10 ms·

What You Can Do About Climate Change

69 points by WheelsAtLarge 10y ago

mrgriscom 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  Short comment, but entirely true. The cost decline curve of solar and wind has been stupid: Wind is below 2 cents/kwh unsubsidized, solar still around 6-8 cents/kwh unsubsidized; natural gas is destroying the demand for coal, and renewables are destroying demand for nuclear. As renewable deployments accelerate, they will push out natural gas generation (along with cheaper battery storage). Electric vehicles are here! Go get one. If not a Tesla, a Bolt, a Leaf, or perhaps a Volt if you still can't commit entirely to a battery electric vehicle alone. There's a federal tax credit in it for you. Need your roof replaced? Order some Tesla solar tiles; orders are being taken as of next month, with delivery near the end of the year. A 30% federal tax credit to have your roof replaced is a pretty swank deal, along with the roof producing power (most likely) for the remaining life of the home. (I disregard state incentives for the purposes of this comment, but do check if your state has them, many do) Regardless of technologic advancement, people still need to make the right choices in aggregate; get your LEDs in them fixtures, insulate your home, buy energy efficiency appliances (your utility probably pays a rebate for doing so). We'll still need to work on bovine methane emissions [1], marine [2], and air fossil fuel consumption, but there's still a lot of low hanging fruit for us to capture. [1] http://www.nationalgeographic.com/people-and-culture/food/the-plate/2016/11/seaweed-may-be-the-solution-for-burping-cows/ http://www.nationalgeographic.com/people-and-culture/food/th... [2] https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/models/nonrdmdl/c-marine/r00002.pdf https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/models/nonrdmdl/c-marine/r00002.pd... [3] http://www.iata.org/policy/environment/Pages/climate-change.aspx http://www.iata.org/policy/environment/Pages/climate-change....
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    storage haven't been solved and a large part of the entire economy is based on debt in the fossile fuel industry. renewables are not destroying the deman for nuclear as the worlds energy demand will continue to rise quite substantially as 1 billion people enter the middle class over the next decades.
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      Nuclear is ~6-8 cents/kWh, which wind and solar already beat, regardless of capacity factor.
      - ThomPete 10y ago
        But wind and solat cant deliver enough and its not storable yet, solve that and you have my support until then i am going to stick to supporting any effort to build nuclear over wind. Solar is different.
      - ThomPete 10y ago
        But wind and solat cant deliver enough and its not storable yet, solve that and you have my support until then i am going to stick to supporting any effort to build nuclear over wind. Solar is different.
medymed 10y ago
Strong arguments for buying a new car from a group with industry ties in Michigan. Or you can buy a submarine.
- soniman 10y ago
  True environmentalists drive used cars. Or buy used SUV and not drive it much.
- DrScump 10y ago
  "Industry ties" mean nothing with regards to locality. Ford has strong industry ties in Michigan but has done all of its recent state-of-the-art plant construction (for the North American market) in Mexico.
r-s 10y ago
I have chosen to not have children. Environment concerns was not the only factor, but a significant one. I suspect that this choice is far better for the environment then anything listed in that article.
- RangerScience 10y ago
  Someday, all the people that are left will be the descendants of the people who had kids. Adopt, so that you're not contributing to population, but are contributing what makes you a responsible human to that future population.
  - cromulent 10y ago
    Everyday, not someday, surely :)
- olalonde 10y ago
  I'd say for most people, abstaining from having children would rank as a much bigger sacrifice than switching to a fuel efficient car though. I suspect you didn't particularly want to have kids in the first place.
kolbe 10y ago
that was a really long and unusual way of saying 'nothing'
Fej 10y ago
We are beyond the point where individual action can make a difference. Legislation is necessary to stop the worst of catastrophes.
- badosu 10y ago
  I understand where you're coming from, however you must take into consideration that your individual actions are perceptible by your peers. A difference in culture has much more potential effect than what may be perceptible. You may not control Congress, but you can control your actions and influence your peers. Tiny influences can impact in an emergent change in the future. Of course, this is highly subjective and probably more in the field of Ethics than anything else.
  - Fej 10y ago
    I do see it as ethics, but you are right.
- macawfish 10y ago
  It still makes a difference. Yes, the future is looking hectic, but now we have time to lay foundations. Even if half the population is wiped out (or more), we can lay cultural and physical foundations now that are seeds for the future. In some ways, remember how lucky we are! We still have time and energy to prepare! We could be living in a world where the forces of intentional ignorance had done much more damage than they've managed. Yet we have excellent scientists. Look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companion_plants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companion_plants It's an amazing resource! Don't forget about our amazing collective resources! Now is not the time to neglect them!
bradlys 10y ago
I definitely have trouble balancing enjoyment of something with the environmental effects it has. This article hits a nerve for me. I bought a sporty car that barely manages 15mpg. I've managed to put the worry about environmental effects at bay for a moment.
nawitus 10y ago
