UN chief warns Nepal's mountains have lost one-third of their ice

https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/10/30/stop-the-madness-un-chief-warns-nepals-mountains-have-lost-one-third-of-their-ice

by janandonly • 3 years ago

96 116 3 years ago

euronews.com

pelasaco• 3 years ago

El Niño effect? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/21/stronger...

bcrosby953• 3 years ago

in over 30 years

adrianN8• 3 years ago

We most likely already emitted enough carbon dioxide to kill all glaciers worldwide. Regions who depend on glacier melt for their water supply need to act now.

cmrdporcupine2• 3 years ago

Instead many are doing the opposite: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/renewables-pause-albe...

PeterisP6• 3 years ago

Does Alberta or Canada depend on glacier melt for their water supply?

manojlds• 3 years ago

Act now how?

adrianN8• 3 years ago

If glaciers don’t store water for you, you need to do it yourself for example by building reservoirs

kjkjadksj3• 3 years ago

At this point with the way political will is structured on this planet, the most direct way might be to overlay a satellite map of industrial emissions, drop leaflets to tell people not to show up to work, strike these targets, then argue you had no choice in front of the UN.

morkalork• 3 years ago

Well that's one way to end up dying in a nuclear holocaust.

hulitu15• 3 years ago

Regions who depend on glacier melt for their water supply need to act now.

Yes. And the rest just sell CO2 certificates, eat popcorn and enjoy the drama. /s

tintedfireglass• 3 years ago

half the world relies on water from the Himalayas and the tibetan highlands. China, SEA(Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand Myanmar) and South Asia all rely on glacial water for large scare agriculture

adrianN8• 3 years ago

And they all have nukes. All the more important that they do something now that doesn’t involve a war over resources.

vasdae• 3 years ago

He could start by not using his airplane anymore. We will follow his lead!

hulitu15• 3 years ago

He could start by not using his airplane anymore. We will follow his lead!

But i don't have an airplane. /s

pauldenton5• 3 years ago

I guess you don't have what it takes to be a climate activist!

tremon2• 3 years ago

Good start!

Podgajski5• 3 years ago

Is anyone else getting tired of people saying “we must move forward on climate change“ without telling us what that looks like?

Must be curb consumption nothing‘s gonna change, not that we can do anything at this point anyway. So maybe we should do nothing about climate change and let climate change do it it needs to do.

And I’m 100% sure my climate footprint is smaller than that guys.

mistrial9• 3 years ago

the State of California produced volumes of well-written documents.. both "assessment and signs of climate change" and more "actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions" under Gov. Jerry Brown and continued by that hair-gel guy in China

dageshi2• 3 years ago

Everyone would need to accept a significant decrease in their quality of living and very very few will actually accept that.

So no, nothing of any great significance is going to happen with preventing climate change.

adrianN8• 3 years ago

Or we could keep our standard of living and just build more renewables…

wolverine87613• 3 years ago

I've cut my climate footprint by (as a wild guess) 90% and my standard of living has improved. I'm healthier, happier, more comfortable.

Most of what I changed were things I just did based on habit - habits probably formed by my parents when they thought energy was basically free. It's not hard at all. For example, I kept changing my thermostat until I found the minimum needed to be comfortable - it turns out I could cut energy consumption there by ~75% with zero impact on comfort, and enjoy much more fresh air.

The issue is politics. The reactionary right, which seems to be the most influential power in the world right now (the only one not wallowing in despair), portrays liberalism of any sort as a catastrophic, demonic threat (no exaggeration) and otherwise has the characteristics of an angry mob. They are going to attack anything associated with liberalism, including climate change knowledge, action, discussion, etc. Until that problem is solved, nothing will happen.

wolverine87613• 3 years ago

Is anyone else getting tired of people saying “we must move forward on climate change“ without telling us what that looks like?

People have discussed what it looks like for decades.

Podgajski5• 3 years ago

Talking is not an action that changes the effects of climate change.

For example. I don’t have to say a word, or do anything to not buy consumer products.

