5 ms·

This is on all of us not just the climate science deniers and the profit hungry corporations, selfish individuals, crazy governments, or, uninformed individuals

This is on all of us not just the climate science deniers and the profit hungry corporations, selfish individuals, crazy governments, or, uninformed individuals. It is not enough to protest, give speeches, start "green" companies, and whatever else we do to feel good about "doing something for the environment." If only we could have enough courage to curb our uncontrolled consumption of resources. Why is it so hard for each one of us to just reduce our intake by, say, just 15% to begin with? How about eating less, not changing cell phones every ear, shopping less, driving less, and a hundred other things we can reduce? In the end nature always wins. We are either with her or against her!

scarlac 9y ago
> It is not enough to protest, give speeches, start "green" companies, and whatever else we do to feel good about "doing something for the environment." I have to disagree. Please keep doing something good for the environment. Please keep making companies that replace old harmful ones. Keep protesting to politicians and by all means, keep doing speeches to inform the public. > just reduce our intake by, say, just 15% Everything I know about psychology tells me this advice won't work. You need to provide an alternative or you'll be fighting a losing battle against habit and enjoyment. But I should dogfood on my own advice here, so here's what you should do instead: - Give people specific advice on habit changes instead, ie. switch from beef to chicken, from chicken to fish and from fish to vegetables. - Tell people HOW to change electricity provider (if your country or region allows it) - Tell people to VOTE for the environment
- SamPhillips 9y ago
  Here's an attempt at those things: https://medium.com/@i2amsam/we-can-do-it-ourselves-part-1-48dd93e250a9 https://medium.com/@i2amsam/we-can-do-it-ourselves-part-1-48... I'd love feedback. (And if you are interested in climate and tech join us at ClimateAction.tech)
ashark 9y ago
> Why is it so hard for each one of us to just reduce our intake by, say, just 15% to begin with? Because if you do it and no-one else does then you're hurting yourself for basically no reason. It's a coordination problem.
- pavlov 9y ago
  There's a good argument to be made that it's actually the opposite of hurting yourself if you do the things the grandparent listed: "... eating less, not changing cell phones every year, shopping less, driving less." But of course nobody wants to hear that either, it's considered preaching about personal choices.
  - josho 9y ago
    You truly need to have heroic levels of dedication to sustain eating 5% less, keeping your home 5% warmer/cooler, and driving 5% less over the long term. Then at the end of the day it still won't matter because your government chooses to continue burning coal. It's even worse because if enough green minded folk can reduce enough energy use to make a difference then it drives down the cost of energy which makes it cheaper for others to use more. This really is a problem that requires everyone to play a role.
    - pavlov 9y ago
      My point was that doing those things would be good for you personally, regardless of any environmental impact. Most American adults are overweight and should eat 5% less. Driving 5% less simply means that you would avoid one trip out of twenty, maybe by arranging to do something remotely or by taking public transport -- hardly an enormous sacrifice. Driving increases stress levels anyway, so this reduction is also good for your health.
- dvtv75 9y ago
  I must say, this is the first time that I have seen not spending money defined as "hurting yourself."
melling 9y ago
Shouldnt we analyze what creates the emissions and try to have a more focused attempt at fixing the problem? It's great if consumers reduce consumption by 15% across the board, for example, but knowing if the problem is from driving gas gusslers, eating meat, etc. might help us focus on changes that will make the most difference.
ams6110 9y ago
What have you reduced?
- Frondo 9y ago
  I ride my bike most days and leave the car at home. I eat beef one meal a month instead of 4-5 times a week. I pay more for electricity from completely renewable sources. I tend to buy used clothes and I stopped running servers at home years and years ago. Imagine a bunch of little compromises multiplied by millions of people, that adds up. What about you?
  - Noos 9y ago
    One of the things I've noticed about people who offer solutions like this is that they tend to offer things they like to do or can do. You live a life that's amenable to bicycling. If you're a single mother working two part time jobs, bicycling will not ever work. If you live in a rural town, cycling will not work. If you have any health issues, cycling won't work. If you are middle age, there's a good chance it wont work either unless you already cycled for most of your life. You're asking other people to sacrifice that you aren't really doing yourself, because it's not a sacrifice to you.
    - Frondo 9y ago
      Well, it's presumptuous of you to say that I'm just doing things I like, or implying that I'm not actually really making any sacrifices with the way I choose to live my life. Which is kind of a crummy way to start out your reply. After all, you don't know that I might have a preference to live in a rural area, but choose to live in a city instead to reduce my carbon footprint. After all, rural folks are choosing to live in rural areas, that's a choice they're making too. And you don't know what I've given up by choosing to bike instead of drive--what jobs I've turned down, or people I haven't seen, or fun things I've missed out on. In fact, your whole statement does come down to "your sacrifices are bullshit because I say they are". Hey, if that's how you want to see the world--other people's sacrifices are bullshit--maybe it's because you're uncomfortable with how little you do on your own, or how self-centeredly you live? Man, you're an ass.
averagewall 9y ago
Apart from the tragedy of the commons problem, it's also hard because we don't know if the benefits will outweigh the costs. As far as I've heard, the science doesn't answer that accurately enough to actually make a decision. We might be better off with global warming than with a premature end to oil and coal. Bear in mind that global warming isn't the end of the world, it's just a change. Humans will certainly adapt and carry on. The problem is the costs might be inconveniently high - or they might be tolerable.
- josho 9y ago
  you are likely referencing a report that concluded the costs for stopping climate change were higher than the costs of dealing with the consequences. The report that I read on that topic came to its conclusions by valuing people's lives in dollar figures and putting those lives at less value for anyone in developing countries. So, yeh, if you think poor climate refuges have no value then you are right we should take no action. The problem is that those holding onto power have politicized climate change so that those not paying close enough attention wrongly conclude that we don't need to take action.
  - mirimir 9y ago
    I wonder how they account for increased military conflict.

