Hacker News

It's because carbon reduction has not been disconnected from material impoverishment. We need more stuff moving; we need more housing, we need more transport, we need more food, we need more energy, we need more children. Carbon reduction's story is one of denying/reducing these things in the name of saving planet earth. The answer needs to be doing both: reducing carbon and making more houses and food and energy and babies. Nobody really wants to be DINK pod-people who have little optionality in life activities, and that's what climate change warriors are selling them.

US has reduced their global carbon emissions over the last 20 years. We were a peak of 55% of global emissions to less than 13% today, and continue to drop (we were 23% in 2000).

Even when adjusting for trade, it is down considerably over the last 20 years. Mainly due to dematerialization, basically a free market economy doing more with less (e.g. efficient packaging uses less materials and is cheaper).

US and the Western world can continue reducing carbon emissions and it won't make a bit of difference.

Try spending 5 minutes on google before you spout uniformed opinions

https://ourworldindata.org/profile/co2/united-states

https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2

Catch-22:

Telling them this will make them vote even stronger in the other way. Especially if you call them stupid, selfish, etc.

You have to show them how it impacts eg. the cost of insurance for coastal properties. But even so, this is hard to convey. The people voting aren't feeling it and are told by coastal elites what to care about - changing their opinion in the opposite direction.

Some countries are even going to benefit tremendously from warming, eg. Russia gets more arable land and access to the North Sea, which is fantastic for trade, energy, and defense.

It's gotten bad all over the western world. Here in Canada, just mentioning climate change and policies to restrict CO2 emissions puts you in the political doghouse and gets you crucified on social media. It's just apparently not a concern now. Carney has eviscerated all regulation, and enabling exponential growth of the oil export sector is now a national emergency justified by tariffs, nationalism, national unity etc. etc.

Sorry, great grand-children. Pipelines gotta pump.

I thought risk was defined as probability times cost (or at least that is what you are trying to minimize in risk management) -- so if the probability of costs goes up, would not also risk? You don't have to enumerate each specific risk to believe that risks are growing.

There is significantly more moisture in the atmosphere now meaning the storms that el nino brings will have a greater capacity to cause flooding. The water the piles up on the west coast of north America will be in addition to the sea level rise that already occurred. Making coastal flooding worse. A drier winter in the Pacific northwest means less snowpack and therefore less water available in the summer with global warming this is exacerbated by the loss of mountain glaciers which help balance seasonal variability. Heating the western Pacific means el nino has always been bad for fisheries there, but layering it on top of global warming can increasingly devastate fish populations there.

Our infrastructure and agriculture are designed around a climate regime that is increasingly becoming a thing of the past. I think your attitude about this shit is nonsensical

"Risk is subjective" until damages occur to someone and it's time to file an insurance claim.

"Yeah, tens of millions died and hundreds of millions were displaced, but in the meantime we made a lot of value for the shareholders so it wasn't all bad."