5 ms·

When debugging performance problems you always search for the biggest bottlenecks not the minor ones, so what are the biggest contributors to CO2? I don't thin

by givan 9y ago

When debugging performance problems you always search for the biggest bottlenecks not the minor ones, so what are the biggest contributors to CO2? I don't think the problem is the number of people living on earth but how modern society is making people live, for example some big contributors are high meat consumption (cattle methane) inefficient transportation (big suvs with just the driver inside sitting in traffic jams) consumerism that drive all those factories to produce mostly useless products that break easily to be soon replaced etc. We need to change or habits not our numbers, this is the source of the problem.

codebolt 9y ago
Agreed, we should tackle the biggest sources first. And meat production in particular is one of the biggest contributors. Scale back the subsidies for these types of farms and replace them instead with taxes. Consumers will change their habits once they are faced with the "real" cost of meat.
- webjunkie 9y ago
  Slap extra taxes on meat and forbid any advertising for meat or meat-containing products. Boom.
  - jsmthrowaway 9y ago
    > forbid any advertising for meat or meat-containing products Who needs that pesky First Amendment when there's dietary habits to tackle, right?
    - pizza 9y ago
      On the other hand, who needs nation-states when they're submerged under water and their populations decimated?
      - jsmthrowaway 9y ago
        Keep in mind that it is a perfectly reasonable position to both: a) agree with you and GP (though perhaps not to such a dramatic end), and b) slap on the brakes when discussing constitutionally perilous endeavors that could ultimately harm us more than this discussion can forecast; what else can I forbid or do in the name of existential issues? That I'm in the apparent minority here based on voting is far more alarming than I'd like it to be. Am I being interpreted as pro meat or something and riling the vegetarians? When I see the words "forbid" and "advertising" next to each other in such proximity I'm compelled to point out it's a bad idea. How am I the only one on this side? I'm all for evolving the Constitution, but fiddling with the First is not where I'd start and suppressing meat advertising has the potential to become much worse. That's my only point and I cannot express to you how alarmed I am that it's controversial. If you're coming at me this hard that the First Amendment is malleable enough to save us from perceived world doom by forgetting it when it's convenient, let's turn around and have a conversation about the Second, then, shall we? Two can play that game. Either the Constitution is infallible or it isn't. Tell me which it is and I'll debate accordingly.
        pjc50 9y ago
        Interesting set of values there. I've got to say that being in a country where certain classes of advertising are forbidden and the rest is subject to (pretty minimal) accuracy regulation feels like it makes me freer and happier rather than the other way round. Cigarettes and prescription drugs may not be advertised in the UK.
        jsmthrowaway 9y ago
        I'd actually prefer that, too. Especially prescription medications: there have been awful studies about correlations between patients asking their doctor (as the ads say) and getting that specific Rx even when unnecessary. I also don't know how to get there constitutionally without somehow differentiating advertising from speech (the Court has declined every opportunity, which should be obvious from the term of art "commercial speech") or relitigating Central Hudson. I also don't know whether yielding on the Constitution in cases like these compromises my values. See where I'm coming from? All it takes is one case of ignoring the First or Fourteenth in particular and getting away with establishing some bad precedent. That's a future that would concern me greatly. I've seen some folks arguing for jailing fake news authors here on HN. Ignoring parts of our Constitution feels good to think about in order to address a squeaky wheel. The ramifications of where that steers the whole cart over potentially decades must be carefully studied, however, some amendments far more than others (the First being one of those).
- jsmthrowaway 9y ago