scarlac 9y ago

> It is not enough to protest, give speeches, start "green" companies, and whatever else we do to feel good about "doing something for the environment." I have to disagree. Please keep doing something good for the environment. Please keep making companies that replace old harmful ones. Keep protesting to politicians and by all means, keep doing speeches to inform the public. > just reduce our intake by, say, just 15% Everything I know about psychology tells me this advice won't work. You need to provide an alternative or you'll be fighting a losing battle against habit and enjoyment. But I should dogfood on my own advice here, so here's what you should do instead: - Give people specific advice on habit changes instead, ie. switch from beef to chicken, from chicken to fish and from fish to vegetables. - Tell people HOW to change electricity provider (if your country or region allows it) - Tell people to VOTE for the environment

SamPhillips 9y ago
Here's an attempt at those things: https://medium.com/@i2amsam/we-can-do-it-ourselves-part-1-48dd93e250a9 https://medium.com/@i2amsam/we-can-do-it-ourselves-part-1-48... I'd love feedback. (And if you are interested in climate and tech join us at ClimateAction.tech)

ashark 9y ago

> Why is it so hard for each one of us to just reduce our intake by, say, just 15% to begin with? Because if you do it and no-one else does then you're hurting yourself for basically no reason. It's a coordination problem.

pavlov 9y ago
There's a good argument to be made that it's actually the opposite of hurting yourself if you do the things the grandparent listed: "... eating less, not changing cell phones every year, shopping less, driving less." But of course nobody wants to hear that either, it's considered preaching about personal choices.
- josho 9y ago
  You truly need to have heroic levels of dedication to sustain eating 5% less, keeping your home 5% warmer/cooler, and driving 5% less over the long term. Then at the end of the day it still won't matter because your government chooses to continue burning coal. It's even worse because if enough green minded folk can reduce enough energy use to make a difference then it drives down the cost of energy which makes it cheaper for others to use more. This really is a problem that requires everyone to play a role.
  - pavlov 9y ago
    My point was that doing those things would be good for you personally, regardless of any environmental impact. Most American adults are overweight and should eat 5% less. Driving 5% less simply means that you would avoid one trip out of twenty, maybe by arranging to do something remotely or by taking public transport -- hardly an enormous sacrifice. Driving increases stress levels anyway, so this reduction is also good for your health.
dvtv75 9y ago
I must say, this is the first time that I have seen not spending money defined as "hurting yourself."

melling 9y ago

Shouldnt we analyze what creates the emissions and try to have a more focused attempt at fixing the problem? It's great if consumers reduce consumption by 15% across the board, for example, but knowing if the problem is from driving gas gusslers, eating meat, etc. might help us focus on changes that will make the most difference.

ams6110 9y ago

What have you reduced?

Frondo 9y ago
I ride my bike most days and leave the car at home. I eat beef one meal a month instead of 4-5 times a week. I pay more for electricity from completely renewable sources. I tend to buy used clothes and I stopped running servers at home years and years ago. Imagine a bunch of little compromises multiplied by millions of people, that adds up. What about you?
- Noos 9y ago
  One of the things I've noticed about people who offer solutions like this is that they tend to offer things they like to do or can do. You live a life that's amenable to bicycling. If you're a single mother working two part time jobs, bicycling will not ever work. If you live in a rural town, cycling will not work. If you have any health issues, cycling won't work. If you are middle age, there's a good chance it wont work either unless you already cycled for most of your life. You're asking other people to sacrifice that you aren't really doing yourself, because it's not a sacrifice to you.
  - Frondo 9y ago
    Well, it's presumptuous of you to say that I'm just doing things I like, or implying that I'm not actually really making any sacrifices with the way I choose to live my life. Which is kind of a crummy way to start out your reply. After all, you don't know that I might have a preference to live in a rural area, but choose to live in a city instead to reduce my carbon footprint. After all, rural folks are choosing to live in rural areas, that's a choice they're making too. And you don't know what I've given up by choosing to bike instead of drive--what jobs I've turned down, or people I haven't seen, or fun things I've missed out on. In fact, your whole statement does come down to "your sacrifices are bullshit because I say they are". Hey, if that's how you want to see the world--other people's sacrifices are bullshit--maybe it's because you're uncomfortable with how little you do on your own, or how self-centeredly you live? Man, you're an ass.

averagewall 9y ago

Apart from the tragedy of the commons problem, it's also hard because we don't know if the benefits will outweigh the costs. As far as I've heard, the science doesn't answer that accurately enough to actually make a decision. We might be better off with global warming than with a premature end to oil and coal. Bear in mind that global warming isn't the end of the world, it's just a change. Humans will certainly adapt and carry on. The problem is the costs might be inconveniently high - or they might be tolerable.

josho 9y ago
you are likely referencing a report that concluded the costs for stopping climate change were higher than the costs of dealing with the consequences. The report that I read on that topic came to its conclusions by valuing people's lives in dollar figures and putting those lives at less value for anyone in developing countries. So, yeh, if you think poor climate refuges have no value then you are right we should take no action. The problem is that those holding onto power have politicized climate change so that those not paying close enough attention wrongly conclude that we don't need to take action.
- mirimir 9y ago
  I wonder how they account for increased military conflict.