I thought the best single thing was going vegan. Anyway, I sometimes think it's quite funny how my own lifestyle is so much more green than the average "green" person. I don't have children, I don't own or drive a car, I only use public transporation, 99% of which runs on electricity. I'm vegan, I haven't been on an airplane for like maybe 4 or 5 years. I live in a modern, energy efficient and small apartment. I buy "100% renewable electricity" in a new, energy efficient "smart city neighbourhood". And of course I recycle. Yet I haven't really tried to be more green, these circumstances have just happened naturally.
- nkurz 10y ago
  I thought the best single thing was going vegan. I tried to research this a while ago, and I think the numbers work out to say that going from a "standard" American omnivorous diet to a "standard" American vegetarian diet corresponds to a CO2 emissions reduction equivalent a one-way NY-SF flight or drive. Going from that to the a vegan diet is about equivalent to avoiding the return flight or drive. So if you've already avoided having children, and already avoid flying and driving, then going vegan is probably one of the best things you can personally do to reduce your CO2 emissions. But if you haven't yet done those things, changing your diet, while a step in the right direction, may not be enough to effect a major reduction in your emissions. (Sorry for lack of references --- I'll add them up if I can find them again. They were surprisingly hard to find the first time. Corrections appreciated if I've misremembered the figures.)
  - soVeryTired 10y ago
    Is that one flight annually or one flight in a lifetime?
    - nkurz 10y ago
      Good point. I believe it's comparing annual to annual, so that each year of diet change equates to one cross-country flight.
- wazoox 10y ago
partycoder 10y ago
Some ways to make the situation better: - Find a job closer to where you live or move closer to where you work. - Get a smaller car. - Get solar installed in your home. - Decrease usage of disposable products. Use a shopping bag, a water bottle, your own mug, your own utensils, etc. - Stop buying objects you don't strictly need. Prefer products that do not suffer from planned obsolescence. Prefer reusable/recyclable packaging. - Decrease or stop consumption of meat. - Wear more clothes instead of turning up the heater and get better thermal isolation (e.g: thicker windows). Now, electric cars do not contaminate your immediate surroundings, but the process of manufacturing them can have a higher carbon footprint than the lifetime emissions of the vehicle.
macawfish 10y ago
Reading this article makes me feel very angry, especially as I look at the authors' background. There are so many things we can do, and these people are telling us that "the winner" is driving brand new fuel efficient cars, hot off the assembly line? What about biking? Walking? What about changing our habits so as not to rely as much on cars in the first place. How about not driving? There are people who don't drive at all, you could become one of them. What would it take? How about some gardening? Plant a raspberry bush or a tree. If everyone planted a tree, do you know how many trees that would be? Billions of new trees. It wouldn't be very difficult. It would be much more affordable than buying a brand new electric vehicle.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  Not driving is not an option in many cases. Starting to bike doesn't solve climate change problems. Not sure how you would plant a raspberry tree in a New York apartment. There is very little the normal person can do about climate change without radically changing the way they live their lives and thats just not an option for most people.
  - macawfish 10y ago
    Well the person in New York has the luxury of decent public transportation. And the person who needs to drive, presumably they live in a suburb or a place with a yard, and they could plant 10 raspberry bushes. Come on! Enough with the excuses! It's getting me down! I'm not saying that people should go and sabotage themselves. I'm saying that there are lots of different things that different people can do to upset this situation. A big one for me is not buying new if at all possible. That goes for computers, cell phones, cars, clothes, etc.
    - ThomPete 10y ago
      There are many other reasons why people need to drive than them working in the suburbs and globally even more reasons why biking in a city is far from enough (Just look at some Chinese cities) The thing is that if you really were to change your life for it to have an effect we wouldn't do it. Just the threat to reliable food supply is enough to make most people accept things as they are. There are two things you can do which are the only rational things to do. 1) Invent non-polluting, technical solutions that either produce, at scale, enough energy to replace existing solutions and which are easy to implement 2) Prepare for the consequence of climate change and find solutions to help that. Thats what you can do. Shouting on FB, Twitter or HN doesn't help anyone.
verg 10y ago
Since many people on HN live in California. The single greatest thing you can do if you live in be an advocate for building more housing in California, especially in locations with public transportation. California has low heating and cooling costs, and existing public transportation networks that can be extended. Look at the difference in per capita carbon emissions between California and say, Texas, a place where many Californian's are moving to because of high housing costs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_carbon_...
- maxerickson 10y ago
  I wonder how much the difference in residential heating/cooling really matters. For example, I looked at natural gas consumption, in Texas industrial use is off the charts, residential is reasonably in line with California (on a per capita basis). https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.php?incfile=/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/fuel_use_ng.html&sid=US https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.php?incfile=/state/seds/... Of course that is only enough to say that it is necessary to take a closer look, by the time everything is added up it could well be that living in California is substantially better.
Ensorceled 10y ago
I didn't think the answer would be to reduce your greenhouse gas emissions from driving by 10%. If everybody does this, it results in a reduction of 5% for the US which isn't even in the ballpark of the 80% required from industrialized countries. And I'm not sure this article is taking into account what the environmental impact of a few hundred million Americans all buying new cars and throwing out their old ones ...
awjr 10y ago
1) If you have to buy an electric vehicle. 2) Go vegetarian. (Avoid beef if you can't and eat meat less). 3) Stop buying stuff. 4) Repair not replace. 5) Move to an urban environment. 6) Consider going car free. (Walk, Bike, Public Transport, Car clubs). 7) Stop flying. 8) Avoid plastic packaging, or at least any product in packaging that cannot be locally recycled. (Here in the UK I have no idea why we allow food to be supplied in black plastic which most councils do not recycle). 9) If you have to have children, just have one. Choose schools they can walk/bike to. 10) Insulate (cheap) and solar (expensive) your home. 11) Buy local goods. 12) Join recycling groups https://www.freecycle.org/ https://www.freecycle.org/
- dagss 10y ago
  0) Vote for politicians who care about climate change.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    Reminder: 2018 US congress midterms are approaching
    - tradersam 10y ago
      In a year and a half. Approaching, but not immediate unfortunately.
  - the_economist 10y ago
    I haven't seen many politicians campaigning for nuclear power, and you can't deal with CO2 emissions without that (base load problem, etc), so that's pretty hard to do.
    - dagss 10y ago
      First step is just agreeing there is a problem and put it on top of the agenda though. Politicians are supposed to set goals and find incentives; the "how" part (batteries vs. hydro vs. new tech for power storage vs. nuclear) can be more up to the market. A politician who is scared of climate change will at least be easier to convince to approve a new nuclear plant in (relative) silence even if they are not actively campaigning on it as a solution. And properly taxing emissions will make nuclear plants more competitive, again without a politician having to explicitly aim for it or campaign for it.
diafygi 10y ago
Howdy! I work in cleantech, and I guess it's that time again for a what-are-we-going-to-do-about-it post :) To start, here's my favorite climate change joke: "They say we won't act until it's too late... Luckily, it's too late!" ==So what can you do about it?== The biggest thing this article doesn't say that is most relevant to the HN audience is that you can work at a new energy technology company! Our industries are out of the R&D stage and are currently focused on scale and growth[1], and we need as many smart people as we can get. There are lots of companies hiring software engineers. ==How do I find a job fighting climate change?== I'd recommend browsing the exhibitor and speaker lists from the most recent conference in each sector (linked below). Check out the companies that interest you and see if they are hiring. * Energy Storage[2][3] * Solar[4][5] * Wind[6] * Nuclear[7] * Electric Utilities[8][9] * Electric vehicles[10] Also, if you're in the SF bay area, I'd recommend subscribing to my Bay Area Energy Events Calendar[11]. Just start showing up to events and you'll probably find a job really quickly. [1]: https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/22/energy-is-the-new-new-internet/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/22/energy-is-the-new-new-inte... [2]: http://www.esnaexpo.com/ http://www.esnaexpo.com/ [3]: https://www.greentechmedia.com/events/live/u.s.-energy-storage-summit-2016 https://www.greentechmedia.com/events/live/u.s.-energy-stora... [4]: https://www.intersolar.us/ https://www.intersolar.us/ [5]: http://www.solarpowerinternational.com/ http://www.solarpowerinternational.com/ [6]: http://www.windpowerexpo.org/ http://www.windpowerexpo.org/ [7]: https://www.nei.org/Conferences https://www.nei.org/Conferences [8]: http://www.distributech.com/index.html http://www.distributech.com/index.html [9]: https://www.greentechmedia.com/events/live/grid-edge-world-forum-2016 https://www.greentechmedia.com/events/live/grid-edge-world-f... [10]: http://tec.ieee.org/ http://tec.ieee.org/ [11]: https://bayareaenergyevents.com/ https://bayareaenergyevents.com/
nkurz 10y ago
While not insignificant, I think it's worth asking what effect a 10% reduction in US passenger vehicle emissions would have in the long term. To put it in perspective, there's (what appears to be) an excellent new paper in Science that proposes a roadmap for reducing global emissions to a level that is estimated to have a 2/3 chance of keeping warming below 2C until 2100. The paper is "A roadmap for rapid decarbonization" by Rockström1, Gaffney, Rogelj, Meinshausen, Nakicenovic, and Schellnhuber. While a valuable and probably required step, doubling US passenger vehicle efficiency is just one of many things that would need to be done, and done quickly. I think it's worth reading the paper closely to understand the steps that would be required according to our current understanding of the science: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6331/1269 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6331/1269 The full article is unfortunately behind a paywall, but since I think a reasonable argument can be made that breaking the logjam on the global warming debate is more urgent than following the nuances of US copyright law, I'll mention that plugging DOI:10.1126/science.aah3443 into sci-hub.bz will let you read the full paper.
intrasight 10y ago
Launch a rocket. Capture an asteroid. Weave a big flat disk. Place at L1. Well, not me personally. I'll need some help.
daxfohl 10y ago
