Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Not to mention that we're incredibly hypocritical about the fact that we happily burned coal and oil and continue to, but expect developing economies to just... stop. It's worse when you consider Europe getting uppity about migrancy, which is being causes in large part by drought related to climate change.

It's going to be the story of this century: the people least responsible for climate change are going to disproportionately suffer for it. Meanwhile those most responsible will demonize them for their efforts to survive it.



I hear this logic but dont buy it. Yes many western countries were polluting heavily during the industrial age, but that was using the best technology that existed at the time. The world now knows better about these harmful environmental practices, and has access to better tech to avoid this. If you apply this thinking that 'its what the other countries did previously' that's fine but then you do you expect developing continues not to utilise computers and other new technology for 50 years while they catch up? You cant have it both ways or your just cherry picking what suits your bias.

I feel the better arguement is that per capital these countries are lower polluters and we need to all strive to reduce pollution to an acceptable per-capita level. And as a global population need to look at how we lift everyone lifestyle while reducing environmental harm. This 'you had your turn polluting the world and now it's mine' lacks logic and will not solve the problem.


> The world now knows better about these harmful environmental practices, and has access to better tech to avoid this

Except the better tech tends to be more expensive and less labor intensive. A country with a huge cheap labor force would handicap itself by not using the most cost effective means to grow their economy, negative externalities notwithstanding.


which doesn't make it right in any way - caring only about "me", "now", and not "us" and "tomorrow"

Or in other words - it explains it, but doesn't justify it. We as mankind can do better


The problem is that people don't really exist as a "We, mankind"... we exist as various competing nations and other divided groups. It's laughable to think that what's good for "We, mankind" in the US is somehow good for "We, mankind" in North Africa, or China, or India.


which is being causes in large part by drought related to climate change

Have an example? I thought it was a war in Syria.


There actually was a drought in Syria when that civil war started. Of course, at most that's only part of the problem.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/science/earth/study-links-...


A significant part, when you consider that the tensions we've seen explode have existed for decades. As we saw in Egypt however, when people can't support themselves, they become desperate enough to finally act.

Sadly people in this part of the world seem to only see said events in either the rosy "Arab Spring", or some version of "Islam is fundamentally evil/unstable" sense.


The other parts of the problem deserve mentioned here, because they are extremely problematic and eclipse present environmental crisis and strategy.

Syrias civil war began after billions of dollars where somewhat clandestinely spent on fomenting violent revolution there - https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/lawma...

Libyas security collapsed after its infrastructure, including its world class irrigation system was bombed out under the guise of implementing 'no fly zone'


How dishonest can you get? Would you like to explain why Libya was an issue at that time, and not in the preceding decades?


Dishonest? I do not know why violent revolution was fomented in Syria or have a reasonable explanation why Libya was bombed. You should explain your comment.


You seem to be claiming that bombing in Libya started the instability in Libya, rather than the reality which is that it was a result of that instability. I suspect you know that however, because again... dishonesty.


It is not clear that Libya was on the verge of collapse before Nato bombed it. It is not clear that the US is not on the verge of collapse with the terrible state of their current election - but it IS clear that bombing and funding violent revolutionary forces within it would not help anything.

No I am not the one making two sentence cryptic and insulting, dishonest accusations.


Who said anything about "verge of collapse"? You, just now, and that's it.

I'm done with this.


I did in the comment which triggered you to repeatedly call me dishonest! If you wont substantiate your accusation properly you are the one being dishonest. What deception are you charging me of? - by my pointing out the European migrant crisis is caused by wars which our policy makers are highly complicit in waging. The european migration crisis is entirely the cause of people fleeing violent conflict - not weather.

If we wont stop attacking people, we wont stop wrecking the environment.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2026 batch! Applications are open till July 27.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: