23 ms·

I have no doubt that climate change is a problem. I have kids, I dont want to give them a hospital pass. I've tried to stop living such a carbon dependant life

I have no doubt that climate change is a problem. I have kids, I dont want to give them a hospital pass. I've tried to stop living such a carbon dependant lifestyle but I look outside and my efforts feel futile. How do I REALLY do something about this other than a few pretentious yet barely discomforting lifestyle changes and the odd empassioned few sentences at dinner parties? Start pushing for a carbon tax? Start an electric car company? Begin development of technology to get us to Ma.....oh wait Plant heaps of trees? Buy drones and start my own version of operation sunscreen? Seriously. The mild excitement that comes with media alarmism has transitioned into "I really need to start doing something drastic or I'll regret it"

s917 10y ago
How much stuff do we in the west consume that originates in China, where they don't seem to give a damn about environmental controls? And exactly how much CO2 and other chemicals are belched out by these giant container ships we use to get it all to us? We can buy all the solar panels, wind turbines, electric cars and energy efficient washing machines we want, but until China (and probably others) starts playing ball AND we find a way to move vast quantities of stuff around without container ships we're probably fighting a losing battle. Would it be possible to manufacture goods in the regions they're to be sold in? edit: wordings.
- malka 10y ago
  well, we could have nuclear container ships, I guess. May not be the best idea ever though.
- vkou 10y ago
  Almost all of it. We used to make it with little regard for the environment - now China does. If you want to fix that problem, institute a carbon tax, and import tarrifs on countries that don't have carbon taxes. Practically, with things like the TPP, that's not the way the world is going.
nathan_f77 10y ago
I like your thinking. I don't there's much a regular person can do, even if you become an activist. You really have to become a salesman for climate change, you need to build up your voice and try to get CEOs and politicians to listen to you. I feel the same way about vegetarians and vegans. You're not saving the world by eating salads or sharing the occasional thing on Facebook. You might feel better about yourself and your choices, which is great. But it's only a drop in the ocean, and won't have any effect unless you try to do something bigger. And it's actually going to help with global warming, if the world can start eating less (or no) cows and chickens. It's certainly too big for one person to solve, but that's why people start organizations. I know it's not much, but you can start by signing this petition: http://www.stopwarming.eu/?petition=signup http://www.stopwarming.eu/?petition=signup
hiou 10y ago
Stop or significantly reduce animal consumption. Stop or significantly reduce driving. Stop or reduce flying. That's all there is to it. A quarter of the US does that and we meet all our targets. Stop being a wimp and suck it up and do what's right. It's very obvious and doable.
- supercarrot 10y ago
  Heating and cooling is a significant energy factor, too. Your guidelines are spot on. One can do a lot. But it isn't enough to do just that, one has to point out the superiority of the life culture. If I reduce my consumption but don't teach my kids to do the same, the reasons why I'm doing it, it's all for nothing. Similar issues arise with others outside of family. If I do not eat meat, and not show them why eating meat is wrong for the environment and other moral issues, then nothing can change. As long as the business-as-usual culture is the dominant one, the silent protestor isn't doing very much.
TimJRobinson 10y ago
If you have a little extra money one super easy thing you can do is buy a carbon offset for the carbon you produce each year. There's plenty of websites that can do this if you google for something like "offset my carbon emissions". They will then invest this money in companies that will plant trees, build alternate power or something similar to permanently remove the CO2 you produced ensuring you are carbon neutral for the year. Also my electricity company has a program where you can pay 10% more and all the electricity will be sourced from renewable sources that are carbon neutral. I switched many years ago and barely noticed the increase. These are all basically enacting a carbon tax on yourself, and if enough people do it it will encourage the polluters to invest in more renewable forms of energy (as their profits will continually drop) and lead to a better world.
po 10y ago
The best thing to do is one of the things from Brett Victor's manifesto: http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/ http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/
mikekchar 10y ago
If I said that apples were the cause of global warming and that to avoid catastrophe you had to avoid eating apples it wouldn't worry you nearly as much, would it? I mean apples are delicious, but they aren't worth the misery that extreme weather will inflict on us. There are also a lot of people who depend on apple production to make a living. We would have to find some way for them to transition to something else for the benefit of everyone. Everybody who enjoys apples today would suffer a bit, but most people could deal with the consequences pretty easily. The problem is that carbon releasing, cheap energy is more delicious than apples. It is worth a lot more than apples and the people who control that energy are a lot more powerful than apple growers. But the solution is the same. How would you convince people to stop eating apples? You could protest against the eating of apples. You could lobby for apple taxes. You could do many, many things, but to be honest I don't think you would be very successful. If it were me, I think I would work very hard to eliminate apples from my life (at least as much as I could). I would work very hard to learn how to be happy without apples (or at least with a tiny amount of apples). Having learned how to be happy without apples, I would show my neighbours and friends how they can be happy without apples. Because the thing is, you require a cultural change to get everyone going the same direction. And they won't do it unless they think it's going to be OK. Right now all they hear is death and destruction on one side, or a life of freezing poverty on the other side. Most of them are happy to believe the apple salesmen who tell them that the concept that apples change the climate is preposterous.
- HerpDerpLerp 10y ago
  A confounding factor is that there is apples in a lot of things you may not think of, and somethings use apples in their production... even if you never see the apples yourself.
  - madaxe_again 10y ago
    And even some products which supposedly provide free apples are made with apples, and require themselves to be used beyond their serviceable lifetime to provide more apples than went into making them. In short, we either need a radical new source of apples, or we need to find a way to use far fewer apples.
mveety 10y ago
I honestly think at this point a carbon tax wouldn't help a whole lot unless we did something like develop and fund carbon sequestration with that money. A reduction in total output wouldn't help because there's already a whole lot of CO2 in the atmosphere right now causing problems that something needs to be done about. All of the reductions measures are punts to a future generation because we're still putting CO2 into the atmosphere, and even if it's at a slower rate the same outcome will happen, albeit in 100 years instead of 50. Plus I worry that the government would waste the money on bombing people and spying on us instead of fixing this crisis that is much much worse than what any terrorist could do to us.
- Retric 10y ago
  There are natural carbon sinks which will reduce CO2 levels. The problem is we are digging up carbon vastly faster than they operate. So a 50% reduction would push things off by more than that. Also, their is a lot of inertia in having a carbon based economy, so a larger change at the start can be much cheaper long term. Consider an electrified road would be cheaper than gas and no need to refill the tank, but we have ~zero cars that could use it right now. However, start building them and economics will finish the job. How to pay up to that tipping point? Well a new tax of some type...
LeanderK 10y ago
why not engage actively in an NGO fighting to battle climate change? Most of them have developed ties to the government where they can really push for a certain agenda and have a realistic chance of success. Most of the major cities (in the west, idk about the other parts of the world) have their own small NGOs, but there is always greenpeace etc. They need support on the streets, but also help with their infrastructure...
- Noseshine 10y ago
  That doesn't really answer the question though. You merely named a proxy - what you can do is support that other guy. It doesn't say what that other guy - the NGO - is supposed to do, it merely presupposes that the NGOs know what they are doing, without saying anything about what that is in concrete terms. I don't consider anything along the lines of "raising awareness" an answer, so just increasing the size of the movement (movement for and/or towards what?). I don't see lowering energy consumption worldwide as a realistic goal, the opposite may happen and be necessary. In the coming decades the already waaayyyyy too warm regions of the earth like the Middle East will become even warmer, their only options are moving somewhere else or using energy to create livable spaces (i.e. AC). Just like they made cities like Phoenix, AZ, possible. Without greater energy use we will have another "Völkerwanderung". By the way, the problem of heat isn't just to survive it - doing any productive work, brain work or manual labor, requires lower temperatures than mere survival. Given the advances in renewable energy technology that seems feasible. Nor do I think restriction would significantly help, it seems we've already gone too far. It's like walking on ice and the path back now has so many cracks it's actually more dangerous than the path forward. Of course, which path forward still matters, but "use less energy" is the path back. Not to mention psychology: Setting a goal of "go back to when we used less resources, limit yourself, live your life with as little impact as possible - don't move around (travel) so much, etc." doesn't sound nearly as appealing than a goal that encompasses activity and progress. Resources are finite - but our abilities to create actual cycles instead of one-way streets (to huge waste dumps) are not. I don't think the main message can or should be one of limitation and restriction, that's not what makes humans "tick" - no matter how you think about it (i.e. for better or worse). That said, I think it's not outside the realm of possibilities that huge disruptions are possible and the death of a lot - and I mean a lot - of people. I don't know enough about agriculture, but I think our food production - and let's not forget water - are systems that are "anti-fragile", to use Taleb's term.
tomatsu 10y ago
> pretentious yet barely discomforting lifestyle changes I do most of my commuting with an ebike, because it's fun. It really is very enjoyable and I also get some light cardio exercise at the same time. It's also extremely cheap. A full charge only costs a few cents. Surprisingly, it's pretty fast, too. Using a more optimal route and not having to stop everywhere, I'm faster than the bus - even if I ignore the 10 minutes of walking to/from the bus stop. An ebike is something you really should try for completely selfish reasons. It's good for your health, your wallet, and your quality of life.
madaxe_again 10y ago
I don't wish to sound defeatist, but I fear that we've already passed the point of no return for avoiding Very Serious consequences. We have fed massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere over the past decade, more than any decade in the past, and our rate of emission continues to increase. Admittedly the double delta (the rate of change of the rate of change) has now gone negative, but the fact remains that an enormous amount of damage has been done, and continues to be done. We are already seeing preliminary consequences in the form of heating, excess precipitation, "strange" weather, and this is already incurring costs, both economic and upon the climate. Flood defences aren't cheap, nor is rebuilding homes and infrastructure. On the climate cost front, for instance, the three springs in the UK and elsewhere killed or damaged an awful lot of trees this year, which decreases the amount of carbon reabsorbed - this kind of feedback cycle isn't really anticipated by current models which rather look at broad variables like "is the average temperature within the average range within which trees can live" - not "will we have trees sprout considerably then be frozen twice before succeeding in one year". We have giant holes opening up in the tundra which are spewing forth enormous amounts of methane which again, wasn't really anticipated, and is another positive feedback loop. In terms of what you can do - learn skills that are useful in a post-post-scarcity society. I don't think we can avoid drastic climate change at this point, but we can sure as hell try to survive through it as best we can - and it's likely to force dramatic lifestyle changes, to put it lightly. If you want to do something directly which may abate but not avert the impending disaster, find a way to promote political and popular will to actually do something urgently and internationally - most are still lukewarm on the topic, and will only actually start responding when things get nasty indeed - and then likely only on a local basis and in an uncoordinated fashion. Sorry, that does all sound defeatist, but I think we're going to find ourselves investing an awful lot of time and energy in dealing with the consequences of climate change in the near future, rather than dealing with the root cause. That may end up being a permanent state of affairs - I can imagine that it could actually be turned to net economic benefit for some by generating employment in new industries (dike building will be big business), although many without the benefit of a coordinated response and the fortune to live in part of the world which cares to respond will suffer, greatly. Humans have survived ice ages - civilisations and societies have not, to our knowledge - humans will likely survive this - but this civilisation - who knows.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
nabla9 10y ago
Making adjustments into your own life helps if it changes cultural norms. If not, you are just making it cheaper for others to consume C2O. Pushing for carbon tax and carbon trade is the best overall option. Devil is in the details, of course. Carbon tax should be significant and carbon trade shouldn't have loopholes. It should prevent exporting carbon production to other countries (carbon tax for imported products). It should involve meat production (according to FAO meat consumption produces 17% of human carbon emissions, more than transportation). Biggest problem is attitude against measures that are large enough. People accept measures against climate change only if they are sold with promises of immediate rewards. Economic estimates of the cost of effective measures vary, but typical estimate is 0.5 - 1% reduction into world GDP. This is something we don't have political will to do and mentioning negatives is a taboo. Rational people just flatly refuse to acknowledge that it's possible that reducing carbon emissions might be net negative for economy next 20-40 years. Only our children would see the benefits.
- Brakenshire 10y ago
  > Economic estimates of the cost of effective measures vary, but typical estimate is 0.5 - 1% reduction into world GDP. This is something we don't have political will to do and mentioning negatives is a taboo. Rational people just flatly refuse to acknowledge that it's possible that reducing carbon emissions might be net negative for economy next 20-40 years. I think it is genuinely difficult to say that with any certainty. The economy as well as the climate is highly non linear, with all sorts of unforeseen cost gradients off in undiscovered territory, of low slopes and mountain ridges, and local minima. The purpose of a carbon tax would be to lower the barriers in favour of low carbon technologies, but we can't say in advance what the result will be, until we are on that path, and seeing the outcome of our capital investments. It's perfectly possible that we could collectively direct our capital investments solely in solar, batteries, fuel cells etc, and within a short period of time they drive below the local minima accessible through fossil and combustion technologies. You would see a great disruption of existing investments, but disruption is not inherently a bad thing. You could see 40 years of extraordinary technological and economic progress, but even so you'd still have no way to compare what the outcome might have been of 40 years of energy investment going solely to fossil fuels, relative to the same time and money going to the alternatives. It is undiscovered until you are there. I think ultimately we just have to do our best to price in the externalized costs and to a certain extent to set the hard limits of the amount of damage we are willing to inflict, and let the economy adjust to the reality of the situation.
teekert 10y ago
Meh, I read everywhere that solar is taking over, electricity prices go negative, countries run for days on pure renewable energy and a solar company won a contract for a powerplant over all other contestants in Dubai. Electric cars are the future even it is was only for their performance, the increased amount of interior space and the ease of "fuel" distribution. Admittedly, my country (Netherlands) is still fully on coal and the worst offender for CO2 emissions is apparently the large seafaring companies who we can only limit by buying more local (which is a trend anyway). I'm not too worried, at least about the anthropocentric part of the deal. What will happen apart from that will happen anyway so also no need to worry about that.
- melling 10y ago
  Coal is the biggest source of electricity. it's 39% in the US and over 70% in China, for example: https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_China https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_China
gst 10y ago
IMO the problem is that most sides in the discussion don't propose any viable solutions: On one side there are the climate change deniers (and the people who don't care about it). They are fine to continue business as usual. On the other side there are the people who are concerned about climate change. But instead of agreeing to effective solutions (compromises) that allow us to somewhat mitigate global warming (such as nuclear energy) they oppose those solutions and instead propose things that are 1) not realistic to implement in the short-term and that 2) the first group (the climate change deniers) would never agree to. Basically the outcome is that we're stuck in a grid lock now and nothing happens at all. Regarding nuclear energy: Most of the people whom I know oppose nuclear energy because of 1) "what happens if there's an accident" and 2) "what should we do with the waste". My response to this: 1) Per TWH nuclear energy is statistically safer than other energy sources: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-so... and 2) While there are some more long-term approaches for waste (reprocessing, maybe Thorium) even in the short-term I prefer a well definied disposal site over just blowing the waste into their air (which is what happens with fossil-fuel powered plants. I recommend reading http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/james-lovelock-nuclear-power-is-the-only-green-solution-564446.html http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/james-lovel... for a few more arguments.
- the_gastropod 10y ago
  There's a third that I'm familiar with, and find compelling: construction. Building a new nuclear power plant costs tens of billions of dollars (usually requiring government funding) and ~10 years from start to finish. The efficiency of wind and solar power is increasing rapidly, and in 10 years will likely be a better investment than a nuclear plant.
  - Cybiote 10y ago
    "The world construction rate peaked at 30 GW of nuclear power per year in 1984" ... "The rate of new build was biggest in 1984, and had a value of (drum-roll please...) about 30 GW per year – about 30 1-GW reactors." https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_171.shtml https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_171.shtml
staticelf 10y ago
I no longer eat meat and a big reason of why is it sucks for the climate. :)
- uhtred 10y ago
  Good on you. I've drastically reduced the amount of meat I eat to about once a week, for many reasons including environmental. I feel western society almost worships meat (especially in America - bacon, anyone?) and links it to masculinity. I think most people would rather watch the world burn than give up meat.
  - toasterlovin 10y ago
    To my mind, if you are concerned about your impact on the environment, what kind of food you eat is not nearly as important as how much money you spend. It's a coarse grained rule of thumb, but money basically represents a share of the world's abundance. When you spend money, you are claiming a part of that abundance for yourself. And the more you spend, the larger share you are claiming. So if you eat a vegetarian meal at a restaurant at $40, that is worse for the environment than eating $10 worth of meat at home. Things are further confounded by what kind of non-meat products you eat. For instance, fruit and most leafy-green vegetables have a similar cost per calorie to meat. Thus, I would argue that they have about the same environmental impact as meat. So really, if you want to tread lightly on the environment, I think you want to be eating a lot of grains, vegetable oils, nuts, milk and (less expensive) cheese. You want them all to be non-organic. And you want to be preparing your meals yourself.
    - pilom 10y ago
      "fruit and most leafy-green vegetables have a similar cost per calorie to meat. Thus, I would argue that they have about the same environmental impact as meat." Unfortunately, this is provably false. For beef, you need to grow 12,000 calories of plants to produce (i.e. feed) 1,000 calories of beef. About 8 to 1 for pork, 6 to 1 for turkey, and 5 to 1 for chicken.
davidgerard 10y ago
Industry, government. The end consumer is something like 10% if that.
jackmott 10y ago