Wasn't there just an article here about how the 15 largest cargo ships pollute as much as all the cars in the world? So I don't think the answer to solve climate change is to buy two tons of product that has been transported on those ships. I'd love to know what the real answer is, but it seems not much an individual can do about it.
- dagss 10y ago
  "Pollution" is unfortunately an overloaded term. The article you are referring was about other kind of emissions than CO2; and so the 15 largest container ships do NOT contribute as much to global warming as all the cars.
- _rpd 10y ago
  Sea transport is about 3% of global CO2 emissions, while road transport is about 17%, so it is unlikely that "the 15 largest cargo ships pollute as much as all the cars in the world."
mnm1 10y ago
Considering that most of the pollution that causes climate change is caused by industry no single person can control, and that the solution proposed in this article will only work for a small percentage of upper class people at best, the only almost-universal (in the US) thing one can do to fight climate change is vote or participate in the political process. Sure, it's not very effective, but neither is this ploy to blame citizens for pollution when most pollution is caused by commercial and government entities. What's the point of getting a Prius if the government is going to allow industry to do whatever it wants as regards to pollution? Until this society and the government that allegedly represents it gets its shit together and starts regulating commercial industries and caring about climate change, why should I even care? It simply won't make a difference.
bitwize 10y ago
Since ships are much bigger polluters than cars, a better thing to do would be to buy local exclusively. Governments could impose huge tariffs on imported goods (something Trump would certainly not mind). While we're at it we should probably ban mass production, too, tear down our cities and replace them with farming communes wherein everything people consume or use is produced sustainably from the local environment. We're past the point where we can fool ourselves that virtue signalling will make a difference. If you want to make an impact on the climate, Western society has to fundamentally change into something quite different. It's a political problem with necessarily political solutions.
- cperciva 10y ago
  Ships release more sulphur oxides than cars, but vastly less CO2.
- moxious 10y ago
  While I agree society needs to change, this vision of how it should change -- fewer globalized goods, no mass production, and so on -- well if that's my only option I'll take the climate change thanks. It's going to be dangerous for people, but so is what you suggest, seeing as how modern people owe a lot of their health and life enjoyment to the things you'd ban.
  - dagss 10y ago
    It is easy to play russian roulette when the gun is pointed at somebody else's head isn't it? You say you would rather risk climate change than let go of your current comforts. How awfully convenient for you that the main effects will not be felt by yourself. Rich people (most HN posters included) both benefit most from globalized goods AND are able to shelter themselves from the effects of climate change anyway. You probably won't have your home and rice fields permanently flooded or crops more and more years of drought, you probably won't need to find a new home. A lot of poor people will. And judging by politics today, when that happens, the rich countries who have benefited the most from burning fossil fuels will shut the refugees out rather than welcome them in. Climate change is a terrible thing, but the effects will be felt very unevenly.
NickM 10y ago
"What can I do to reduce my emissions" is the wrong question to ask, because most people don't care that much about reducing their impact. Even if everyone who cares could somehow cut out 100% of their emissions, it would only make a small dent in the problem. Trying to get everyone to make sacrifices and take personal responsibility is just not going to cut it. But this doesn't mean the situation is hopeless! Renewables are quickly becoming cheaper than fossil fuels. Battery prices are falling rapidly, enabling cheaper electric cars, as well as cost-effective stationary storage facilities. There are startups that are trying to make plant-based meat substitutes that taste better than real meat and cost less. These are all scalable solutions; even someone who cares nothing for the planet would rather have lower energy costs, or a sexier car, or a cheaper, tastier burger. if we want long-term sustainability, we have to build and promote these kinds of alternatives. If you want to make a difference, don't worry about what your immediate, personal impact to the environment is: one person's impact is negligible. Worry about what sorts of technological development you're funding. Or worry about what sort of politicians you're supporting. If all the people who bought a Prius in the last ten years had bought a cheaper non-hybrid, and instead spent that extra money lobbying for better emissions standards, I bet you that would have made a way bigger difference in the end.
Proven 10y ago
I'm already doing what I can, and want (nothing).
credit_guy 10y ago
I very rarely see anyone talking about iron fertilization [1]. The oceanographer John Martin said "give me a half tanker of iron, and I will give you an ice age" [2]. Why are scientists not looking into this? Wikipedia states that the last experiments were done in 2012. It's been five years, and besides the precautionary principle (which in the case of the global warming should work in reverse), I don't really see any reasons to not perform further experiments. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization#Precautionary_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization#Precautiona... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Martin_(oceanographer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Martin_(oceanographer)
cleetus 10y ago
Stop flying

69 points by WheelsAtLarge 10y ago

mrgriscom 10y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

toomuchtodo 10y ago
Short comment, but entirely true. The cost decline curve of solar and wind has been stupid: Wind is below 2 cents/kwh unsubsidized, solar still around 6-8 cents/kwh unsubsidized; natural gas is destroying the demand for coal, and renewables are destroying demand for nuclear. As renewable deployments accelerate, they will push out natural gas generation (along with cheaper battery storage). Electric vehicles are here! Go get one. If not a Tesla, a Bolt, a Leaf, or perhaps a Volt if you still can't commit entirely to a battery electric vehicle alone. There's a federal tax credit in it for you. Need your roof replaced? Order some Tesla solar tiles; orders are being taken as of next month, with delivery near the end of the year. A 30% federal tax credit to have your roof replaced is a pretty swank deal, along with the roof producing power (most likely) for the remaining life of the home. (I disregard state incentives for the purposes of this comment, but do check if your state has them, many do) Regardless of technologic advancement, people still need to make the right choices in aggregate; get your LEDs in them fixtures, insulate your home, buy energy efficiency appliances (your utility probably pays a rebate for doing so). We'll still need to work on bovine methane emissions [1], marine [2], and air fossil fuel consumption, but there's still a lot of low hanging fruit for us to capture. [1] http://www.nationalgeographic.com/people-and-culture/food/the-plate/2016/11/seaweed-may-be-the-solution-for-burping-cows/ http://www.nationalgeographic.com/people-and-culture/food/th... [2] https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/models/nonrdmdl/c-marine/r00002.pdf https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/models/nonrdmdl/c-marine/r00002.pd... [3] http://www.iata.org/policy/environment/Pages/climate-change.aspx http://www.iata.org/policy/environment/Pages/climate-change....
- ThomPete 10y ago
  storage haven't been solved and a large part of the entire economy is based on debt in the fossile fuel industry. renewables are not destroying the deman for nuclear as the worlds energy demand will continue to rise quite substantially as 1 billion people enter the middle class over the next decades.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    Nuclear is ~6-8 cents/kWh, which wind and solar already beat, regardless of capacity factor.
    - ThomPete 10y ago
      But wind and solat cant deliver enough and its not storable yet, solve that and you have my support until then i am going to stick to supporting any effort to build nuclear over wind. Solar is different.
    - ThomPete 10y ago
      But wind and solat cant deliver enough and its not storable yet, solve that and you have my support until then i am going to stick to supporting any effort to build nuclear over wind. Solar is different.

medymed 10y ago

Strong arguments for buying a new car from a group with industry ties in Michigan. Or you can buy a submarine.

soniman 10y ago
True environmentalists drive used cars. Or buy used SUV and not drive it much.
DrScump 10y ago
"Industry ties" mean nothing with regards to locality. Ford has strong industry ties in Michigan but has done all of its recent state-of-the-art plant construction (for the North American market) in Mexico.

r-s 10y ago

I have chosen to not have children. Environment concerns was not the only factor, but a significant one. I suspect that this choice is far better for the environment then anything listed in that article.

RangerScience 10y ago
Someday, all the people that are left will be the descendants of the people who had kids. Adopt, so that you're not contributing to population, but are contributing what makes you a responsible human to that future population.
- cromulent 10y ago
  Everyday, not someday, surely :)
olalonde 10y ago
I'd say for most people, abstaining from having children would rank as a much bigger sacrifice than switching to a fuel efficient car though. I suspect you didn't particularly want to have kids in the first place.

kolbe 10y ago

that was a really long and unusual way of saying 'nothing'

Fej 10y ago

We are beyond the point where individual action can make a difference. Legislation is necessary to stop the worst of catastrophes.

badosu 10y ago
I understand where you're coming from, however you must take into consideration that your individual actions are perceptible by your peers. A difference in culture has much more potential effect than what may be perceptible. You may not control Congress, but you can control your actions and influence your peers. Tiny influences can impact in an emergent change in the future. Of course, this is highly subjective and probably more in the field of Ethics than anything else.
- Fej 10y ago
  I do see it as ethics, but you are right.
macawfish 10y ago
It still makes a difference. Yes, the future is looking hectic, but now we have time to lay foundations. Even if half the population is wiped out (or more), we can lay cultural and physical foundations now that are seeds for the future. In some ways, remember how lucky we are! We still have time and energy to prepare! We could be living in a world where the forces of intentional ignorance had done much more damage than they've managed. Yet we have excellent scientists. Look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companion_plants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companion_plants It's an amazing resource! Don't forget about our amazing collective resources! Now is not the time to neglect them!

bradlys 10y ago

I definitely have trouble balancing enjoyment of something with the environmental effects it has. This article hits a nerve for me. I bought a sporty car that barely manages 15mpg. I've managed to put the worry about environmental effects at bay for a moment.

nawitus 10y ago

I thought the best single thing was going vegan. Anyway, I sometimes think it's quite funny how my own lifestyle is so much more green than the average "green" person. I don't have children, I don't own or drive a car, I only use public transporation, 99% of which runs on electricity. I'm vegan, I haven't been on an airplane for like maybe 4 or 5 years. I live in a modern, energy efficient and small apartment. I buy "100% renewable electricity" in a new, energy efficient "smart city neighbourhood". And of course I recycle. Yet I haven't really tried to be more green, these circumstances have just happened naturally.

nkurz 10y ago
I thought the best single thing was going vegan. I tried to research this a while ago, and I think the numbers work out to say that going from a "standard" American omnivorous diet to a "standard" American vegetarian diet corresponds to a CO2 emissions reduction equivalent a one-way NY-SF flight or drive. Going from that to the a vegan diet is about equivalent to avoiding the return flight or drive. So if you've already avoided having children, and already avoid flying and driving, then going vegan is probably one of the best things you can personally do to reduce your CO2 emissions. But if you haven't yet done those things, changing your diet, while a step in the right direction, may not be enough to effect a major reduction in your emissions. (Sorry for lack of references --- I'll add them up if I can find them again. They were surprisingly hard to find the first time. Corrections appreciated if I've misremembered the figures.)
- soVeryTired 10y ago
  Is that one flight annually or one flight in a lifetime?
  - nkurz 10y ago
    Good point. I believe it's comparing annual to annual, so that each year of diet change equates to one cross-country flight.
wazoox 10y ago

partycoder 10y ago

Some ways to make the situation better: - Find a job closer to where you live or move closer to where you work. - Get a smaller car. - Get solar installed in your home. - Decrease usage of disposable products. Use a shopping bag, a water bottle, your own mug, your own utensils, etc. - Stop buying objects you don't strictly need. Prefer products that do not suffer from planned obsolescence. Prefer reusable/recyclable packaging. - Decrease or stop consumption of meat. - Wear more clothes instead of turning up the heater and get better thermal isolation (e.g: thicker windows). Now, electric cars do not contaminate your immediate surroundings, but the process of manufacturing them can have a higher carbon footprint than the lifetime emissions of the vehicle.

macawfish 10y ago

Reading this article makes me feel very angry, especially as I look at the authors' background. There are so many things we can do, and these people are telling us that "the winner" is driving brand new fuel efficient cars, hot off the assembly line? What about biking? Walking? What about changing our habits so as not to rely as much on cars in the first place. How about not driving? There are people who don't drive at all, you could become one of them. What would it take? How about some gardening? Plant a raspberry bush or a tree. If everyone planted a tree, do you know how many trees that would be? Billions of new trees. It wouldn't be very difficult. It would be much more affordable than buying a brand new electric vehicle.

ThomPete 10y ago
Not driving is not an option in many cases. Starting to bike doesn't solve climate change problems. Not sure how you would plant a raspberry tree in a New York apartment. There is very little the normal person can do about climate change without radically changing the way they live their lives and thats just not an option for most people.
- macawfish 10y ago
  Well the person in New York has the luxury of decent public transportation. And the person who needs to drive, presumably they live in a suburb or a place with a yard, and they could plant 10 raspberry bushes. Come on! Enough with the excuses! It's getting me down! I'm not saying that people should go and sabotage themselves. I'm saying that there are lots of different things that different people can do to upset this situation. A big one for me is not buying new if at all possible. That goes for computers, cell phones, cars, clothes, etc.
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    There are many other reasons why people need to drive than them working in the suburbs and globally even more reasons why biking in a city is far from enough (Just look at some Chinese cities) The thing is that if you really were to change your life for it to have an effect we wouldn't do it. Just the threat to reliable food supply is enough to make most people accept things as they are. There are two things you can do which are the only rational things to do. 1) Invent non-polluting, technical solutions that either produce, at scale, enough energy to replace existing solutions and which are easy to implement 2) Prepare for the consequence of climate change and find solutions to help that. Thats what you can do. Shouting on FB, Twitter or HN doesn't help anyone.

verg 10y ago

Since many people on HN live in California. The single greatest thing you can do if you live in be an advocate for building more housing in California, especially in locations with public transportation. California has low heating and cooling costs, and existing public transportation networks that can be extended. Look at the difference in per capita carbon emissions between California and say, Texas, a place where many Californian's are moving to because of high housing costs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_carbon_...

maxerickson 10y ago
I wonder how much the difference in residential heating/cooling really matters. For example, I looked at natural gas consumption, in Texas industrial use is off the charts, residential is reasonably in line with California (on a per capita basis). https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.php?incfile=/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/fuel_use_ng.html&sid=US https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.php?incfile=/state/seds/... Of course that is only enough to say that it is necessary to take a closer look, by the time everything is added up it could well be that living in California is substantially better.

