Personally, I don't care about carbon taxes (I drive a Tesla, too). The poor people on the other hand, will have to suffer even more apparently. They are the main beneficiaries of cheap energy/pollution, since they buy a lot of stuff that's only cheap because it comes from countries like China and India and taxes on fossil fuels and meat will hit them hardest.
Also, instead of taxation - which is more more easily fungible - you aim for the phasing-out/banning of industrial processes which are overly polluting. With that, there's less of an immediate gain from careless de-regulation.
She might be right but I am older so it doesn't matter. /s
The truth is that you don't need any exemplary understanding or expertise to understand that if 99% of the scientific population in the whole world are screaming about climate change, backed by literally decades of research, you might just accept that, instead of living in your barricaded fragile ego because children are smarter than you.
Also, support from people with deep pockets? All institutions with deep pockets lose money by reducing their emissions. That is the most illogical backwards conspiracy i've ever heard.
sarcasm And yes, of course, global warming is the biggest existential threat to humanity. Poverty, hunger, addiction, homelessness, open defecation, and other trivial issues aren't really the ones Governments' should prioritize, it should be protecting humpback whales and ecosystems! sarcasm
Realize there are finite amount of resources any Government can direct towards any problem. If all attention and resources go to global warming (which is open ended problem as compared to poverty), then we will end up with disastrous consequences, both to humans and to the planet.
Global warming is an existential threat to modern civilization. If we allow it to continue unchecked, it will result in catastrophic changes in prevailing weather patterns, sea level, and animal and plant life. These might not be enough to wipe out all human life on the planet—we might very well even be able to recover from it, eventually—but it is likely to create enough instability worldwide to cause many major governments to topple.
Now, again, this is if we let it go completely unchecked, and none of this is stuff that would happen within a year or two. But we're already seeing some of the effects, and there's nothing to suggest we won't see the rest if we just shrug our shoulders and say, "Eh, there are other important things, too."
Most of which get worse w/climate change
Currently standard of living are growing almost all over the world and human population is predicted to pick and stabilize at around 11 billion.
I really recommend "DON'T PANIC — Hans Rosling showing the facts about population"
What's also interesting in his video is the fact that people tend to be very misinformed about state of the world affairs. E.g. when asked questions about certain statistics, they do worse than random. And the better educated you are the more misinformed you may be.
Or would "unsustainable carbon emissions and ecological damage" be enough? And if that's enough, aren't we already there today?
But the important question is what would you do about possibility of overpopulation however it is defined?
If you want to invest in health care and education in Africa - awesome! You have my full support. For example educating woman has excellent side effect of reducing fertility rate.
If you think about enforcing population restrictions, then you should think harder. How do you imagine that would look like on a global scale if you can't get USA to stick to Paris Climate accord? Some country with nuclear weapons threatening mutual assured destruction if some other country doesn't stick to 1 kid policy? Ridiculous.
And yes, I would gladly give up my right to procreate. I have no interest in having children, primarily because I believe it's a terrible thing to do in today's world.
We, you and I, the top 10% richest people in the world are responsible for 50% of global emissions. Population of my home country is declining rapidly, I bet yours home country is as well.
Also let me ask you a nasty question, why should your right to exists trump someone else right to have children? Why don't you leave and make space for 10 children that will be born somewhere in Africa, that will probably emit less CO2 during their whole life than you already did?
I'm not claiming I have a right to exist. In fact, that was the thesis of my comment, so you may want to work on your reading comprehension. You're the only one claiming anyone has a right to exist (or a right to be born). In my opinion your rights only exist after you are born, meaning no person should have the right to procreate.
So, I think more productive question would be: How would you take away people right to procreate?
How do you imagine doing that if you can't get USA to stick to Paris Climate accord?
If you want to invest in health care and education in Africa - awesome! You have my full support. For example educating woman has excellent side effect of reducing fertility rate without taking any of their rights.
