Hacker News Reader

Comment by cagenut | Hacker News Reader

Thank you, good point.

Re: kids, I have no idea. I can honestly only handle this with the level of detached analysis I do because I don't have kids. If i did... I would be seriously considering things that one shouldn't type onto message boards at this point.

FWIW, in an attempt to be constructive. If you do rudimentary math around the size of the problem and the timeline to address it, the only person who has even come close is Bernie Sander's plan. This will require an investment, from the US alone, in the 10 - 100T order of magnitude range. Bernie's plan is 16T. Everyone else is in the single-digit Ts.

So if you believe in science, math, and your childrens future... you kindof have to be like not just voting for but actively canvassing/phone-banking/campaigning for Bernie (assuming you're in the US).

View on HN

Bernie's plan is massive economic command and control from Washington. DC couldn't execute on Obama's stimulus spending and we know state-directed economies have been an environmental catastrophe (see: Soviet Union). A simple, aggressive carbon tax that captured the true externality of carbon emissions is the way to go-- bring economic incentives into alignment with climate goals.

To be fair, Bernie is a supporter of a carbon tax as well. In the past he has said it's "the most straight-forward and efficient strategy for quickly reducing greenhouse gas emissions".

And then you try phase 1 of a 287 phase carbon tax implementation and the gilet jaunes shut you down.

I don't disagree, you and I could probably sit down and hammer out a much different plan based on our preferences. But neither of us are running for president in 2020 are we?

This goes back to the denial thing being more about time and money than the abstract notion. We don't have the time to wait for better plans or options anymore. A bad plan this election cycle is vastly preferable to a better plan in 4 - 8 more years.

There is a 16T command-and-control option on the table in 2020. There is no carbon tax and/or nuclear option on the table. We have to address reality not our preferences for a hypothetical ideal.

Even if Bernie's plan turns out to be a disaster, that's a failure we need to get through as fast as possible so the public accepts a carbon tax funded nuclear renaissance as a plan B. Which again, may be your and my plan A, but its not where either the candidates or the electorate are TODAY.

> state-directed economies have been an environmental catastrophe

Yes, although that's primarily because the state had directed it towards industrialisation. Centralised control would make large scale efforts towards any national goal easier to achieve.

Carbon taxes are a great idea - Australia was ahead of the curve on that one until the right killed it once they gained power.

My concern would be that he also supports strong gun control, and it seems to me that if society does collapse then guns are going to be a necessity.

Well, there's no mainstream candidate who is both against gun control and who believes global warming is real. There's not even a mainstream candidate who's against gun control, actually.

> There's not even a mainstream candidate who's against gun control, actually.

There probably is one with an R by the name...

I know, you weren't talking about them. But there is more than one party running here.

No, I was definitely talking about Trump, if that's who you mean. I added the 2nd sentence after the first, because Trump does support some gun control. He's banned bump stocks, increased prosecution of firearm offenses, and he's strengthened the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

If society collapses, those who survive will be those who can work together most effectively, not those with the most guns.

Those who work together are also going to have to survive those who have guns.

Northern countries will definitively need to strengthen their borders.

If society collapses gun control legislation isn't going to matter either.

Even under the type of gun control Sanders advocates (universal background checks, bans on assault weapons), private citizens will still be able to buy and own firearms.

There may well be scenarios where an AR-15 is preferable to a plain hunting rifle, but in the event of an environmental, economic, and societal collapse I think it's unlikely that the kind of gun some random person owns will be a major factor in their survival.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com