News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Earth had hottest 3-months on record; unprecedented sea t... by Gareth321 on Sunday September 10, 2023 @12:48PM (#37457634)
> What do you think will happen if the temperatures keep rising, the oceans keep rising, and currently livable areas of land that hold billions of people become inhabitable?

It’s really not so bad. Not compared to killing millions of people today by increasing the price of energy. Estimates are of a rise of [2-4 degrees centigrade by 2100.](https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/climatechange/science#:~:text=Glob....) This will likely result in an [increase](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/1/014....) of arable land. [As the number of storms are estimated to decrease, the threat vector is slightly increasing storm intensity.](https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3184/a-force-of-nature-hurrica....) Humans can handle storms. We can rebuild homes, change where we settle and live, build with better materials and practises, and improve storm infrastructure and protections.

[Approximately 600,000 people die each year from extreme heat, while 4.5 million die from extreme cold.](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5...) Let's ignore the ratio for now, because there are second and third order consequences beyond extreme heat like famine to account for. 4.5 million people die each year because of inadequate access to cheaper energy. This is of course linear. Every time energy prices go up, so too do the number of people dying. That is the direct cost of the war on oil, coal, and natural gas, and there are many indirect costs (and lives) which go far beyond this. The intention of climate activists is to make fossil fuels much more expensive, meaning many more deaths.

Of course, maybe the goal here is worth killing 4.5+++ million people per year. There are no perfect solutions; only compromises. Maybe many more will die if we don't act. [The IPCC estimates that an additional 250,000 people per year, between 2030 and 2050, will die from the effects of climate change.](https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-cha...) That covers all modes of death, such as famine. For those in the room doing the math, many times more people will die today by making energy more expensive. Activists are asking us to sacrifice millions of lives per year today to save an estimated 250,000 lives per year decades from now.

For this reason, I no longer support making energy more expensive. I support environmental efforts to reduce pollution, but I can no longer justify the high cost of human life associated with taxes on energy. Instead, I really think activists should focus on making energy cheaper. This means working on solutions to make renewable energy and nuclear cheaper per unit of energy than fossil fuels. That's a path to saving lives which I think most people can get on board with.

Re:Earth had hottest 3-months on record; unprecedented sea t... by concordDance on Sunday September 10, 2023 @01:26PM (#37457982)
Rare to see an effortful post so full of citations! Bravo for raising the standard of debate, even if your conclusion is disagreeable!
Re:Earth had hottest 3-months on record; unprecedented sea t... by thinkingtoilet on Sunday September 10, 2023 @12:53PM (#37457663)
>This will likely result in an [increase](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/1/014....) of arable land.

This is my point. We already have major immigration/refugee issues all over the world. Even if we are 100% certain climate change will result in more farm land for humanity, the issue is where are the people now and where will that farm land be then? Do you think Russia (or any other country) will be happy to take in a billion people from South-East Asia? Legal immigration is an issue now. This will be a humanitarian catastrophe larger than any war humanity has ever faced by orders of magnitude.

Re:Earth had hottest 3-months on record; unprecedented sea t... by iamegypt on Sunday September 10, 2023 @01:16PM (#37457885)
do you think Russians will gladly accept a crash of their economy instead?

with no guarantees that it would solve anything?

> This will be a humanitarian catastrophe larger than any war humanity has ever faced by orders of magnitude.

We have literally survived a shrink of 99% of our total population as humans, you are grossly overestimating the effects of what's currently happening.

Re:Earth had hottest 3-months on record; unprecedented sea t... by Gareth321 on Sunday September 10, 2023 @01:43PM (#37458137)
Famine in Africa is an existential risk with or without global warming. Currently 822 million people are estimated to be malnourished. As per the citations above, global warming will provide only a slightly elevated risk of famine relative to present day.

Overpopulation in Africa is a problem to be solved either way. Ameliorating global warming won’t make any meaningful improvement to that.

Re:Earth had hottest 3-months on record; unprecedented sea t... by thinkingtoilet on Sunday September 10, 2023 @05:51PM (#37460446)
I genuinely don't understand how your comment is a response to mine. Where are we going to move the billions of people living in coastal South East Asia when oceans rise and their land becomes un-farmable due to climate change?
Re:Earth had hottest 3-months on record; unprecedented sea t... by Gareth321 on Monday September 11, 2023 @09:05AM (#37466655)
Rising oceans aren’t going to make coastal areas in Asia uninhabitable for any appreciable proportion of people for centuries. Asia has huge tracts of unused land. Over the centuries, people will migrate.

I tried to explain to you that overpopulation has almost nothing to do with global warming, and conflating the two diminishes our ability to solve each.

Re:Earth had hottest 3-months on record; unprecedented sea t... by CuriousSkeptic on Sunday September 10, 2023 @04:43PM (#37459876)
You scenario seems to only correlate increasing price with lower consumption.

I think there should also be viable paths where increased prices for some energy forms translates to increased demand for cleaner forms instead

A carbon tax matched by a matching carbon dividend could transfer funds to poor people.

A fuel consumption tax can be matched by a matching tax cut on miles driven. Transferring demand from fossil fuel to other transportation means.

There may be loads of pitfalls in those two example of course, they are mostly meant to illustrate the point.

Re:Earth had hottest 3-months on record; unprecedented sea t... by Gareth321 on Monday September 11, 2023 @09:09AM (#37466697)
The goal is to make energy cheaper. I would much prefer it to be clean energy, but this is secondary. If we could devise a way to make clean energy cheaper than untaxed fossil fuels, I’m all in. It just hasn’t worked that way so far, and activists are almost entirely focused on making fossil fuels more expensive, rather than clean energy cheaper.