Yes, the solution is to stop thinking of procreation as a naturally occurring event and to instead limit each person to 1 living offspring (so each couple can produce 2 children). By the way, science doesn't provide solutions (that's engineering). Science only provides explanations.
Second: How do you propose to enforce your limitation?
I'm sorry are you a politician or an authority figure?
How did you measure the optimal number to be 1? And how would you value an ethnic minority to be just as valuable as the majority? Don't you support greater minority birth rates at the expense of the majority?
No, that's philosophy. Granted, I haven't encountered a reproducible study on climate change, the scientific method proves or disproves hypotheses to provide a baseline of knowledge. The scientific method is how scientists develop early-stage solutions to climate change, not building contraptions.
Frankly, I don't care what the relative birth rates are between "minorities" and "majorities." By the way, which metric are you using to define minority? Is it height? Nose size? Personality type? I'm guessing it's just race, which is a very narrow criteria, but that's the only the criteria respected by the modern definition of "diversity."
> No, that's philosophy.
Erm... no. Science can give us an explanation for what is causing climate change, and even how quickly climate change is occurring, but designing a solution to it is firmly in the domain of engineering.
Anyway, that's all semantics. As to how I came up with the "1" number is really pretty straightforward though. That number will prevent the population from growing or shrinking -- it will maintain the current number. Isn't that obvious?
Speaking as bluntly as I can here : if you want to have kids to gain a 'deep and rewarding purpose' because you somehow feel lacking in purpose, please don't have children.
It's analogous to a teenager that joins the military out of high school because "they don't know what they want to do.".
Figure things out, then make a decision. Don't make some big brash decision in order to figure things out. The only 'depth' that might added to your life may actually just be unenjoyable complexity and nuance.
This is a fundamental tragedy of the commons. I feel guilty about even wanting to have two kids at some point due to the climate impact. Everywhere I look I see people having large families without caring. This has to be balanced long term for our species (and others) to survive centuries from now.
Because its not an issue any more. The world wide population is stabilizing. Most countries of the earth will face a population collapse in the next 30 years.
Is it harder? Sure. But it's possible. More people is more labor to fix things. The labor just needs to be used correctly, and consumption needs to be reduced and changed.
Talking about overpopulation and "shaming Western countries" sounds a bit like a Trojan horse for some racist policies, considering that population is growing the most in non-western countries.
IMHO the opposite is happening. Former developing countries are raising their living standards dramatically, which inevitably results in a larger economic footprint per capita. Also, migration to developed countries usually increases the living standard of the migrants, but this also increases their economic footprint. I just do not see where consumption is being reduced.
Yes, climate change will cause issues. Then again, the last glacial maximum was fairly recent, only ~20k years ago. Climate change has happened and will happen. And the world won't end. Either the Earth's systems will adapt, or we'll find a technological solution. Or maybe everyone will simply move to Canada, Russia, Greenland and Antarctica.
I'm all for solutions, but at the end of the day, people will keep on living and I suggest this girl do the same (then again, she's probably being bankrolled by someone so maybe she is actually living her dreams).
Sure. Fires in the arctic are normal things . 100+ degree summers in Germany and France are totes the norm. .
Reality has a climate-crisis bias.
> In fact, living conditions are better than they ever have been.
This is a false dichotomy - that improved worldwide living conditions don't indicate a looming climate crisis. It could be argued that it all gets better until it starts falling apart rapidly.
>> Yes, climate change will cause issues. Then again, the last glacial maximum was fairly recent, only ~20k years ago. Climate change has happened and will happen. And the world won't end. Either the Earth's systems will adapt, or we'll find a technological solution. Or maybe everyone will simply move to Canada, Russia, Greenland and Antarctica
There is a limit to the rate at which the ecological systems can cope up with the damage we are doing. We have no right to go on abusing the Earth's systems just because humans can save themselves using technology.
> Or maybe everyone will simply move to Canada, Russia, Greenland and Antarctica.
