Comment by sleepysysadmin | Hacker News Reader

Comment by sleepysysadmin | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

You're not allowed to question climate change like this on HN.

>generally, I agree with world is warming. Is that bad? I’m actually unsure.

The eemian period was around 115,000 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian

It was about 2 celcius warmer compared to today. Sea levels were ~6-9 metres higher. Which puts significant amount of current day valuable land under water. Flipside, this increase in warming also unlocks significant parts of the Canadian arctic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeot...

You can also see that it's always sudden spikes up to peaks. I suspect it's related to solar cycles.

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

When the solar cycle ended in ~1820 and we went into the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Maximum

This is also why so many graphs showing climate change tend to start around 1820. Including data before 1820 would just muddy their conclusions.

>You're not allowed to question climate change like this on HN.

What's there to question? The carbon credits markets that are being implemented definitely won't be manipulated by Wall Street like the commodities markets are.

Nothing at all could go wrong with financializing periodic elements and allowing entities like Goldman Sachs to create carbon credits out of thin air.

Today's carbon credits are yesterday's church indulgences

Or speeding tickets and parking fines.

Carbon credits are nonsense because there is no large scale atmospheric carbon removal industry, so you are trying to run a market using only a supply curve with no demand curve. There is no way to set the price so the market doesn't work, it ends up being a tax that doesn't even directly contribute to the goal of removing the carbon emitted by industry.

For carbon markets to work properly there would need to be industrial processes that pull CO2 out of the atmosphere at a price per ton. Companies would then pay those companies to remove the CO2 they release at that price point. Multiple companies could compete to be the most efficient at removing CO2 and taking the largest share of the market. But it has been 30 years now and we still don't have a supply side to the market beyond some penny ante tree planting and research projects.

Um, no? The government can put a cap on the amount of carbon credits available on the market. There is demand to emit carbon, so a price for these credits exists independent of the existence of carbon removal industries. The problem currently is that the governments don't put (realistic) caps on the number of credits, so they are much too cheap.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com