The easiest solution politically is help advance the state of the art in solar, wind, and nuclear power, so that these naturally become adopted by the horrible sorts of people that run big corporations and do whatever makes them money no matter the consequences. And somehow encourage people to have less kids.
jsingleton 10y ago
You can do a lot in your own life that will also save you money. I won't go into too much detail because, as you note, this has a small effect unless lots of people do it. But some simple ideas that are cheap and boring. - Eat less meat or cut it out fully (or at least not every day) - Fly less and use long distance trains where you can - Insulate your property to reduce energy use - Ride a bicycle and take public transport rather than drive (or get an EV) - Install solar power / battery storage / heat pumps - Switch energy supplier to a green provider However, to be effective beyond that you need to do things that scale and have a multiplying effect or bootstrap/kickstart a virtuous circle. This should be a familiar principle for the startup crowd on HN. Some simple ideas: - Write about your experiences in green living online - Get a job in a green industry (lots of them need developers) - Help others get jobs in green industries - Invest in green companies (crowd funding etc.) - Divest from fossil fuel (pension choices etc.) - Join a community group and donate your time / skills For example, I help run a community group called Cleanweb UK and we have a free jobs site (https://cleanwebjobs.com https://cleanwebjobs.com) that tries to get tech workers into jobs that help fight climate change. Friends of the Earth often run hackathons. You could also make tools to help people who are trying to reduce their carbon impact. For example, I built https://shutdownscanner.com https://shutdownscanner.com to help office managers measure how many computers are left on when not in use. There are many opportunities to build tools that assist in demand shifting and other green data based systems.
- Declanomous 10y ago
  As far as I'm aware flying generates fewer greenhouse gas emissions than any either trains, cars or buses over long distances. (At least in the US, where our rail infrastructure is freight-centric and diesel powered.) The argument against flying is that the greenhouse gas emissions end up high up, which could contribute to the greenhouse gas effect. However, long distance passenger trains in the US reduce the freight capacity of railroads, and the railroad is vastly more efficient than tractor-trailers when it comes to freight transport. This holds true even if the freight is transported in the relatively-un-aerodynamic intermodal container.
  - hiou 10y ago
thatfrenchguy 10y ago
Buy less stuff ? I'm surprised no-one here has say here that the growth-at-all-cost way of doing business is one of the major reason behind global warming.
fsloth 10y ago
The problem is humanity. The assholes who own the public mindshare on green issues are misogynic nuts who oppose our best chance for clean energy - nuclear - for ideological reasons. The fossil fuel industry sits on so much unburnt fuel that their financial incentives to turn our world to shit to liquidate their capital is unresistable - jusy like an addict can't resist their narcotic despite it destroys them. Governments are the only bodies that could do something to this but it appears right wing nuts have captured the political arena in western countries by focusing on unhelpful non-issues to further their political ambitions. Nobody cares about the environment unless the doomsday comes nexr week. And the doomsday wont come - it will be a slow boiling, and we all will be the frogs. Personally, I don't think there is anything a person without political connections can do to really do anything - except to shift the general discourse to environmental issues up until we reach the point where we in general understand environmental issues to be moral issues of utmost importance - and thus drive general policies towards sane goals. The trend seems positive - recycling seems to be a big thing and 'green is good' - but so far for the majority environmental issues seem to be lifestyle issues and not critical issues. In this light, I suppose anything one can do in ones communities to raise the awareness on ecological issues is good. One of the main problems of communcating with the public is that the environmental agenda front is filled with self-righteous nutcases without critical analysis skills and who are more like a crazy crystall healers rather than a Jaques Cousteau style pragmatists. Now that I think of it, the more pragmatic geeks we can get involved in ecological issues the better. The world deserves a better breed of ecological afficionados.
merpnderp 10y ago
There can't be an honest discussion about climate change that doesn't start with nuclear power. The non-western world deserves to get to live as well as it possibly can. And telling poor African countries that if they build another coal plant they put their world loans in jeopardy is criminal. Subsidizing a few solar or wind plants doesn't even begin to impact electrical needs across the poorer parts of the world. Yet we'd rather people died today by the millions from preventable higher mortality rates due to poverty, than allow the developing world unfettered access to coal. There's a reason many Asian countries have told the rest of the world off and started building nuclear plants as fast as they can.
freshfey 10y ago
As an end-consumer, probably not that much you can do to impact it (besides being carbon conscious and living accordingly), but as a creator/maker there are tons of things you can do. The problem with media in my case is, that it leaves me paralyzed towards action more than it motivates me. OT (sorry): cconcepts, is there any way to reach you via email? I have a question about one of your posts, but you don't have an email address in your profile
jogjayr 10y ago
> How do I REALLY do something about this other than a few pretentious yet barely discomforting lifestyle changes and the odd empassioned few sentences at dinner parties? I would recommend the Mr. Money Mustache blog. While its premise is early retirement/financial independence, the author writes extensively about lifestyle design. His actual (self-stated) goal is to save humans from destroying themselves. The prescriptions sound drastic at first (ride a bike for any trip under 10 miles?!) but it turns out they also make you healthier and richer.
yongjik 10y ago
This might be opening a can of worms, but "electing national leaders who know that Global Warming is actually happening" can go a long way. Now, in some cases, I understand that the alternative (because there's usually the alternative) candidate is so unpalatable to you because of their other political positions. I'm just saying that, if we're serious about this, we must rate "Does this candidate understand that Global Warming is real?" as a "Very Important Factor"(TM) in choosing your representatives. At all levels of the government.
Mz 10y ago
Walk more as a means to get around, not just for exercise. Wear normal street clothes and walk to a nearby store, walk to an eatery for lunch or whatever you can reasonably manage. I gave up my car some years ago. The internet advised me that I did not live in a walkable neighborhood, even though I lived about as close to my job as was possible and there were three or four shopping centers within a 20 minute walk of my apartment. I began walking to work and I and my sons began walking to get groceries and do other shopping. The entire neighborhood began walking more. The cops stopped staking out my apartment complex. The vegetation in the area got visibly healthier. Walk more and set the example. I have seen this make a real difference in multiple neighborhoods.

s917 10y ago

How much stuff do we in the west consume that originates in China, where they don't seem to give a damn about environmental controls? And exactly how much CO2 and other chemicals are belched out by these giant container ships we use to get it all to us? We can buy all the solar panels, wind turbines, electric cars and energy efficient washing machines we want, but until China (and probably others) starts playing ball AND we find a way to move vast quantities of stuff around without container ships we're probably fighting a losing battle. Would it be possible to manufacture goods in the regions they're to be sold in? edit: wordings.

malka 10y ago
well, we could have nuclear container ships, I guess. May not be the best idea ever though.
vkou 10y ago
Almost all of it. We used to make it with little regard for the environment - now China does. If you want to fix that problem, institute a carbon tax, and import tarrifs on countries that don't have carbon taxes. Practically, with things like the TPP, that's not the way the world is going.

nathan_f77 10y ago

I like your thinking. I don't there's much a regular person can do, even if you become an activist. You really have to become a salesman for climate change, you need to build up your voice and try to get CEOs and politicians to listen to you. I feel the same way about vegetarians and vegans. You're not saving the world by eating salads or sharing the occasional thing on Facebook. You might feel better about yourself and your choices, which is great. But it's only a drop in the ocean, and won't have any effect unless you try to do something bigger. And it's actually going to help with global warming, if the world can start eating less (or no) cows and chickens. It's certainly too big for one person to solve, but that's why people start organizations. I know it's not much, but you can start by signing this petition: http://www.stopwarming.eu/?petition=signup http://www.stopwarming.eu/?petition=signup

hiou 10y ago

Stop or significantly reduce animal consumption. Stop or significantly reduce driving. Stop or reduce flying. That's all there is to it. A quarter of the US does that and we meet all our targets. Stop being a wimp and suck it up and do what's right. It's very obvious and doable.

supercarrot 10y ago
Heating and cooling is a significant energy factor, too. Your guidelines are spot on. One can do a lot. But it isn't enough to do just that, one has to point out the superiority of the life culture. If I reduce my consumption but don't teach my kids to do the same, the reasons why I'm doing it, it's all for nothing. Similar issues arise with others outside of family. If I do not eat meat, and not show them why eating meat is wrong for the environment and other moral issues, then nothing can change. As long as the business-as-usual culture is the dominant one, the silent protestor isn't doing very much.

TimJRobinson 10y ago

If you have a little extra money one super easy thing you can do is buy a carbon offset for the carbon you produce each year. There's plenty of websites that can do this if you google for something like "offset my carbon emissions". They will then invest this money in companies that will plant trees, build alternate power or something similar to permanently remove the CO2 you produced ensuring you are carbon neutral for the year. Also my electricity company has a program where you can pay 10% more and all the electricity will be sourced from renewable sources that are carbon neutral. I switched many years ago and barely noticed the increase. These are all basically enacting a carbon tax on yourself, and if enough people do it it will encourage the polluters to invest in more renewable forms of energy (as their profits will continually drop) and lead to a better world.

po 10y ago

The best thing to do is one of the things from Brett Victor's manifesto: http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/ http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/

mikekchar 10y ago

If I said that apples were the cause of global warming and that to avoid catastrophe you had to avoid eating apples it wouldn't worry you nearly as much, would it? I mean apples are delicious, but they aren't worth the misery that extreme weather will inflict on us. There are also a lot of people who depend on apple production to make a living. We would have to find some way for them to transition to something else for the benefit of everyone. Everybody who enjoys apples today would suffer a bit, but most people could deal with the consequences pretty easily. The problem is that carbon releasing, cheap energy is more delicious than apples. It is worth a lot more than apples and the people who control that energy are a lot more powerful than apple growers. But the solution is the same. How would you convince people to stop eating apples? You could protest against the eating of apples. You could lobby for apple taxes. You could do many, many things, but to be honest I don't think you would be very successful. If it were me, I think I would work very hard to eliminate apples from my life (at least as much as I could). I would work very hard to learn how to be happy without apples (or at least with a tiny amount of apples). Having learned how to be happy without apples, I would show my neighbours and friends how they can be happy without apples. Because the thing is, you require a cultural change to get everyone going the same direction. And they won't do it unless they think it's going to be OK. Right now all they hear is death and destruction on one side, or a life of freezing poverty on the other side. Most of them are happy to believe the apple salesmen who tell them that the concept that apples change the climate is preposterous.

HerpDerpLerp 10y ago
A confounding factor is that there is apples in a lot of things you may not think of, and somethings use apples in their production... even if you never see the apples yourself.
- madaxe_again 10y ago
  And even some products which supposedly provide free apples are made with apples, and require themselves to be used beyond their serviceable lifetime to provide more apples than went into making them. In short, we either need a radical new source of apples, or we need to find a way to use far fewer apples.

mveety 10y ago

I honestly think at this point a carbon tax wouldn't help a whole lot unless we did something like develop and fund carbon sequestration with that money. A reduction in total output wouldn't help because there's already a whole lot of CO2 in the atmosphere right now causing problems that something needs to be done about. All of the reductions measures are punts to a future generation because we're still putting CO2 into the atmosphere, and even if it's at a slower rate the same outcome will happen, albeit in 100 years instead of 50. Plus I worry that the government would waste the money on bombing people and spying on us instead of fixing this crisis that is much much worse than what any terrorist could do to us.