So, which country is going to invade Canada to force them to allow in all these migrants? Or do you think they'll just do it willingly when people were screaming about 10,000 Syrian refugees? At the rate that global warming is progressing, there's no time for this kind of massive re-settlement without equally massive geopolitical upheaval.
> Either the Earth's systems will adapt...
I mean - duh - of course they will. The danger is not that global warming wipes out life on earth. It's that it sends human civilization back to the Stone Age or wipes it out completely (if Stone Age technology doesn't allow for survival). The idea that there's a technological solution assumes that we can manufacture and power such a thing without using even more fossils fuels to do so. I'm not convinced.
I think we are all suffering somewhat trying to deal with this truth and work out how to find our place in the solution.
does being autistic in that manner (your diagnosis, not mine) also give oneself free access to the worlds' media outlets and financial support to trot the globe at 16 years old, or could that be one of the so-called coercers'?
I'm absolutely against climate change, and on her side of the opinion, but to ignore the fact that she's being propped up as a media object is silly. Could you have had her impact at 16 without support from others? I bet not, unless you're really extraordinary.
Do you have a list of names?
A couple centuries ago there were wars all over Europe, Asia, Africa, in the US alone the Revolutionary war and Civil war, wars with the Spanish, natives, etc...
Yes, I think over the timeframe where global warming will actually force true mass migration (if we don't reverse it first), it'll probably be peaceful.
This is outright utopianism. Look around you. The backlash to even modest immigration has become increasingly violent and reactionary (see: Brexit, Trump). Do you honestly think that at some point everyone will be OK with just opening their borders to billions of people? And how many do you think will die trying to make that journey?
Given everything that's happened since, forgive me for being optimistic about our future.
"HN" is a diverse community that represents a distribution of points of view.
When controversial topics get flagged, it's often not because people disagree with the opinion expressed, but rather that people expect the discussion will be of low quality - i.e., a flamewar dominated by a small number of ideological zealots, in which the loudest participants just stick to their preconceived point of view, and nobody really learns anything new.
You have a ton? They kind of dwarf climate change lobbyists in size and influence? They've been wildly successful at breaking the Paris agreement?
Would you kindly elaborate on that, what exactly did "they" break? Can you point me to some TV interviews or documentaries on MSM showing their superior influence compared to "climate change activists"?
And "they" means "your lobbyists". "They" is a pronoun referring to an arbitrary number of people for which have already been declared in English grammar.
There is in some countries and more and more are considering one.
> carbon use has been increasing
Where? Not in the EU and USA if you mean emissions and not something like paper use...
> I think lobbyists against climate change activism have been wildly successful.
But why are they practically invisible? How can the news / the MSM report on climate change every day despite all that lobbying and not a single authoritative voice against it is heard? Except Trump, sometimes and other politicians shunned by the media.
FWIW, pretty much everything in the EU is dictated by lobbyists: https://transparency.eu/lobbyistsinbrussels/
Are you interested in reduction of global emissions or in the goals of the Paris agreement? Decide and then inform yourself about the difference. The Paris agreement is responsible for China and India emitting CO2 recklessly, because it treats them as developing nations and their goals are defined in terms of GDP while "ours" aren't. A 5% reduction in China would be worth more than a 10% reduction in the EU, if you're just looking at total emissions.
> Are you ok with all of the world's coral reefs dying? That's what were are going.
Yes, I'd risk that if the world becomes greener and more fertile at that cost. It's probably not due to CO2 though: https://www.npr.org/2019/07/16/742050975/floridas-corals-are...
> the world becomes greener and more fertile
That's not what the science says. Some areas may see improvements, but globally harvests will go down and we will see a lot of refugees and hunger as a result.
The science predicts these with some degree of uncertainty but surely in the past 100 years of warming we should have seen some of that already? Harvests are up lately, hunger is very much down and the regions where population growth is highest are among the hottest in the world, closest to the equator.
Science suggests otherwise. Have you read the IPCC report?