Podgajski5• 3 years ago

I don’t know why this is being downvoted, but it’s OK. It convinced me to leave hacker news because all I’m doing by using the server and my phone and the internet is contributing more to climate change.

z0r• 3 years ago

Beyond technological changes to the power supply and carbon taxes and regulations for industries, the bottom line is that the number of people is the multiplier for the carbon footprint. So a country like Japan, which is often ridiculed as being xenophobic and foolish for allowing their population to decline (what about the economy??? the liberals say), is really a model for a more sustainable future. Economic growth is propped up by population growth, and both of these are at odds with tackling climate change.

kjkjadksj3• 3 years ago

Japan is hardly a model. You can’t just deny immigration in every country in the world and have the worlds oppressed and poor floating in international waters. Japan also has the US funding certain things it would have had to fund out of taxes if it were actually fully independent after wwii ended, and not a de facto client state reconstructed for american military and business interests.

hulitu15• 3 years ago

Beyond technological changes to the power supply and carbon taxes and regulations for industries,

A modern CPU still uses 100W of power and this is ok.

bloopernova• 3 years ago

Too much doom and gloom in my comment. My apologies.

wolverine87613• 3 years ago

it continues to do nothing
Not many will read this far, and that's OK. I can't force anyone.
try to make your software use less energy?

I mean this in the best way, because I believe you want to solve the problem: That is the message of a quitter, and you are spreading your despair to the rest of the locker room. The enemy is celebrating your bizarre embrace and spread of their message. Nobody needs that cancer on a team. Lots of people are doing what you are - that's probably where you got the cancer, but that makes it worse, not better. That makes it more important to lead in a different direction.

The other option is to stand up and start contributing and leading. Our position is good: The good people outnumber the bad, by a lot; we've just been convinced to quit and spread that message among us. Stand up, get to work, get organized, like all the prior generations have done. What will be our legacy to future generations?: 'We quit. We didn't do anything. It was hard. We felt hopeless.' Imagine if our predecessors had done that.

Are we going to be the worst generation, or the best?

pauldenton5• 3 years ago

Who is the enemy? Who is the worst generation and who is the best?

vivekd5• 3 years ago

If we assume you're right and we are heading towards mass death and catastrophe - why is the solution to make software that uses less energy? Seems a little weak of a response to mass death?

Why not something like cloud seeding with sulfates?

https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2023/altering-our-clouds-...

Why not the easy technical solution that doesn't relegate people to use less of a basic resource required for human development?

I have so many questions like what are the actual projections and how do we know it's effects. What of past projections that failed. Where are we getting this claim of mass death, when is it expected. Does it account for changes like the fact that we phased out coal. Does it account for the fact that we recently reduced cooling sulphate in the atmosphere.

The answer seems to be don't ask questions and if you do lots of people will die. That doesn't sound like science or good policy.

polygamous_bat2• 3 years ago

Why not something like cloud seeding with sulfates?

Same reason we don’t reach for surgery every time anything in our body hurts: we want a least intrusive (for the planet) method rather than crazy ideas that we don’t know the consequence of. We know very well what happens when people use less carbon, there are plenty of countries on the world right now who are doing that. But no, if it’s not out of sci-fi it doesn’t tickle your fancy enough to try.

ksec• 3 years ago

But if you do read this, and you develop software, will you try to make your software use less energy?

That would mean an outright ban on Electron Apps. But yes hopefully this sentiment will move forward. Optimising App is no longer just about performance.

throw_pm23• 3 years ago

My prediction is that it will not be some giant visible catastrophe like your analogy suggests, but a slow, continuous degradation over the span of decades and centuries (as it has been happening in fact already for the past few decades/centuries). People will be adapting, but the quality of life and the environment will get worse and worse.

Those who will point it out and will dare to say we don't live in the best of times, will be mocked and accused of seeing the past with rose-tinted glasses.

WillPostForFood• 3 years ago

Not sure how the same group that is screaming about the existential threat can also be so active in blocking nuclear power. It can't help but appear the real goal is deindustrialization, not fighting climate change.

Instead of making your software use less energy, help advocate for clean abundant cheap electricity.

Tade0• 3 years ago

If people survive, will this time period and our selfish inaction be referred to with hatred and confusion by our descendants?

How is WW I judged by people living today? Or the industrial revolution (both good and bad parts)?

I suppose once there's no living memory of this event, it will be seen as "just humans being humans".

