4 ms·

At a low level: - Have fewer children - Burn fewer fossil fuels (less driving, flying, heating, cooling, more wearing sweaters at home in winter, etc) - Eat

by spodek 10y ago

At a low level: - Have fewer children - Burn fewer fossil fuels (less driving, flying, heating, cooling, more wearing sweaters at home in winter, etc) - Eat less meat - Develop technologies to create energy without fossil fuels At a higher level - Stop associating consumption and material accumulation with happiness - Stop targeting growth (population, GDP, etc) as solution to so many problems - Take personal responsibility for what you do. Stop saying if others don't change my change won't make a difference. You are responsible for what you do even if others don't change. At the top level: - Change you beliefs and goals so that instead of asking others, you find what you can do and do it. There is overwhelming amounts of information for what you can do already on the web. If you want to act, act.

crazy2be 10y ago
I'm not convinced having fewer children will help anything and I wish people would stop repeating this. People emit very few greenhouse gasses as a virtue of their existence, the extreme majority of them are emitted by lifestyle choices. Even in developed countries the differences are stark. Qatar emits 54.7 tons of CO2 equivalent per capita, the United States 24.3 tons, Germany 12.3 tons, Switzerland 7.2 tons. A difference of almost 10x, with countries that all have similar standards of living! In a relatively undeveloped country like Burundi, the emissions are a mere 0.4 tons per capita[0]. A difference of literally 100x! The best fix is a revenue-neutral carbon tax, with import tariffs on goods from countries that do not have such taxes (i.e. China). This internalizes the externalized costs of CO2 emissions, automatically encouraging development of more energy-efficient everything. [0] Data from 2000, unfortunately, but the numbers have not changed in magnitude since then. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhous...
- titojankowski 10y ago
  Have either of you checked out Bret Victor's "What can a technologist do about climate change?" http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/ http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/ Would be cool to hear how it resonates (or not) with your perspectives.
averagewall 10y ago
Having fewer children is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The only reason we care about the environment is because it serves people. It's like trying to prevent cancer by having fewer children - fewer people will suffer from it! Children are also important to us adults. We need them to indirectly take care of us when we're old by keeping the economy around us functioning and providing services and for us. Some western countries are facing potential problems with aging populations and not enough young people to support them. That's big and important. Possibly more important than global warming. There's no point having a stable environment if you die from a treatable disease because there are no doctors available. Whenever there's a problem or a risk, and you're deciding what to do about it, one option is always "do nothing". We don't _have_ to stop climate change. If stopping it causes more harm that letting it continue, then we would be wrong to stop it. So what's the expected cost of climate change?

by spodek 10y ago

crazy2be 10y ago

I'm not convinced having fewer children will help anything and I wish people would stop repeating this. People emit very few greenhouse gasses as a virtue of their existence, the extreme majority of them are emitted by lifestyle choices. Even in developed countries the differences are stark. Qatar emits 54.7 tons of CO2 equivalent per capita, the United States 24.3 tons, Germany 12.3 tons, Switzerland 7.2 tons. A difference of almost 10x, with countries that all have similar standards of living! In a relatively undeveloped country like Burundi, the emissions are a mere 0.4 tons per capita[0]. A difference of literally 100x! The best fix is a revenue-neutral carbon tax, with import tariffs on goods from countries that do not have such taxes (i.e. China). This internalizes the externalized costs of CO2 emissions, automatically encouraging development of more energy-efficient everything. [0] Data from 2000, unfortunately, but the numbers have not changed in magnitude since then. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhous...

titojankowski 10y ago
Have either of you checked out Bret Victor's "What can a technologist do about climate change?" http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/ http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/ Would be cool to hear how it resonates (or not) with your perspectives.

averagewall 10y ago

Having fewer children is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The only reason we care about the environment is because it serves people. It's like trying to prevent cancer by having fewer children - fewer people will suffer from it! Children are also important to us adults. We need them to indirectly take care of us when we're old by keeping the economy around us functioning and providing services and for us. Some western countries are facing potential problems with aging populations and not enough young people to support them. That's big and important. Possibly more important than global warming. There's no point having a stable environment if you die from a treatable disease because there are no doctors available. Whenever there's a problem or a risk, and you're deciding what to do about it, one option is always "do nothing". We don't _have_ to stop climate change. If stopping it causes more harm that letting it continue, then we would be wrong to stop it. So what's the expected cost of climate change?