We _are_ doing something about this. We’re locating concentrated millions of years of trapped fossil energy and moving it into our atmosphere as fast as we possibly can. To a first approximation, that is the world economy.

Or did you mean to do something differently?

▲

dunWithIt 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

We have to do less

There has been a lot of debate over AC use. Everyone chiming in only discusses runtime energy use.

The biggest issue is mining and manufacturing, and the moving of all the materials, parts, and such.

Every AC has sheathed wires and circuit boards.

Every airplane, car, phone, network router, refrigerator... same expansive mess creation.

Gamers complaining about disc less games despite that problem pipeline and waste.

Complaining about RAM prices despite the problem pipeline.

No one is focused on the lag effects, externalities, of billions using up an endless supply of technologies and dumping airplane smog in the atmosphere. Etc, etc, etc

Thermodynamics makes it pretty clear that energy is not gone just hanging out in the atmosphere.

Thermodynamics means we may be fucked even if we slow down; that energy in the atmosphere can only go from atmosphere into oceans, glaciers, and permafrost. There's a lot of potential energy in the Earth to release as it absorbs the heat already in the atmosphere

▲

florakel 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I totally agree with you that our unhinged consumption behavior is the core problem. And with AI we stepped on the accelerator again.

But regarding your second statement. The actual problem is the greenhouse effect of CO2 and Methane in the atmosphere which traps the suns energy in our atmosphere heating up oceans, ice and landmass. The heat we produce is negligible compared to the energy the sun sends every day. The greenhouse gases are the problem. And you are right, pulling away that blanket so that more heat can dissipate into space will take a looong time (growing trees) or cost an insane amount of (clean) energy, reversing the chemical processes of burning oil, gas and coal.

	▲	dunWithIt 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Right; I already covered that explaining the runtime energy use of tech is not the real issue. It's the endless production.

▲

kennywinker 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Gamers complaining about disc less games despite that problem pipeline and waste.

Tbf the issue is the user-hostile parameters of buying a diskless game. Most people would be happy to download their games if they could back them up to a thumb drive and never get locked out of them and sell the game when they’re done with it.

Seems deeply tangential, but it’s not. Blaming people for wanting a physical thing because the alternative is being further abused by a corporation - that’s a miss. Be mad at game platforms for not offering real ownership in whatever the most climate-friendly way possible. Be mad at governments for not forcing companies to cost in the negative externalities of their business.

▲

cherrycherry98 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If you want less of something, tax it. Support consumption based taxes like the FairTax in the US which would tax new goods at a high rate while used goods would be tax free. This encourages keeping items for longer, repairing rather than replacing, and purchasing used goods over new ones.

▲

dunWithIt 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Oh well ok I will get right on raising taxes. So simple I should have done it sooner.

FairTax is regressive and does nothing to stop a trillionaire from launching dick rockets to nowhere. Each rocket and launch using more resources than a poor person will their entire life.

▲

cherrycherry98 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Not sure why the snarky response, obviously most people have very little direct influence over these things.

So you oppose green tax policy on the grounds that it isn't punitive enough against rich people? A rich person living a miserly life would pay little in taxes, I see no problem with that.

I assume that you are alluding to someone specific with the rocket launching trillionaire quip. That would be the same person who helped make electric vehicles viable and also helped develop reusable rockets, far greener than one time use ones, no?

	▲	Alpha3031 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I don't think having rich people pay more taxes relative to their income should be considered punitive. Progressive taxation has a long history going back to the first modern income taxes in the 18th or 19th centuries on the basis that low income people have a more reduced capacity to pay (due to non-discretionary spending on necessities being a higher portion of income when it is lower) and I think it's reasonable to expect it out of taxes. Though, I do recognise that having one regressive tax wouldn't necessarily make the entire tax-and-transfers system regressive (or even more regressive, if that tax money is spent).
	▲	dunWithIt 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]

▲

gpt5 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Both Europe and US's emissions are significantly (18%-30%) below their peak (which was 20 years ago. The rest of the world is also moving towards renewables.

▲

graeme 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Global co2 emissions are at an all time high.

Co2 parts per million are a stock, like the level of water in a bathtub. Annual emissions are a flow, like how strongly the water is flowing in.

The tub is fuller than ever before AND filling at the fastest rate ever.

The problem is that carbon energy is useful. So unless something globally beats almost all use cases then somewhere marginally it will be worth burning vs not burning it.

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions

▲

gpt5 6 hours ago | parent [-]

It's a leaking bathtub. Half life of excess CO2 in the atmosphere is 30-100 years. So you need the water flowing in to continue to increase in rate (not just to continue flowing in), otherwise you reach a new equilibrium and the CO2 levels in the atmosphere stop increasing.

They do increase in rate as you said (for now).

▲

graeme 5 hours ago | parent [-]

That's a rather misleading statistic. Some is absorbed by oceans, where it acidifies. For land based carbon sinks (trees, soil, etc) any new carbon being deposited is competing with existing carbon in the carbon cycle.

If your stat had any sense then atmospheric carbon levels would rapidly plunge in a few centuries without humans burning carbon. They plainly don't do that.

	▲	gpt5 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Carbon levels are expected to plunge over a few centuries if carbon emissions drop. You are right the the ocean is the largest carbon sink, and it has the negative side effect of acidifying.

▲

darth_avocado 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

While yes the emissions are down from 2007 and majority of it has been driven by the shift away from coal in power generation.

However, every other sector has been rather flat in terms of emissions since the 90s. When you account for the fact that a large amount of industries have moved to China and other developing countries, the fact that emissions from industries have been flat, means that the overall consumption has gone up.

If you account for the emissions that we’ve offshored, we’d not be looking so good.

▲

AlecSchueler 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Both Europe and US's emissions are significantly (18%-30%) below their peak

Because they outsource their dirty work. To get a true picture of US/EU emissions you need to factor in the factories in Asia that are producing their consumer goods, as well as the global transport network that supports this.

▲

hn_throwaway_99 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

How much of that is just outsourcing much of our industry to Asia/etc.?

▲

enraged_camel 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, this is the right question to ask. A lot of the decrease in emissions in Western nations is the equivalent of dumping your trash in a lot across town. Sure it's "gone", but only in a technical sense.

▲

tonyedgecombe 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not as much as people would have you believe.

	▲	karmakurtisaani 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		What a terrible answer.

▲

gpt5 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Asia is also moving towards renewables.