Personally I think humanity will survive, but many of us - including me - will have a much lower lifespan and die of preventable (at least today) causes.

The first modern heatwave in Europe killed in excess of 70k people. Subsequent ones didn't. I see myself as one of those poor bastards that will be caught in a new type of calamity before we adapt.

wolverine87613• 3 years ago

Guterres, the UN chief, is telegraphing fear and despair, and everyone knows it on some level.

This appeal is merely Guterres putting head in sand. The problem isn't knowledge of the catastrophe, it isn't science, it's simply a socio-political force: The reactionary right - the right-wing movement, in the US, Europe, etc., that embraces extremism, demonizes (literally at times) anything liberal, including classical liberalism like human rights and freedom.[0]

Everyone knows that they are the obstacle to solving climate change, that unless they are dealt with then nothing will happen. If Guterres, the UN, leaders, activists, etc. - and you and I - are not dealing with that problem explicitly and directly, we're hiding from it. And that spreads like a cancer; others see you and I, and especially leaders hiding, and they despair and give up too. Worse, they see where the power lies and for safety and conformity, follow it.

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/04/opinion/sunday/conservati...

Dalewyn2• 3 years ago

You might want to check yourself in the mirror.

wolverine87613• 3 years ago

You're just shooting down people who are working. Get to work! We need you.

kyleblarson• 3 years ago

As a general rule I do not listen to people who fly hundreds of thousands of miles per year in private jets while suggesting that others sacrifice.

CptFribble• 3 years ago

it's more complicated than that because of the scale of human society. example: mandatory LED light bulbs.

any individual person considering only themselves, would be correct to choose filament over LED because of cost and very little electricity savings. However, every light socket in the country switching to LED in aggregate represents a significant amount of energy savings for power plants and therefore less carbon output. this is a basic complication.

going one level deeper, there is the supply chain of LEDs vs filament bulbs and the relative impact of their carbon footprints and mining of rare earth minerals. This is where it starts getting difficult to parse which is a net gain for the planet.

another level below that is what you cite, the costs associated with the transition itself. A lot of energy (both electrical and human) is wasted by both supporters and detractors arguing in the public sphere, spending entire global broadcasts on the subject, flying around in private jets, etc. How much of this is necessary depends on the net savings from the first two levels, which is pretty hard to calculate accurately.

So you do you, but personally I try not to commit to blanket statements that erase all nuance and subtlety - generally that leads to missing important context.

Dig1t• 3 years ago

LED bulbs are naturally way better. People install them in their house because they last longer and a simple calculation tells you that they are a better value. Also they are safer because of reduced operating heat.

The government doesn’t need to force people to use green technologies, they are usually better.

Lawn care products are a good example as well. Gas powered mowers, edgers, blowers etc are being phased out because their electric counterparts are simpler, quieter, and cheaper. Not because the government forces people to use them.

A first principles understanding would suggest that more efficient technologies will win in the market usually because of reduced cost.

The same is happening with cars as more companies invest and scale up their technology. Government incentives are accelerating this of course, which is good.

GeoAtreides3• 3 years ago

As a general rule, I do listen to experts in fields in which I myself am not an expert. This rule is extremely useful, for example I am in good health thanks to listening to doctors; I also save so much time by trusting the civil engineers who built the bridges or tunnels I pass, instead of doing my own calculations, or trusting the aviation engineers who designed the planes I sometimes fly.

I think I would be unable to function in the modern society if I wouldn't trust experts (in their fields).

vivekd5• 3 years ago

I think experts are given credence because they can do a deep analysis. I expect a civil engineer to do calculations instead of just saying "I'm the expert trust me"

Is this whole trust the expert thing some new phenomenon? Because I feel confident scientists were very keen to provide the reason and evidence for their beliefs. Saying someone should be trusted just because they are an expert seems against the spirit of science

So is there reasons to believe in man made global warming? Is there is lots of reliable evidence. We should focus in that instead of who is making the claims.

