<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>usaar333</author><text>&amp;gt; I was talking to my dad last night and he was saying how important it is to maximize your 401k, etc. and all I could think was &amp;quot;but even I have money it won&amp;#x27;t effing mean anything when billions of people are starving and you need to defend any means to produce food with force&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;The nytimes summary (&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.nytimes.com&amp;#x2F;2018&amp;#x2F;11&amp;#x2F;23&amp;#x2F;climate&amp;#x2F;us-climate-report.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.nytimes.com&amp;#x2F;2018&amp;#x2F;11&amp;#x2F;23&amp;#x2F;climate&amp;#x2F;us-climate-report...&lt;/a&gt;) claims the report talks about a 10% hit to US GDP in 2100 (note: I can&amp;#x27;t actually find such language in the report).&lt;p&gt;If you are in America, that type of hit is hardly on the level of life destroying, though I&amp;#x27;ll admit a) there&amp;#x27;s tail-probabilities of much worse happening,  b) people in developing countries will be hurt far more, c) if you care about the outdoors, you&amp;#x27;ll be a lot less happy.</text><parent_chain><item><author>CalRobert</author><text>I was talking to my dad last night and he was saying how important it is to maximize your 401k, etc. and all I could think was &amp;quot;but even I have money it won&amp;#x27;t effing mean anything when billions of people are starving and you need to defend any means to produce food with force&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;But hey, you know, reusable grocery bags and telecommuting 1 day a week should do it. I guess.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s like we found the asteroid headed for Earth and decided to pretend it doesn&amp;#x27;t exist.</text></item><item><author>graeme</author><text>It&amp;#x27;s rather sobering. It&amp;#x27;s also my impression that most people who &amp;quot;believe&amp;quot; in climate change haven&amp;#x27;t near come to grips with the scale and urgency of the problem.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;ve been thinking of writing an essay along the lines of the world being &amp;quot;default dead&amp;quot;. Basically, unless we come up with something to suck carbon from the air and replace our energy use, I believe we&amp;#x27;re sunk.&lt;p&gt;A lot of people seem to believe that if we just stopped or &amp;quot;reduced&amp;quot; we&amp;#x27;d solve the problem. But if we continue for just a few years as normal, then even a total cessation of emissions wouldn&amp;#x27;t solve our predicament.&lt;p&gt;Reducing, eliminating: these are important things. But, we&amp;#x27;re basically dead by default, and need to do something more to actually reverse what we emitted.</text></item><item><author>ForHackernews</author><text>Wow, Table 14.1 is terrifying:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;  Considering both historical and projected non-CO2 effects reduces the estimated cumulative CO2 budget compatible with any future warming goal, and in the case of 3.6°F (2°C) it reduces the aforementioned estimate to 790 GtC. Given this more comprehensive estimate, limiting the global average temperature increase to below 3.6°F (2°C) means approximately 230 GtC more CO2 could be emitted globally. To illustrate, if one assumes future global emissions follow a pathway consistent with the lower scenario (RCP4.5), this cumulative carbon threshold is exceeded by around 2037, while under the higher scenario (RCP8.5) this occurs by around 2033. To limit the global average temperature increase to 2.7°F (1.5°C), the estimated cumulative CO2 budget is about 590 GtC (assuming linear scaling with the compatible 3.6°F (2°C) budget that also considers non-CO2 effects), meaning only about 30 GtC more of CO2 could be emitted. Further emissions of 30 GtC (in the form of CO2) are projected to occur in the next few years (Table 14.1).&lt;p&gt;Dates by when cumulative carbon emissions (GtC) since 1870 reach amount commensurate with 2.7°F (1.5°C), when accounting for non-CO2 forcings:&lt;p&gt;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;                66% = 593 GtC    50% = 615 GtC    33% = 675 GtC  
     --------- ---------------- ---------------- --------------- 
      RCP4.5             2019             2021             2027  
      RCP8.5             2019             2021             2025  
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;
By next year, we&amp;#x27;ll (most likely) have burned through our chance of holding climate change to 1.5°C</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II</title><url>https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>ramblerouser</author><text>Or some rich and powerful people decided to tell you a metior was about to pummel the Earth and you better accept a reduced standard of living while they fly to and from climate conferences in their private jets.&lt;p&gt;If your political beliefs tell you to not save for your retirement because the apocalypse is coming, that should be a serious red flag.</text><parent_chain><item><author>CalRobert</author><text>I was talking to my dad last night and he was saying how important it is to maximize your 401k, etc. and all I could think was &amp;quot;but even I have money it won&amp;#x27;t effing mean anything when billions of people are starving and you need to defend any means to produce food with force&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;But hey, you know, reusable grocery bags and telecommuting 1 day a week should do it. I guess.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s like we found the asteroid headed for Earth and decided to pretend it doesn&amp;#x27;t exist.</text></item><item><author>graeme</author><text>It&amp;#x27;s rather sobering. It&amp;#x27;s also my impression that most people who &amp;quot;believe&amp;quot; in climate change haven&amp;#x27;t near come to grips with the scale and urgency of the problem.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;ve been thinking of writing an essay along the lines of the world being &amp;quot;default dead&amp;quot;. Basically, unless we come up with something to suck carbon from the air and replace our energy use, I believe we&amp;#x27;re sunk.&lt;p&gt;A lot of people seem to believe that if we just stopped or &amp;quot;reduced&amp;quot; we&amp;#x27;d solve the problem. But if we continue for just a few years as normal, then even a total cessation of emissions wouldn&amp;#x27;t solve our predicament.&lt;p&gt;Reducing, eliminating: these are important things. But, we&amp;#x27;re basically dead by default, and need to do something more to actually reverse what we emitted.</text></item><item><author>ForHackernews</author><text>Wow, Table 14.1 is terrifying:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;  Considering both historical and projected non-CO2 effects reduces the estimated cumulative CO2 budget compatible with any future warming goal, and in the case of 3.6°F (2°C) it reduces the aforementioned estimate to 790 GtC. Given this more comprehensive estimate, limiting the global average temperature increase to below 3.6°F (2°C) means approximately 230 GtC more CO2 could be emitted globally. To illustrate, if one assumes future global emissions follow a pathway consistent with the lower scenario (RCP4.5), this cumulative carbon threshold is exceeded by around 2037, while under the higher scenario (RCP8.5) this occurs by around 2033. To limit the global average temperature increase to 2.7°F (1.5°C), the estimated cumulative CO2 budget is about 590 GtC (assuming linear scaling with the compatible 3.6°F (2°C) budget that also considers non-CO2 effects), meaning only about 30 GtC more of CO2 could be emitted. Further emissions of 30 GtC (in the form of CO2) are projected to occur in the next few years (Table 14.1).&lt;p&gt;Dates by when cumulative carbon emissions (GtC) since 1870 reach amount commensurate with 2.7°F (1.5°C), when accounting for non-CO2 forcings:&lt;p&gt;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;                66% = 593 GtC    50% = 615 GtC    33% = 675 GtC  
     --------- ---------------- ---------------- --------------- 
      RCP4.5             2019             2021             2027  
      RCP8.5             2019             2021             2025  
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;
By next year, we&amp;#x27;ll (most likely) have burned through our chance of holding climate change to 1.5°C</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II</title><url>https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/</url></story>