution is to shame meat eaters.


The problem is everything. I sometimes have discussions with people about unnecessary flights. People always point out, that there is no need to change their flying habits as long as industry is producing even more CO2. The thing is that if we want to turn this around we have to change our behavior in everything. We need to radically adjust our travel patterns, our consumption patterns (why a new phone every 2 years?), our eating patterns, our energy sources, etc.

Unfortunately, I fear that it is too late to turn things around. Climate change has been a known serious problem for at least three to four decades. But politicians do not want to bring the bad news that we need to change our lives drastically in order to get their votes the next election.

But we should still try for future generations. No more holidays by plane. Switch to renewable energy. Live close to work and travel by bike or work remotely. And yes, perhaps eat a little less meat.


Yes, meat and meat eaters are a very big problem here. Not the only one as you pointed out, but look at is this way:

- Industrial regulations will take years if not forever to be reformed to offset the damage in that sector. You also have big money in keeping things "business as usual", so good luck with that. Things need to be made.

- Transportation: it will take years to get all the gasoline-fueled vehicles off the road, although there are some good strides being made here. However, the biggest issue is that electric cars are prohibitively expensive, and people still need to get to work.

- Production of electricity: again, good strides being made in this department but it's still years away. We need electricity.

- Meat eating: you, the people next to you, _everyone_ can immediately decide this very second to do their part. Here's the thing about food though - human beings don't need to eat meat. There is plenty of plant-based food out there and at this day and age and depending on your location, highly restricting your meat and dairy use is the easiest it's ever been.

Out of the list of issues you described contributing to climate change, the one you are annoyed at me for bringing up is the only one that you personally can fix, entirely by yourself. Yet, you choose not to, and I don't really understand why.

tl;dr: All those other issues require change at a massive level that the "average Joe" can't do a whole lot about. But eating no or less meat requires minimal effort, everyone can do it starting right this second, and it has a huge payoff. Not just on a climate impact scale, but on a global health level.

If people won't even make that first step that can be done for no effort, how do you think any of those huge issues will get figured out?


> you, the people next to you, _everyone_ can immediately decide this very second to do their part

Or, with all due respect, I can tell you to fuck off.

My problem with environmental movements is people basically bring their own beliefs and agendas in, with no support from science and then rub it in other people's faces, trying to turn their religion into policy.

We could have a chat about how most vegans are deficient in certain vitamins and proteins, making the vegan diet, in fact, more challenging than any other diet. We could also talk about how animals and plants could be raised sustainably. But there would be no point to it because your mind is already set.

And it's incredibly frustrating to see the minds of Silicon Valley invest in fake meat instead of solving problems that actually matter, but that's not new.


You're right about the meat but peak population growth rate was 50 years ago.

See: https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/05/Updated-World-Pop...


Rate could also mean people/year instead of %/year.


growth in people/year is surprisingly constant over the last 50 years

https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&...


Oh, interesting.


I guess editorializing on the causes of weather trends is not within the scope of AccuWeather?


Or that the family that runs Accuweather has been deeply enmeshed with the party of climate denialism for the past few decades. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-06-14/trump-s-p...


Fair, but the mere mention of the phrase "climate change" is better than pretending it's some anomaly and we have no idea why.

I know, I know - I don't want to soapbox here. But we're spiraling towards disaster in our lifetimes and I can't help but think that hundreds of millions are blissfully unaware.


Conflate weather and climate, I thought that's what "deniers" do?


According to normal variations around the long term average, these kind of temperatures would be happening once every 50 or 100 years, but they are happening now every few years. There’s only so many times you can roll a six before you conclude the die is loaded, and you should really start worrying when the die starts rolling sevens!


These temperatures are breaking 60-70 year old records. For example the prior Paris record was set in July 1947. And is about to drop to seasonal averages starting tomorrow (80s F)... You're quite wrong on this.


That's a good point for single day records, for cities, but not for longer term and larger scale anomalies. The more you zoom in on time or scale the more noise dominates signal, and the less effect any warming trend will have. Here are the yearly figures for the 100 km grid square which contains Paris, for reference:

https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/local-temperature-interac...


Calm down, there will be a war or virus or climate change itself will help us with the overpopulation problem.

If you killed every second person and planted a tree things will balance themselves out.


You joke (I think) but that's the path we're headed down. I'm fully expecting over a billion people to die within my lifetime from disease, malnutrition, and war spurred by climate change. It's foolish to think humans are so different from other life that we won't have a population crash after such rapid growth.


You should probably expect far more than that over your lifetime, but you can pretty much ignore malnutrition and war based on current data on causes of death. Already about 1.8 people die around the world every second from all causes. That's a billion people in less than 18 years. Half of those are for people over 70. About 80% of the deaths are people 50 years and older. 30% of all deaths are from cardiovascular diseases, over 85% of all deaths are from some sort of disease. If you correlate the various diseases with age it's not unreasonable to claim "old age" as the biggest killer. Even if we gain mastery over planetary climate as an engineering solution to climate change, without tackling old age, your estimates on billions of deaths from disease should not change.


I could have been clearer, but I meant disease, malnutrition, and war, each spurred by climate change. Diseases like malaria and cholera that would have infected far fewer people if not for climate change. I'm thinking at least a billion plus people on top of the baseline rate of dying.


I joke because the parent statement had so much fear and emotion. Sometimes things are out of our control. The world has systems for balancing everything.

On the positive side without population crashes evolution doesn't work so in some ways things are working as as designed.


Are you volunteering?


You kill I'll plant a tree on every grave.




Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: