| ▲ | vegetablepotpie a day ago |
| Climate Central has a model that can show how much more intense hurricanes are based on how much warmer the ocean is. This is an advance for attribution science, which aims to show how much of a natural disaster is attributed to climate change. In the future I expect a party, perhaps an insurance firm, or reinsurance firm sue oil companies for their role in accelerating climate change to pay for the cost of natural disasters. |
|
| ▲ | bko a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| > In the future I expect a party, perhaps an insurance firm, or reinsurance firm sue oil companies for their role in accelerating climate change to pay for the cost of natural disasters. Why make something legal and build your entire society around it and then turn around and retroactively blame them for providing legal goods? Seems insane to me. |
| |
| ▲ | js8 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | It's not what happened, though. Fossil fuel companies had studies about the impact of AGW since 60s, and yet decided to fund climate change denial. That's criminal. | | |
| ▲ | brookst a day ago | parent [-] | | But here we are talking about this recent advance in showing cause/effect. Are you saying the fossil fuel companies had this knowledge 60 years ago and scientists are just learning it now? | | |
| ▲ | margalabargala a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Fossil fuel companies, and scientists, had the knowledge that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels would warm the earth 60 years ago. Here we are now talking about a specific example of someone doing some math and writing an article about it. This is not a "recent advance", it's a retrospective based on warming that has already happened. Someone 60 years ago could have (and did!) predict "warming will cause stronger hurricanes, and here's about how much stronger they might get". This article is "here are some hurricanes that happened recently, and here is specifically how much stronger they were than they would have been, due to the warming over the last 60 years" | |
| ▲ | vegetablepotpie a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Cigarette companies knew that their products were dangerous for years. They didn’t know who specifically would develop lung cancer. | |
| ▲ | bongodongobob a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | No. Fossil fuel companies and scientist knew the effects. What is new is attributing how much of the storms power is due to climate change. It's a new metric essentially. |
|
| |
| ▲ | majormajor a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | To counteract the opposite incentive - "we learned there's a terrible side effect of what we're doing, the obvious choice is to bury that info and cover it up" by making you liable once others catch on. | | |
| ▲ | JadeNB a day ago | parent [-] | | > To counteract the opposite incentive - "we learned there's a terrible side effect of what we're doing, the obvious choice is to bury that info and cover it up" by making you liable once others catch on. Doesn't the presence of legal penalties for an action make it even more desirable (for the perpetrator, from a purely practical point of view) to bury information about those actions and cover them up? |
| |
| ▲ | richardw a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Because they’ve gone to great lengths to influence what is legal. Humanity should have more than a “we told you so”. It’ll also reduce more of this BS in future, when people act against all our interests with no repercussions, sailing super yachts on the ever-expanding waterline. | |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | burkaman a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Several US states have already done that, Maine just did a couple days ago: https://www.maine.gov/ag/news/article.shtml?id=13129752 |
|
| ▲ | SoftTalker a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's not like we all didn't want and buy the oil. |
| |
| ▲ | burkaman a day ago | parent | next [-] | | We didn't all launch an ongoing decades-long campaign of lies about what the consequences will be though. | | |
| ▲ | anonym29 a day ago | parent [-] | | Right, we just blindly trusted the first things we heard on the subject, and everyone knows that's rational because humans never lie. Remember: as long as you trust your government, trust the corporations, trust all the information you hear, especially from large and well-known institutions, you'll always be fine. Never slow down, never stop to think, just keep buying, keep consuming, keep tuning into the same media sources, and NEVER EVER dare to question social consensus! | | |
| ▲ | burkaman a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I get the sarcasm but I don't really understand who you're mocking. I guess people who foolishly followed the herd and bought a gas car in the 80s instead of doing their own research and inventing an electric one. | |
| ▲ | twojacobtwo a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | No one has time to verify/double check literally everything they're told. And if they did, they wouldn't have the time to learn everything that one would need to know to verify everything. It's impossible. Therefore, some level of trust is necessary: moreso for those who have less time/opportunity to learn and verify. While I understand the sentiment, blaming ~everyone~ provides no value here, while blaming the institutions who actively misled the world might. |
|
| |
| ▲ | CalRobert a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I didn’t want to. But my home was a mile+ away from anything and a terrible place to walk with no public transportation in large part thanks to the actions of oil and car companies | | |
| ▲ | xyzelement a day ago | parent [-] | | I couldn't help but notice in your profile that you literally created a site to find homes based on attributes that are important to you, with the first example being "transport." | | |
| ▲ | CalRobert 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Indeed! I grew up in a car dependent place and wanted to find one where it was easier to live without being so reliant on one. Same reason I moved to Europe, though Ireland was disappointing in this regard | |
| ▲ | twojacobtwo a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sounds like personal experience -> project motivation. |
|
| |
| ▲ | taneq a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | We should invent some kind of term that makes it sound like everyone had all the info since the 70s and so everyone's equally to blame. I know, let's say "carbon footprint" and make it sound like every single human has been deliberately stomping all over the environment. | | |
| ▲ | openrisk a day ago | parent [-] | | Thats quite cynical, but more importantly, by not accepting as legitimate the so-called "consumer responsibility" angle you are missing half of the equation. Already in this forum there more than enough people that will viciously defend their right to consume whatever they fancy with "their hard-earned money" and would cry "tyranny" if you suggest there is a limit after which their lifestyle becomes a danger to others. The equation gets even more muddied if you also consider the responsibility of individuals as labor providers to the corporate entities that are responsible for environmental degradation. Again, people "got to pay the bills" etc. Sure, there are bad people out there, prime suspects, clear villains. But its mostly bad systems. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz a day ago | parent [-] | | The fallacy of the “consumer responsibility” argument is the same as the problem with “ideal communism” - it requires pretending humans aren’t humans. | | |
| ▲ | baq a day ago | parent | next [-] | | humans respond as expected to high taxes on things which other humans decide should be taxed. in this case, burning oil and coal should be taxed so other sources of energy are incentivized. the point you highlight is 'your tax is my opportunity' for those who don't care, to paraphrase a certain wealthy man. | |
| ▲ | barbazoo a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't get it. Communism is a system, consumer responsibility is individual. Every individual changing their behavior changes the outcome. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Both require people to care enough about others they’ll never meet enough to significantly self-sacrifice to be successful. I can cut my carbon footprint to the bone, and my neighbor will run their two-stroke leaf blower all day because they like the noise it makes. | | |
| ▲ | openrisk a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I am not sure you are familiar with what the term consumer responsibility means in this context. It doesnt mean to rely on consumer's "good hearts" and conscience. Its a mechanism to attribute impact to final consumption, so that the costs of that impact are also priced to influence these consumers. So your neighbor would somehow pay for their mindless blowing (rather than the manufacturer or the fuel provider). The comment to which I responded implied that this is unfair, that the corporate beneficiaries / polluters should "pay". | |
| ▲ | barbazoo a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Totally. > I can cut my carbon footprint to the bone, and my neighbor will run their two-stroke leaf blower all day because they like the noise it makes. Personally I reduced our currently measurable monthly CO2 emissions from ~350kg/month to ~15kg/month. They need a lot of (gas powered) leaf blowers to offset that. If thousands or millions of people do it, it'll make a difference. I'm aware of course that not everyone is in the financial position to do what we did. For a lot of people though it's a choice they could make if they're open to changing their lifestyle a little bit. (I'm not saying our emissions are down to 15kg/month, but that's based on what I can currently measure, transportation, LNG, electricity, etc. Likely they are much higher of course but I gotta start somewhere) | | |
| ▲ | JadeNB a day ago | parent [-] | | > Personally I reduced our currently measurable monthly CO2 emissions from ~350kg/month to ~15kg/month. How? | | |
| ▲ | barbazoo a day ago | parent [-] | | By switching to low carbon fuels mostly, e.g. from LNG to RNG (renewable natural gas) and from gas to electricity by getting a (used) EV. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | stouset a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Individuals are capable of altering their behavior. Groups behave in accordance with incentive structures. Hoping for and/or expecting societal change through mass application of willpower is wishful thinking. | | |
| ▲ | lotsofpulp a day ago | parent [-] | | That sounds like an argument against democracy. | | |
| ▲ | almostnormal a day ago | parent | next [-] | | It's not difficult to argue against democracy, but it's very difficult to find an alternative that isn't much worse. | |
| ▲ | stouset a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I genuinely don’t follow. | | |
| ▲ | lotsofpulp a day ago | parent [-] | | > Hoping for and/or expecting societal change through mass application of willpower This sounds like the same mechanism for democracy, educating a broad populace and hoping they make the right (best?) choices. | | |
| ▲ | stouset a day ago | parent [-] | | Educating a person is materially different from getting them to act against their incentives. Doing so with a population is even more so. The average American is overweight and doesn’t exercise. They are almost certainly aware they need to reduce their calorie intake and spend at least a couple of hours a week engaging in physical activity. Knowing you ought to change you behavior and actually doing it are completely different issues. I actually happen to think that both are basically losing battles these days, but the underlying reasons aren’t the same. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | vkou a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The oil firms aren't half as at fault as the politicians they bought. |
| |