  You just lost the entire vote that put Trump into office and about three quarters of the country. Keep in mind those subsidies generally flow to investors in real estate, too, so you're losing more voters than you think. They had a real reason, once; the real problem is inertia and campaigning, which is what makes them stick. Hard to go to Iowa and tell them that billions of dollars are "being taken from family farms," which is exactly how it would be portrayed and oh by the way your Whopper is going to double in price too, and somehow still achieve office. Solve that problem. Then we get somewhere.
- rimliu 9y ago
  Ok, meat calories will need to be replaced with something. Or are we going to eat grass?
  - CalRobert 9y ago
    Given that it takes 10,000 calories of feed to make 1,000 calories of beef, you're still talking about a massive reduction in the number of vegetation calories produced.
    - rimliu 9y ago
      Is it calories or mass? I.e. cow eats 10kg of grass to produce 1kg of beef, we eat 10kg of beaf to gain 1kg of weight? And in any case it does not really answer the question.
      - CalRobert 9y ago
        My recollection is of calories but I cannot find a source for that right now. Regardless, my point was that if you grow plants to feed to cattle to feed to humans you are taking more resources than if you grow plants to feed to humans. However, it is complex - it depends a lot on the landscape. http://www.economist.com/blogs/feastandfamine/2013/12/livestock http://www.economist.com/blogs/feastandfamine/2013/12/livest...
        logfromblammo 9y ago
        You also can't ignore the energy cost of running the farm and transportation. I suspect that it may actually be more efficient to skip pesticide applications and harvesters, and use domesticated insects to harvest grains and fly those food calories directly to a local processing facility. Certain species are already natural grain harvesting machines. Certain species are already natural pest predators. Those could be exploited and bred for a purpose. Humans plant the corn. Domesticated insect-predator insects patrol the fields and protect the corn from unauthorized eating before it is ready to harvest. They return to the hive, breed for the next season, and get eaten. Domesticated harvester insects then mature, fly out to eat the corn, and then fly back to the hive, breed for the next season, and get eaten. Whatever is not eaten directly by humans can be fed to farmed fish or poultry.
- tomjen3 9y ago
  If meat is taxed extra, then it is not the real cost is it? Anyway consumers would stop purchasing organic meat or meat from places that cared about animal welfare before they stop eating meat.
XorNot 9y ago
Adding more RAM to a server won't fix a memory leak.
yaseer 9y ago
One the one hand, I find it amusing to have programming analogies to complex social and economic issues. On the other hand, this analogy (and others) are pretty useful. Makes me think sociological discourse would benefit from using logical systems as a frame of reference.
ZlxVLI1eWNFSDc 9y ago
>We need to change or habits not our numbers, this is the source of the problem. So you say, doesn't make it true. The source of the problem is every person; increase the number, worsen the problem.
- tonyedgecombe 9y ago
  No, it's no good blaming the poor for a problem the rich world has created.
trumbitta2 9y ago
You are describing USA
flashmob 9y ago
You're right. Household CO2 emissions are nothing compared to commercial / transport. Just look at airlines. As a random example, Qantas Airlines, in the 2015 financial year, burned $3.9 billion AUD worth fuel! (About $3 billion in USD). Source: page 15 of their annual report: http://www.qantas.com.au/infodetail/about/corporateGovernance/2016AnnualReport.pdf http://www.qantas.com.au/infodetail/about/corporateGovernanc...
- tgjsrkghruksd 9y ago
  Actually, you are be sorely wrong. Aviation is ~2% of human CO2 emission, and 12% of transport CO2 emission, versus 74% from roads. Judging from the streets and highways, most of that 74% is coming from household vehicles, and most of the rest is pretty much driven by household consumption.
  - ptaipale 9y ago
    The numbers seem to be very unreliable, though. Over here (Finland), reputable sources (such as WWF and State Statistics Center) give drastically different numbers for aviation emissions. A reason could be that in some statistics, only domestic flights are included, and international aviation belongs to no one's statistics.