You and the parent are making different versions of a similar fallacy - his is ad hominem and yours is appeal to authority. The flaw in both is they focus on the identity of the speaker rather than evaluating the validity of what is said

hulitu15• 3 years ago

As a general rule, they don't preach to other people. They just pay other people to do it.

lnsru2• 3 years ago

My ex-employer declared sound decarbonization program. Then forced people back to the office. That means, that I am burning 40 liters petrol a week to get there. Software group might work from a Moon base, but they’re forced back to the office too. While radiators in the office are running max temperature, the windows in the kitchens and toilets are open since there is no ventilation system.

I am tired of green washing and scary climate change. If this problem would be serious the governments would mandate by law to put everybody who can work from home to the home office. Low hanging fruit to save 10% emissions.

irrational• 3 years ago

Seriously. I work for a Fortune 100 company that gives lip service to sustainability and fighting climate change, but is making everyone work in the office four days a week. The vast majority of us worked remote with no issues for years. Any company that makes people who could work remote come into an office cannot say jack about climate change.

Tams802• 3 years ago

Managers have got to make it look like they are doing something, eh.

add-sub-mul-div• 3 years ago

Before WFH I took the subway to work every day and didn't need a car for a decade, now I drive daily around the suburbs. Not everyone's experience is the same as yours.

lnsru2• 3 years ago

Imagine subways being less crowded and more attractive. Mandatory home office would have more positive side effects. Less fuel burned in traffic jams too. Avoided collapse of public transportation in Munich.

adrianN8• 3 years ago

The problem is serious now but the consequences happen in a few decades when current politicians are retired or dead so there is no incentive for them to act now.

netsharc• 3 years ago

But won't such a mandate cause a lot of screaming and moaning from those who hate the government, with the standard "They want to control us!" screams?

The democratic governments are stuck, they're too afraid to take action because these might lose votes, something that happens more if their voters become unemployed/feel some economic hardship coming.

fwungy2• 3 years ago

Remember when they told us Maldives would be sunk by climate change. It's still there.

If the proportionally tiny amounts of anthropogenic CO2 are really that big a factor we are already sunk.

I'm starting to wonder if there's an unconscious death cult in the developed world that fetishizes planetary doom. That is the logical endpoint for the nihilism that has overtaken developed countries.

hulitu15• 3 years ago

I'm starting to wonder if there's an unconscious death cult in the developed world that fetishizes planetary doom

No. It is just plain propaganda. People who are afraid are much easier to manipulate. That's all.

jonahbenton• 3 years ago

This is the sort of post that makes me wish for some even AI mediated chat feature on this platform.

Like what?!? is this person's mental model such that they would think/utter such a thing. Breaks my mental model.

racked• 3 years ago

Could you be more specific as to what it is that breaks your mental model?

fwungy2• 3 years ago

I'm the sort of person who doesn't take NPR or Fox News as serious sources.

Some people really can't understand that. They see the works as two sides, good vs evil, themselves having chosen good.

vivekd5• 3 years ago

I think there's a lot of truth to what you are saying. However I still think man-made climate change is real and I think some of the response to it has been positive - like trying to design walkable communities.

But I agree there is also a lot of unnessary fear mongering and accusations at ordinary people and doomsdayism.

I hope what is essentially a positive thing (wanting sustainability) doesn't get overtaken and misused by fanaticism or people with other agendas.

PeterisP6• 3 years ago

With climate, there is a significant time delay between cause and effect.

Maldives are already lost due to our actions, it just will take quite a few decades to materialize. The current actions will determine how large the change will be, nobody is really discussing ways to stop or prevent it (the time for that was in the last century), the discussion now is about limiting the growth of the change.

GeoAtreides3• 3 years ago

Maldives

"By 2021, 90% of islands in the Maldives experienced severe erosion, 97% of the country no longer had fresh groundwater, and more than 50% of the national budget was being spent on efforts to adapt to the effects of climate change" [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_the_Maldives

pauldenton5• 3 years ago

https://financialpost.com/opinion/bjorn-lomborg-un-disaster-...

penguin_booze• 3 years ago

"I am here today to cry out from the rooftop of the world: stop the madness," the UN chief said via video message, calling for an end to the "fossil fuel age".

Indeed: declare RTO unlawful. What can be done from home, must be done from home (or anywhere else, for that matter).

UN chief warns Nepal's mountains have lost one-third of their ice

Related Stories