Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by malthuswaswrong 1697 days ago
Agreed. It could also be real but no where near as serious as they are claiming. Mankind went from the first manned flight to footprints on the moon in 60 years. I'm not losing any sleep about a mathematically insignificant projection that may or may not lead to something 100 years from now. 100 years from now if they want terraforming to strictly regulate the climate it should be well within their capabilities.

Again, these people aren't serious. And their actions prove how the threat is either not real at all, or extremely distant to the point of being irrelevant for us.

1 comments

I will be inmoral this once

If climate change wasn't a real threat... they would act as you said.

If climate change was a real threat to humanity... they would still act in spite of it. Tragedy of the commons. What is a better future? Having done your part, when nobody did, and facing a broken world with a broken economy OR Helped kill the world environment but playing an even field?

That has been China's stance all along, anyways.

The only reason to move toward "renewables" is to not depend on fossil fuel imports. It is about sovereignity, not about morality.

I don't disagree with any of that. People should pursue alternate energy sources. However world governments should not be putting their fingers on the scales in favor of green energy. Legislators who also just happen to have financial investments in these same new technologies. Yet another reason to be skeptical. Everyone points their fingers at the oil industry for the studies they fund, but Al Gore was a hair's width away from becoming the world's first green billionaire when he tried to pass a law forcing companies to exchange carbon credits and he was a 40% owner in carbon exchange network that would mediate it.

Green energy is making advancements. Unfortunately for them the fossil fuel industry continues to make advancements as well. Every year they get better at drilling, better at harvesting, better at converting from crude to fuel, better at burning, better at extracting energy from what is burned. At least a dozen different metrics get 2% better year over year which keeps fossil fuels competitive and makes it harder for other sources of energy to replace it.

Which is fine. It's all fine. I just want the best energy available. And the way our civilization has historically measured the "best" is through the free market. Green will win eventually. No need to rush it prematurely. It will happen.