Retric 10y ago
There are natural carbon sinks which will reduce CO2 levels. The problem is we are digging up carbon vastly faster than they operate. So a 50% reduction would push things off by more than that. Also, their is a lot of inertia in having a carbon based economy, so a larger change at the start can be much cheaper long term. Consider an electrified road would be cheaper than gas and no need to refill the tank, but we have ~zero cars that could use it right now. However, start building them and economics will finish the job. How to pay up to that tipping point? Well a new tax of some type...

LeanderK 10y ago

why not engage actively in an NGO fighting to battle climate change? Most of them have developed ties to the government where they can really push for a certain agenda and have a realistic chance of success. Most of the major cities (in the west, idk about the other parts of the world) have their own small NGOs, but there is always greenpeace etc. They need support on the streets, but also help with their infrastructure...

Noseshine 10y ago
That doesn't really answer the question though. You merely named a proxy - what you can do is support that other guy. It doesn't say what that other guy - the NGO - is supposed to do, it merely presupposes that the NGOs know what they are doing, without saying anything about what that is in concrete terms. I don't consider anything along the lines of "raising awareness" an answer, so just increasing the size of the movement (movement for and/or towards what?). I don't see lowering energy consumption worldwide as a realistic goal, the opposite may happen and be necessary. In the coming decades the already waaayyyyy too warm regions of the earth like the Middle East will become even warmer, their only options are moving somewhere else or using energy to create livable spaces (i.e. AC). Just like they made cities like Phoenix, AZ, possible. Without greater energy use we will have another "Völkerwanderung". By the way, the problem of heat isn't just to survive it - doing any productive work, brain work or manual labor, requires lower temperatures than mere survival. Given the advances in renewable energy technology that seems feasible. Nor do I think restriction would significantly help, it seems we've already gone too far. It's like walking on ice and the path back now has so many cracks it's actually more dangerous than the path forward. Of course, which path forward still matters, but "use less energy" is the path back. Not to mention psychology: Setting a goal of "go back to when we used less resources, limit yourself, live your life with as little impact as possible - don't move around (travel) so much, etc." doesn't sound nearly as appealing than a goal that encompasses activity and progress. Resources are finite - but our abilities to create actual cycles instead of one-way streets (to huge waste dumps) are not. I don't think the main message can or should be one of limitation and restriction, that's not what makes humans "tick" - no matter how you think about it (i.e. for better or worse). That said, I think it's not outside the realm of possibilities that huge disruptions are possible and the death of a lot - and I mean a lot - of people. I don't know enough about agriculture, but I think our food production - and let's not forget water - are systems that are "anti-fragile", to use Taleb's term.

tomatsu 10y ago

> pretentious yet barely discomforting lifestyle changes I do most of my commuting with an ebike, because it's fun. It really is very enjoyable and I also get some light cardio exercise at the same time. It's also extremely cheap. A full charge only costs a few cents. Surprisingly, it's pretty fast, too. Using a more optimal route and not having to stop everywhere, I'm faster than the bus - even if I ignore the 10 minutes of walking to/from the bus stop. An ebike is something you really should try for completely selfish reasons. It's good for your health, your wallet, and your quality of life.

madaxe_again 10y ago

I don't wish to sound defeatist, but I fear that we've already passed the point of no return for avoiding Very Serious consequences. We have fed massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere over the past decade, more than any decade in the past, and our rate of emission continues to increase. Admittedly the double delta (the rate of change of the rate of change) has now gone negative, but the fact remains that an enormous amount of damage has been done, and continues to be done. We are already seeing preliminary consequences in the form of heating, excess precipitation, "strange" weather, and this is already incurring costs, both economic and upon the climate. Flood defences aren't cheap, nor is rebuilding homes and infrastructure. On the climate cost front, for instance, the three springs in the UK and elsewhere killed or damaged an awful lot of trees this year, which decreases the amount of carbon reabsorbed - this kind of feedback cycle isn't really anticipated by current models which rather look at broad variables like "is the average temperature within the average range within which trees can live" - not "will we have trees sprout considerably then be frozen twice before succeeding in one year". We have giant holes opening up in the tundra which are spewing forth enormous amounts of methane which again, wasn't really anticipated, and is another positive feedback loop. In terms of what you can do - learn skills that are useful in a post-post-scarcity society. I don't think we can avoid drastic climate change at this point, but we can sure as hell try to survive through it as best we can - and it's likely to force dramatic lifestyle changes, to put it lightly. If you want to do something directly which may abate but not avert the impending disaster, find a way to promote political and popular will to actually do something urgently and internationally - most are still lukewarm on the topic, and will only actually start responding when things get nasty indeed - and then likely only on a local basis and in an uncoordinated fashion. Sorry, that does all sound defeatist, but I think we're going to find ourselves investing an awful lot of time and energy in dealing with the consequences of climate change in the near future, rather than dealing with the root cause. That may end up being a permanent state of affairs - I can imagine that it could actually be turned to net economic benefit for some by generating employment in new industries (dike building will be big business), although many without the benefit of a coordinated response and the fortune to live in part of the world which cares to respond will suffer, greatly. Humans have survived ice ages - civilisations and societies have not, to our knowledge - humans will likely survive this - but this civilisation - who knows.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

nabla9 10y ago

Making adjustments into your own life helps if it changes cultural norms. If not, you are just making it cheaper for others to consume C2O. Pushing for carbon tax and carbon trade is the best overall option. Devil is in the details, of course. Carbon tax should be significant and carbon trade shouldn't have loopholes. It should prevent exporting carbon production to other countries (carbon tax for imported products). It should involve meat production (according to FAO meat consumption produces 17% of human carbon emissions, more than transportation). Biggest problem is attitude against measures that are large enough. People accept measures against climate change only if they are sold with promises of immediate rewards. Economic estimates of the cost of effective measures vary, but typical estimate is 0.5 - 1% reduction into world GDP. This is something we don't have political will to do and mentioning negatives is a taboo. Rational people just flatly refuse to acknowledge that it's possible that reducing carbon emissions might be net negative for economy next 20-40 years. Only our children would see the benefits.

Brakenshire 10y ago
> Economic estimates of the cost of effective measures vary, but typical estimate is 0.5 - 1% reduction into world GDP. This is something we don't have political will to do and mentioning negatives is a taboo. Rational people just flatly refuse to acknowledge that it's possible that reducing carbon emissions might be net negative for economy next 20-40 years. I think it is genuinely difficult to say that with any certainty. The economy as well as the climate is highly non linear, with all sorts of unforeseen cost gradients off in undiscovered territory, of low slopes and mountain ridges, and local minima. The purpose of a carbon tax would be to lower the barriers in favour of low carbon technologies, but we can't say in advance what the result will be, until we are on that path, and seeing the outcome of our capital investments. It's perfectly possible that we could collectively direct our capital investments solely in solar, batteries, fuel cells etc, and within a short period of time they drive below the local minima accessible through fossil and combustion technologies. You would see a great disruption of existing investments, but disruption is not inherently a bad thing. You could see 40 years of extraordinary technological and economic progress, but even so you'd still have no way to compare what the outcome might have been of 40 years of energy investment going solely to fossil fuels, relative to the same time and money going to the alternatives. It is undiscovered until you are there. I think ultimately we just have to do our best to price in the externalized costs and to a certain extent to set the hard limits of the amount of damage we are willing to inflict, and let the economy adjust to the reality of the situation.

teekert 10y ago

Meh, I read everywhere that solar is taking over, electricity prices go negative, countries run for days on pure renewable energy and a solar company won a contract for a powerplant over all other contestants in Dubai. Electric cars are the future even it is was only for their performance, the increased amount of interior space and the ease of "fuel" distribution. Admittedly, my country (Netherlands) is still fully on coal and the worst offender for CO2 emissions is apparently the large seafaring companies who we can only limit by buying more local (which is a trend anyway). I'm not too worried, at least about the anthropocentric part of the deal. What will happen apart from that will happen anyway so also no need to worry about that.

melling 10y ago
Coal is the biggest source of electricity. it's 39% in the US and over 70% in China, for example: https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_China https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_China

gst 10y ago

IMO the problem is that most sides in the discussion don't propose any viable solutions: On one side there are the climate change deniers (and the people who don't care about it). They are fine to continue business as usual. On the other side there are the people who are concerned about climate change. But instead of agreeing to effective solutions (compromises) that allow us to somewhat mitigate global warming (such as nuclear energy) they oppose those solutions and instead propose things that are 1) not realistic to implement in the short-term and that 2) the first group (the climate change deniers) would never agree to. Basically the outcome is that we're stuck in a grid lock now and nothing happens at all. Regarding nuclear energy: Most of the people whom I know oppose nuclear energy because of 1) "what happens if there's an accident" and 2) "what should we do with the waste". My response to this: 1) Per TWH nuclear energy is statistically safer than other energy sources: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-so... and 2) While there are some more long-term approaches for waste (reprocessing, maybe Thorium) even in the short-term I prefer a well definied disposal site over just blowing the waste into their air (which is what happens with fossil-fuel powered plants. I recommend reading http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/james-lovelock-nuclear-power-is-the-only-green-solution-564446.html http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/james-lovel... for a few more arguments.

the_gastropod 10y ago
There's a third that I'm familiar with, and find compelling: construction. Building a new nuclear power plant costs tens of billions of dollars (usually requiring government funding) and ~10 years from start to finish. The efficiency of wind and solar power is increasing rapidly, and in 10 years will likely be a better investment than a nuclear plant.
- Cybiote 10y ago
  "The world construction rate peaked at 30 GW of nuclear power per year in 1984" ... "The rate of new build was biggest in 1984, and had a value of (drum-roll please...) about 30 GW per year – about 30 1-GW reactors." https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_171.shtml https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_171.shtml

staticelf 10y ago

I no longer eat meat and a big reason of why is it sucks for the climate. :)

uhtred 10y ago
Good on you. I've drastically reduced the amount of meat I eat to about once a week, for many reasons including environmental. I feel western society almost worships meat (especially in America - bacon, anyone?) and links it to masculinity. I think most people would rather watch the world burn than give up meat.
- toasterlovin 10y ago
  To my mind, if you are concerned about your impact on the environment, what kind of food you eat is not nearly as important as how much money you spend. It's a coarse grained rule of thumb, but money basically represents a share of the world's abundance. When you spend money, you are claiming a part of that abundance for yourself. And the more you spend, the larger share you are claiming. So if you eat a vegetarian meal at a restaurant at $40, that is worse for the environment than eating $10 worth of meat at home. Things are further confounded by what kind of non-meat products you eat. For instance, fruit and most leafy-green vegetables have a similar cost per calorie to meat. Thus, I would argue that they have about the same environmental impact as meat. So really, if you want to tread lightly on the environment, I think you want to be eating a lot of grains, vegetable oils, nuts, milk and (less expensive) cheese. You want them all to be non-organic. And you want to be preparing your meals yourself.
  - pilom 10y ago
    "fruit and most leafy-green vegetables have a similar cost per calorie to meat. Thus, I would argue that they have about the same environmental impact as meat." Unfortunately, this is provably false. For beef, you need to grow 12,000 calories of plants to produce (i.e. feed) 1,000 calories of beef. About 8 to 1 for pork, 6 to 1 for turkey, and 5 to 1 for chicken.

davidgerard 10y ago

Industry, government. The end consumer is something like 10% if that.

jackmott 10y ago

The easiest solution politically is help advance the state of the art in solar, wind, and nuclear power, so that these naturally become adopted by the horrible sorts of people that run big corporations and do whatever makes them money no matter the consequences. And somehow encourage people to have less kids.

jsingleton 10y ago

You can do a lot in your own life that will also save you money. I won't go into too much detail because, as you note, this has a small effect unless lots of people do it. But some simple ideas that are cheap and boring. - Eat less meat or cut it out fully (or at least not every day) - Fly less and use long distance trains where you can - Insulate your property to reduce energy use - Ride a bicycle and take public transport rather than drive (or get an EV) - Install solar power / battery storage / heat pumps - Switch energy supplier to a green provider However, to be effective beyond that you need to do things that scale and have a multiplying effect or bootstrap/kickstart a virtuous circle. This should be a familiar principle for the startup crowd on HN. Some simple ideas: - Write about your experiences in green living online - Get a job in a green industry (lots of them need developers) - Help others get jobs in green industries - Invest in green companies (crowd funding etc.) - Divest from fossil fuel (pension choices etc.) - Join a community group and donate your time / skills For example, I help run a community group called Cleanweb UK and we have a free jobs site (https://cleanwebjobs.com https://cleanwebjobs.com) that tries to get tech workers into jobs that help fight climate change. Friends of the Earth often run hackathons. You could also make tools to help people who are trying to reduce their carbon impact. For example, I built https://shutdownscanner.com https://shutdownscanner.com to help office managers measure how many computers are left on when not in use. There are many opportunities to build tools that assist in demand shifting and other green data based systems.

Declanomous 10y ago
As far as I'm aware flying generates fewer greenhouse gas emissions than any either trains, cars or buses over long distances. (At least in the US, where our rail infrastructure is freight-centric and diesel powered.) The argument against flying is that the greenhouse gas emissions end up high up, which could contribute to the greenhouse gas effect. However, long distance passenger trains in the US reduce the freight capacity of railroads, and the railroad is vastly more efficient than tractor-trailers when it comes to freight transport. This holds true even if the freight is transported in the relatively-un-aerodynamic intermodal container.
- hiou 10y ago

thatfrenchguy 10y ago

Buy less stuff ? I'm surprised no-one here has say here that the growth-at-all-cost way of doing business is one of the major reason behind global warming.

fsloth 10y ago

The problem is humanity. The assholes who own the public mindshare on green issues are misogynic nuts who oppose our best chance for clean energy - nuclear - for ideological reasons. The fossil fuel industry sits on so much unburnt fuel that their financial incentives to turn our world to shit to liquidate their capital is unresistable - jusy like an addict can't resist their narcotic despite it destroys them. Governments are the only bodies that could do something to this but it appears right wing nuts have captured the political arena in western countries by focusing on unhelpful non-issues to further their political ambitions. Nobody cares about the environment unless the doomsday comes nexr week. And the doomsday wont come - it will be a slow boiling, and we all will be the frogs. Personally, I don't think there is anything a person without political connections can do to really do anything - except to shift the general discourse to environmental issues up until we reach the point where we in general understand environmental issues to be moral issues of utmost importance - and thus drive general policies towards sane goals. The trend seems positive - recycling seems to be a big thing and 'green is good' - but so far for the majority environmental issues seem to be lifestyle issues and not critical issues. In this light, I suppose anything one can do in ones communities to raise the awareness on ecological issues is good. One of the main problems of communcating with the public is that the environmental agenda front is filled with self-righteous nutcases without critical analysis skills and who are more like a crazy crystall healers rather than a Jaques Cousteau style pragmatists. Now that I think of it, the more pragmatic geeks we can get involved in ecological issues the better. The world deserves a better breed of ecological afficionados.

merpnderp 10y ago

There can't be an honest discussion about climate change that doesn't start with nuclear power. The non-western world deserves to get to live as well as it possibly can. And telling poor African countries that if they build another coal plant they put their world loans in jeopardy is criminal. Subsidizing a few solar or wind plants doesn't even begin to impact electrical needs across the poorer parts of the world. Yet we'd rather people died today by the millions from preventable higher mortality rates due to poverty, than allow the developing world unfettered access to coal. There's a reason many Asian countries have told the rest of the world off and started building nuclear plants as fast as they can.

freshfey 10y ago

As an end-consumer, probably not that much you can do to impact it (besides being carbon conscious and living accordingly), but as a creator/maker there are tons of things you can do. The problem with media in my case is, that it leaves me paralyzed towards action more than it motivates me. OT (sorry): cconcepts, is there any way to reach you via email? I have a question about one of your posts, but you don't have an email address in your profile

jogjayr 10y ago

> How do I REALLY do something about this other than a few pretentious yet barely discomforting lifestyle changes and the odd empassioned few sentences at dinner parties? I would recommend the Mr. Money Mustache blog. While its premise is early retirement/financial independence, the author writes extensively about lifestyle design. His actual (self-stated) goal is to save humans from destroying themselves. The prescriptions sound drastic at first (ride a bike for any trip under 10 miles?!) but it turns out they also make you healthier and richer.

yongjik 10y ago

This might be opening a can of worms, but "electing national leaders who know that Global Warming is actually happening" can go a long way. Now, in some cases, I understand that the alternative (because there's usually the alternative) candidate is so unpalatable to you because of their other political positions. I'm just saying that, if we're serious about this, we must rate "Does this candidate understand that Global Warming is real?" as a "Very Important Factor"(TM) in choosing your representatives. At all levels of the government.

Mz 10y ago

Walk more as a means to get around, not just for exercise. Wear normal street clothes and walk to a nearby store, walk to an eatery for lunch or whatever you can reasonably manage. I gave up my car some years ago. The internet advised me that I did not live in a walkable neighborhood, even though I lived about as close to my job as was possible and there were three or four shopping centers within a 20 minute walk of my apartment. I began walking to work and I and my sons began walking to get groceries and do other shopping. The entire neighborhood began walking more. The cops stopped staking out my apartment complex. The vegetation in the area got visibly healthier. Walk more and set the example. I have seen this make a real difference in multiple neighborhoods.