Ensorceled 10y ago

I didn't think the answer would be to reduce your greenhouse gas emissions from driving by 10%. If everybody does this, it results in a reduction of 5% for the US which isn't even in the ballpark of the 80% required from industrialized countries. And I'm not sure this article is taking into account what the environmental impact of a few hundred million Americans all buying new cars and throwing out their old ones ...

awjr 10y ago

1) If you have to buy an electric vehicle. 2) Go vegetarian. (Avoid beef if you can't and eat meat less). 3) Stop buying stuff. 4) Repair not replace. 5) Move to an urban environment. 6) Consider going car free. (Walk, Bike, Public Transport, Car clubs). 7) Stop flying. 8) Avoid plastic packaging, or at least any product in packaging that cannot be locally recycled. (Here in the UK I have no idea why we allow food to be supplied in black plastic which most councils do not recycle). 9) If you have to have children, just have one. Choose schools they can walk/bike to. 10) Insulate (cheap) and solar (expensive) your home. 11) Buy local goods. 12) Join recycling groups https://www.freecycle.org/ https://www.freecycle.org/

dagss 10y ago
0) Vote for politicians who care about climate change.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  Reminder: 2018 US congress midterms are approaching
  - tradersam 10y ago
    In a year and a half. Approaching, but not immediate unfortunately.
- the_economist 10y ago
  I haven't seen many politicians campaigning for nuclear power, and you can't deal with CO2 emissions without that (base load problem, etc), so that's pretty hard to do.
  - dagss 10y ago
    First step is just agreeing there is a problem and put it on top of the agenda though. Politicians are supposed to set goals and find incentives; the "how" part (batteries vs. hydro vs. new tech for power storage vs. nuclear) can be more up to the market. A politician who is scared of climate change will at least be easier to convince to approve a new nuclear plant in (relative) silence even if they are not actively campaigning on it as a solution. And properly taxing emissions will make nuclear plants more competitive, again without a politician having to explicitly aim for it or campaign for it.

diafygi 10y ago

Howdy! I work in cleantech, and I guess it's that time again for a what-are-we-going-to-do-about-it post :) To start, here's my favorite climate change joke: "They say we won't act until it's too late... Luckily, it's too late!" ==So what can you do about it?== The biggest thing this article doesn't say that is most relevant to the HN audience is that you can work at a new energy technology company! Our industries are out of the R&D stage and are currently focused on scale and growth[1], and we need as many smart people as we can get. There are lots of companies hiring software engineers. ==How do I find a job fighting climate change?== I'd recommend browsing the exhibitor and speaker lists from the most recent conference in each sector (linked below). Check out the companies that interest you and see if they are hiring. * Energy Storage[2][3] * Solar[4][5] * Wind[6] * Nuclear[7] * Electric Utilities[8][9] * Electric vehicles[10] Also, if you're in the SF bay area, I'd recommend subscribing to my Bay Area Energy Events Calendar[11]. Just start showing up to events and you'll probably find a job really quickly. [1]: https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/22/energy-is-the-new-new-internet/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/22/energy-is-the-new-new-inte... [2]: http://www.esnaexpo.com/ http://www.esnaexpo.com/ [3]: https://www.greentechmedia.com/events/live/u.s.-energy-storage-summit-2016 https://www.greentechmedia.com/events/live/u.s.-energy-stora... [4]: https://www.intersolar.us/ https://www.intersolar.us/ [5]: http://www.solarpowerinternational.com/ http://www.solarpowerinternational.com/ [6]: http://www.windpowerexpo.org/ http://www.windpowerexpo.org/ [7]: https://www.nei.org/Conferences https://www.nei.org/Conferences [8]: http://www.distributech.com/index.html http://www.distributech.com/index.html [9]: https://www.greentechmedia.com/events/live/grid-edge-world-forum-2016 https://www.greentechmedia.com/events/live/grid-edge-world-f... [10]: http://tec.ieee.org/ http://tec.ieee.org/ [11]: https://bayareaenergyevents.com/ https://bayareaenergyevents.com/

nkurz 10y ago

While not insignificant, I think it's worth asking what effect a 10% reduction in US passenger vehicle emissions would have in the long term. To put it in perspective, there's (what appears to be) an excellent new paper in Science that proposes a roadmap for reducing global emissions to a level that is estimated to have a 2/3 chance of keeping warming below 2C until 2100. The paper is "A roadmap for rapid decarbonization" by Rockström1, Gaffney, Rogelj, Meinshausen, Nakicenovic, and Schellnhuber. While a valuable and probably required step, doubling US passenger vehicle efficiency is just one of many things that would need to be done, and done quickly. I think it's worth reading the paper closely to understand the steps that would be required according to our current understanding of the science: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6331/1269 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6331/1269 The full article is unfortunately behind a paywall, but since I think a reasonable argument can be made that breaking the logjam on the global warming debate is more urgent than following the nuances of US copyright law, I'll mention that plugging DOI:10.1126/science.aah3443 into sci-hub.bz will let you read the full paper.

