Hacker News Reader

Comment by 554070 | Hacker News Reader

Does anyone else feel like we'll fail to make reasonable progress on climate change? I'm naturally inclined towards pessimism, but I feel that the political solutions aren't going to work out and that the market isn't moving fast enough for humanity to get ahead of it.

Edit: to clarify, I think that political solutions won't work not because there aren't good ideas or that we couldn't collectively do a lot, but because there's too much money and power held by special interest groups that pollute.

View on HN

To be honest my rational view is that the situation is hopeless. We haven't even managed to stop global emissions increasing annually yet. That's the second derivative of temperature (even ignoring any feedback loops); the rate at which we're causing temperatures to increase is itself still increasing.

I disagree about special interest groups being the main problem; political will of the population is just as much of an issue. Even in the UK where the majority of people do believe in climate change, successive governments have failed to increase duty on fuel because of a popular outcry every time they attempt to.

I have friends who alternate posts on social media between complaining about a lack of action on climate change and posting photos of their latest intercontinental travel. People are prepared to do quite a lot to look after the planet. What they seem less accepting of is not doing things.

Special interest groups are arguably in control of the political will of people in many ways. In politics, people are told what to think. ISPs have managed to convince some people that net neutrality is a partisan issue when it never was. They have lying politicians and lying tv pundits on their side because they have piles of money, and that's enough to change opinions.

I feel like the changes are too slow for the majority of people to take any remotely pressing action or vote accordingly. Losing coral reefs sadly won't matter to the majority of people. You can watch Finding Nemo on TV in air-con comfort and ignore the dust bowl outside. I don't think people get a clear picture of how broad the mass migration issues is likely to become.

I have zero confidence that enough action will be taken before it is too late.

Even if almost every country in the world takes immediate drastic action, all it takes is inaction by a single major polluter to ensure that the negative consequences of climate change will occur anyway.

Voters will think, why should we make sacrifices when we will get screwed anyway, because other countries won't take action?

China and India have to be on board for reasonable progress to occur.

What would progress look like, in this case? China and India catching up in emissions/capita to the developed world? Or are you expecting them to keep their emissions at a fraction of ours?

China is doing pretty well. Long way to go tho.

As far as climate goes, what matters is the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, not where they came from. Greenhouse gases stay in the atmosphere for varying amount of time, depending on the particular gas.

Whatever we finally decide we need to hold warming too, there is some maximum level of greenhouse gases that we can allow without warming going above our limit.

If we take that level, and figure out each country's fair share of that, what we'll find is that the West is responsible for way more of the greenhouse gases present than is their fair share (with the US the farthest over its share), and India is way under their fair share.

It would not be unreasonable for India to feel that it is unfair that the West used cheap fossil fuels to boost itself to first world status and in the processes went way over their fair quota for greenhouse gases and now wants India to stay way below its fair quota and give up cheap development to balance that.

To make it fair, the West would need to subsidize India so that it can afford to become a developed country without having to use the cheap fossil fuels. Another way to think of it would be the West paying India for having used up India's quota for allowed greenhouse gases--essentially a kind of retroactive cap and trade system.

India and China both have leadership that acknowledge the existence of anthropogenic climate change and is taking active measures. That would seem like table stakes but unfortunately we live in a world where that's not a given.

India produces 20% of electricity from renewable sources, not including large hydro[1]. Including large hydro, it's 29%. In comparison, the US produces only 15% from renewable sources including hydro[2] which, of course, has lots of environmental costs before any energy generation begins. This is admittedly a meaningless factoid but still kind of cool - India has 5 of the 10 largest solar power stations in the world, more than any other nation.[5] The Delhi city government has made it mandatory for government and public institutions to install rooftop solar[6]. This is on top of a government program that provides subsidized loans for rooftop solar on factories.[7] There's plenty of other renewable energy, rainwater harvesting, and recycling programs at various levels of the Indian government - federal, state, and city. I'm not saying all of them will work (it's the government, after all) but it's solid effort, and hard cash being put in.

Gasoline costs USD 4.55/gal in Mumbai today[8] - compared to around USD 3.50 in California, which already has the highest gas prices in the continental US. Due to the lower average disposable income in India, this means motorists prioritize fuel economy over comfort, and even safety.

India's annual population growth rate is 1.10% - a shade above the global average of 1.09%[3]. It's also been steadily dropping for decades and that trend is expected to continue.[4] China's population growth rate is 0.41% - lower even than the US.[3]

The only way India and China can keep from increasing their emissions is by stopping their economic progress. This would effectively keep their respective populations poor, undernourished, and lacking modern amenities such as healthcare, transportation, or entertainment. So what do you mean by "on board" exactly? What other shining exemplars of environmental rectitude can one point at to persuade India and China? What other nations have made, or committed to make, similar lifestyle sacrifices?

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_India

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United...

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_populatio...

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India#Fertilit...

5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaic_power_sta...

6. https://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/government-announces-policy-...

7. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2017/12/07/india-t...

8. https://www.mypetrolprice.com/3/Petrol-price-in-Mumbai

How low have we sunk that we expect developing nations to act concurrently with supposed world "leaders"?

We should expect their emissions to increase and we'll meet them in CO2e per capita or the way down.

I'm much more worried about the US right now.

Not without wholesale political change in the US. It will happen but probably not in time to matter if this report is correct :|

After the right wing wave took over the world I think many are concluding no corrective actions to be taken.

True. The worst part is that they won't be around to see the consequences of their actions.

I almost wish for the process to move faster. Maybe then people would take action.

Think again. Medical progress means that many 70 year olds will be alive when the SHTF really gets undeniably started 15-20 years from now.

In the game of Prisoner's Dilemma, if the game is played for only one round, the optimal move is for both players to betray each other. If you modify the game by playing many rounds of the same two players choosing whether to cooperate or betray, cooperation continues as long as neither player knows how long the game will last. The moment either player learns when the last round will be, it once again becomes advantageous to betray, and to do so immediately, before your opponent gains the same information. You want to betray before you are betrayed, but to do so at the last possible moment.

I think there's something to be learned there about the connection between climate change, and the charge towards mass surveillance and authoritarian government.

I’m not following.

I’ve heard that the change would benefit certain areas of the world. Ie Russia may warm up and gain more hospitable land. For this reason I’ve also heard some nations may be emissing greenhouse gasses.

I think philipov is saying that the reason politicians are not acting is because they do not believe any action is possible.

So, if they believe no action is possible this also means they view this as the last round in a game of prisoners dilemma they've been forced to play for most of the modern era.

So, in their view, there is no more downside to defecting.

Yes, precisely. Or, to put it another way, politicians are acting to prepare for climate change. The action they are taking is to tighten control in anticipation of global disaster.

Also, I think this game is playing out not just between politicians and populace, but at all scales of society and business, as no individual actor has the power to take corrective action alone, or is otherwise pinned in a Mexican Standoff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_standoff

Reply on news.ycombinator.com