by givan 9y ago

codebolt 9y ago

Agreed, we should tackle the biggest sources first. And meat production in particular is one of the biggest contributors. Scale back the subsidies for these types of farms and replace them instead with taxes. Consumers will change their habits once they are faced with the "real" cost of meat.

webjunkie 9y ago
Slap extra taxes on meat and forbid any advertising for meat or meat-containing products. Boom.
- jsmthrowaway 9y ago
  > forbid any advertising for meat or meat-containing products Who needs that pesky First Amendment when there's dietary habits to tackle, right?
  - pizza 9y ago
    On the other hand, who needs nation-states when they're submerged under water and their populations decimated?
    - jsmthrowaway 9y ago
      Keep in mind that it is a perfectly reasonable position to both: a) agree with you and GP (though perhaps not to such a dramatic end), and b) slap on the brakes when discussing constitutionally perilous endeavors that could ultimately harm us more than this discussion can forecast; what else can I forbid or do in the name of existential issues? That I'm in the apparent minority here based on voting is far more alarming than I'd like it to be. Am I being interpreted as pro meat or something and riling the vegetarians? When I see the words "forbid" and "advertising" next to each other in such proximity I'm compelled to point out it's a bad idea. How am I the only one on this side? I'm all for evolving the Constitution, but fiddling with the First is not where I'd start and suppressing meat advertising has the potential to become much worse. That's my only point and I cannot express to you how alarmed I am that it's controversial. If you're coming at me this hard that the First Amendment is malleable enough to save us from perceived world doom by forgetting it when it's convenient, let's turn around and have a conversation about the Second, then, shall we? Two can play that game. Either the Constitution is infallible or it isn't. Tell me which it is and I'll debate accordingly.
      - pjc50 9y ago
        Interesting set of values there. I've got to say that being in a country where certain classes of advertising are forbidden and the rest is subject to (pretty minimal) accuracy regulation feels like it makes me freer and happier rather than the other way round. Cigarettes and prescription drugs may not be advertised in the UK.
        jsmthrowaway 9y ago
        I'd actually prefer that, too. Especially prescription medications: there have been awful studies about correlations between patients asking their doctor (as the ads say) and getting that specific Rx even when unnecessary. I also don't know how to get there constitutionally without somehow differentiating advertising from speech (the Court has declined every opportunity, which should be obvious from the term of art "commercial speech") or relitigating Central Hudson. I also don't know whether yielding on the Constitution in cases like these compromises my values. See where I'm coming from? All it takes is one case of ignoring the First or Fourteenth in particular and getting away with establishing some bad precedent. That's a future that would concern me greatly. I've seen some folks arguing for jailing fake news authors here on HN. Ignoring parts of our Constitution feels good to think about in order to address a squeaky wheel. The ramifications of where that steers the whole cart over potentially decades must be carefully studied, however, some amendments far more than others (the First being one of those).
jsmthrowaway 9y ago
You just lost the entire vote that put Trump into office and about three quarters of the country. Keep in mind those subsidies generally flow to investors in real estate, too, so you're losing more voters than you think. They had a real reason, once; the real problem is inertia and campaigning, which is what makes them stick. Hard to go to Iowa and tell them that billions of dollars are "being taken from family farms," which is exactly how it would be portrayed and oh by the way your Whopper is going to double in price too, and somehow still achieve office. Solve that problem. Then we get somewhere.
rimliu 9y ago
Ok, meat calories will need to be replaced with something. Or are we going to eat grass?
- CalRobert 9y ago
  Given that it takes 10,000 calories of feed to make 1,000 calories of beef, you're still talking about a massive reduction in the number of vegetation calories produced.
  - rimliu 9y ago
    Is it calories or mass? I.e. cow eats 10kg of grass to produce 1kg of beef, we eat 10kg of beaf to gain 1kg of weight? And in any case it does not really answer the question.
    - CalRobert 9y ago
      My recollection is of calories but I cannot find a source for that right now. Regardless, my point was that if you grow plants to feed to cattle to feed to humans you are taking more resources than if you grow plants to feed to humans. However, it is complex - it depends a lot on the landscape. http://www.economist.com/blogs/feastandfamine/2013/12/livestock http://www.economist.com/blogs/feastandfamine/2013/12/livest...
      - logfromblammo 9y ago
        You also can't ignore the energy cost of running the farm and transportation. I suspect that it may actually be more efficient to skip pesticide applications and harvesters, and use domesticated insects to harvest grains and fly those food calories directly to a local processing facility. Certain species are already natural grain harvesting machines. Certain species are already natural pest predators. Those could be exploited and bred for a purpose. Humans plant the corn. Domesticated insect-predator insects patrol the fields and protect the corn from unauthorized eating before it is ready to harvest. They return to the hive, breed for the next season, and get eaten. Domesticated harvester insects then mature, fly out to eat the corn, and then fly back to the hive, breed for the next season, and get eaten. Whatever is not eaten directly by humans can be fed to farmed fish or poultry.
tomjen3 9y ago
If meat is taxed extra, then it is not the real cost is it? Anyway consumers would stop purchasing organic meat or meat from places that cared about animal welfare before they stop eating meat.

XorNot 9y ago

Adding more RAM to a server won't fix a memory leak.

yaseer 9y ago

One the one hand, I find it amusing to have programming analogies to complex social and economic issues. On the other hand, this analogy (and others) are pretty useful. Makes me think sociological discourse would benefit from using logical systems as a frame of reference.

ZlxVLI1eWNFSDc 9y ago

>We need to change or habits not our numbers, this is the source of the problem. So you say, doesn't make it true. The source of the problem is every person; increase the number, worsen the problem.

tonyedgecombe 9y ago
No, it's no good blaming the poor for a problem the rich world has created.

trumbitta2 9y ago

You are describing USA

flashmob 9y ago

You're right. Household CO2 emissions are nothing compared to commercial / transport. Just look at airlines. As a random example, Qantas Airlines, in the 2015 financial year, burned $3.9 billion AUD worth fuel! (About $3 billion in USD). Source: page 15 of their annual report: http://www.qantas.com.au/infodetail/about/corporateGovernance/2016AnnualReport.pdf http://www.qantas.com.au/infodetail/about/corporateGovernanc...

tgjsrkghruksd 9y ago
Actually, you are be sorely wrong. Aviation is ~2% of human CO2 emission, and 12% of transport CO2 emission, versus 74% from roads. Judging from the streets and highways, most of that 74% is coming from household vehicles, and most of the rest is pretty much driven by household consumption.
- ptaipale 9y ago
  The numbers seem to be very unreliable, though. Over here (Finland), reputable sources (such as WWF and State Statistics Center) give drastically different numbers for aviation emissions. A reason could be that in some statistics, only domestic flights are included, and international aviation belongs to no one's statistics.