intrasight 10y ago

Launch a rocket. Capture an asteroid. Weave a big flat disk. Place at L1. Well, not me personally. I'll need some help.

daxfohl 10y ago

Wasn't there just an article here about how the 15 largest cargo ships pollute as much as all the cars in the world? So I don't think the answer to solve climate change is to buy two tons of product that has been transported on those ships. I'd love to know what the real answer is, but it seems not much an individual can do about it.

dagss 10y ago
"Pollution" is unfortunately an overloaded term. The article you are referring was about other kind of emissions than CO2; and so the 15 largest container ships do NOT contribute as much to global warming as all the cars.
_rpd 10y ago
Sea transport is about 3% of global CO2 emissions, while road transport is about 17%, so it is unlikely that "the 15 largest cargo ships pollute as much as all the cars in the world."

mnm1 10y ago

Considering that most of the pollution that causes climate change is caused by industry no single person can control, and that the solution proposed in this article will only work for a small percentage of upper class people at best, the only almost-universal (in the US) thing one can do to fight climate change is vote or participate in the political process. Sure, it's not very effective, but neither is this ploy to blame citizens for pollution when most pollution is caused by commercial and government entities. What's the point of getting a Prius if the government is going to allow industry to do whatever it wants as regards to pollution? Until this society and the government that allegedly represents it gets its shit together and starts regulating commercial industries and caring about climate change, why should I even care? It simply won't make a difference.

bitwize 10y ago

Since ships are much bigger polluters than cars, a better thing to do would be to buy local exclusively. Governments could impose huge tariffs on imported goods (something Trump would certainly not mind). While we're at it we should probably ban mass production, too, tear down our cities and replace them with farming communes wherein everything people consume or use is produced sustainably from the local environment. We're past the point where we can fool ourselves that virtue signalling will make a difference. If you want to make an impact on the climate, Western society has to fundamentally change into something quite different. It's a political problem with necessarily political solutions.

cperciva 10y ago
Ships release more sulphur oxides than cars, but vastly less CO2.
moxious 10y ago
While I agree society needs to change, this vision of how it should change -- fewer globalized goods, no mass production, and so on -- well if that's my only option I'll take the climate change thanks. It's going to be dangerous for people, but so is what you suggest, seeing as how modern people owe a lot of their health and life enjoyment to the things you'd ban.
- dagss 10y ago
  It is easy to play russian roulette when the gun is pointed at somebody else's head isn't it? You say you would rather risk climate change than let go of your current comforts. How awfully convenient for you that the main effects will not be felt by yourself. Rich people (most HN posters included) both benefit most from globalized goods AND are able to shelter themselves from the effects of climate change anyway. You probably won't have your home and rice fields permanently flooded or crops more and more years of drought, you probably won't need to find a new home. A lot of poor people will. And judging by politics today, when that happens, the rich countries who have benefited the most from burning fossil fuels will shut the refugees out rather than welcome them in. Climate change is a terrible thing, but the effects will be felt very unevenly.

NickM 10y ago

"What can I do to reduce my emissions" is the wrong question to ask, because most people don't care that much about reducing their impact. Even if everyone who cares could somehow cut out 100% of their emissions, it would only make a small dent in the problem. Trying to get everyone to make sacrifices and take personal responsibility is just not going to cut it. But this doesn't mean the situation is hopeless! Renewables are quickly becoming cheaper than fossil fuels. Battery prices are falling rapidly, enabling cheaper electric cars, as well as cost-effective stationary storage facilities. There are startups that are trying to make plant-based meat substitutes that taste better than real meat and cost less. These are all scalable solutions; even someone who cares nothing for the planet would rather have lower energy costs, or a sexier car, or a cheaper, tastier burger. if we want long-term sustainability, we have to build and promote these kinds of alternatives. If you want to make a difference, don't worry about what your immediate, personal impact to the environment is: one person's impact is negligible. Worry about what sorts of technological development you're funding. Or worry about what sort of politicians you're supporting. If all the people who bought a Prius in the last ten years had bought a cheaper non-hybrid, and instead spent that extra money lobbying for better emissions standards, I bet you that would have made a way bigger difference in the end.

Proven 10y ago

I'm already doing what I can, and want (nothing).

credit_guy 10y ago

I very rarely see anyone talking about iron fertilization [1]. The oceanographer John Martin said "give me a half tanker of iron, and I will give you an ice age" [2]. Why are scientists not looking into this? Wikipedia states that the last experiments were done in 2012. It's been five years, and besides the precautionary principle (which in the case of the global warming should work in reverse), I don't really see any reasons to not perform further experiments. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization#Precautionary_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization#Precautiona... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Martin_(oceanographer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Martin_(oceanographer)

cleetus 10y ago

Stop flying