9 ms·

> And while climate change is accepted to have played a role in the wholesale disintegration of the Larsen A and Larsen B ice shelves, Luckman emphasised that t

by spodek 9y ago

> And while climate change is accepted to have played a role in the wholesale disintegration of the Larsen A and Larsen B ice shelves, Luckman emphasised that there is no evidence that the calving of the giant iceberg is linked to such processes. > Twila Moon, a glacier expert at the US National Ice and Snow Data Center agrees but, she said, climate change could have made the situation more likely. And yet will a single person who reads about yet more evidence that humans are contributing to global warming change his or her behavior significantly to reduce his or her contribution? Will you, reading these words, actually do something you wouldn't have as a result of learning about this? Most people will blame someone else, maybe the president or the system, or say solar power is growing or population growth isn't as fast as it used to be or ask what difference does my contribution make... and then go back to what they would have done otherwise, without meaningful change. Which is how we got here.

kingkawn 9y ago
Blanket generalized condemnations that serve no end but satisfaction of the speaker's own sense of tragic moral certainty are also how we got here
- spodek 9y ago
  Your post ironically describes itself better than mine I didn't condemn or bring up morality. Satisfaction? I'm sad. I wish someone would write something like that they turned off their air conditioner, decided to take public transit instead of driving today, decided to avoid meat for a day, or something like that. Instead, edgy comments and no personal change, at least not so far.
  - rubyn00bie 9y ago
    How about instead of writing posts that talk about what others could be doing or presumably aren't you talk about what YOU are doing. Going around condemning people and complaining is far less inspiring and doesn't lead to change. It just makes you seem judgemental and hollow to the "sins" you commit. Honey not vinegar. I find it very odd you post on leadership according to your bio but approach issues like you have here.
  - mschaef 9y ago
    > I didn't condemn If you think you didn't condemn, you have a different view of the meaning of that word than I do. "Most people will blame someone else, ... and then go back to what they would have done otherwise, without meaningful change. ... Which is how we got here." Assuming the word 'here' refers to our current bad situation, that looks like condemnation to me. In some ways, I think that condemnation is warranted - in the first world, we do tend lead lives that are not sustainable. The trouble is that that lifestyle is less something we deliberately design and choose and more of an inherited set of expectations. It's how we've been trained to live by our upbringing. It's the rulebook we follow to participate in the society of our friends and peers. This isn't as much intended to be an excuse as it is an attempt to outline what has to be overcome for people to make a change to live more sustainably. It's not an easy thing, by any means. How many people will 1) see the need and 2) choose to make the personal sacrifices necessary to realize a greater good that may not actually happen? (Tragedy of the commons.) So.... what seems likely is that people will be compelled into those sacrifices and more by external forces. (Market prices, carbon taxes, rising water, armed conflicts, etc.)
- bhickey 9y ago
  We got here because carbon is mispriced not because of smug dilettantes on internet forums.
  - ue_ 9y ago
    And by extension the price system in general, the mode of production we live in prioritising the maximisation of short term profit over care for the environment in future or even presently.
    - wbl 9y ago
      If we had a proper carbon tax you would see a very quick response to improve efficiency.
43224gg252 9y ago
From what I understand, it's something like 10% of our infrastructure that contributes 99% of green house gasses. Even if 90% of people on earth decided to recycle and go vegan and drive an electric car, it wouldn't make any difference as long as that 10% is using un-clean infrastructure (container ships are said to produce the pollution of millions of cars, we still burn coal for most of our energy needs, etc).
- roryisok 9y ago
  Well, that 10% exists to serve us consumers. Container ships are big polluters. Maybe if we tried to buy things locally and second hand rather than ordering new stuff from overseas, it might have a minor impact on shipping? And regarding coal, it's possible to choose a green electricity supplier here in Ireland at least
  - dwhabcdefg 9y ago
    Another thing we can do is to continue to bring attention to projects like this one: http://www.whiteboardmag.com/propelwind-wingsail-technology-cargo-ships/ http://www.whiteboardmag.com/propelwind-wingsail-technology-... I'm probably more in the "use technology to help, while I do what I can" rather than "technology will save us, so carry on" camp.
  - peteretep 9y ago
    > Maybe if we tried to buy things locally Or just tax items that have shown up by container enough to reflect environmental cost; this is a political issue.
- spodek 9y ago
  1. That's not how supply and demand works. The infrastructure is there to sustain our behavior. If we change our behavior, we'll change the system. 2. We can do other things than what you suggested. We can reduce consumption over mere recycling. We can have fewer children. We can drive less and reduce car ownership beyond just using electric cars. We can shift taxes to carbon from other things. 3. If other things make bigger differences, we can work on them too. Eating less meat is not exclusive with reducing consumption to reduce the number of container ships. 4. If you don't want to do anything, you don't have to. You can give up on making a difference. That's what billions of people are already doing. If you have more important things to do, you should probably do them.
yequalsx 9y ago
The best way a person can do something is to have less than or equal to 1 child. The world can not sustain large numbers of people who live like Americans. It can not sustain large numbers of people who live like rich Europeans. Pollution, garbage, effect of resource extraction are beginning to toxify the planet. Since globalization billions of people have gotten out of poverty. As this trend continues the strain on the environment similarly increases. Want to genuinely help,the environment? Have fewer kids. Think of this, the average environmentally conscious consumer still contributes massive amounts of trash and still relies on resources extracted from countries with mild environmental standards.
- skinpop 9y ago
  Even better, just commit suicide.
  - yequalsx 9y ago
    Sure, if several billion people did this then that would be helpful in greatly decreasing humanity's pollution impact. But just me committing suicide isn't going to help. The fact is there are way too many people consuming at an unsustainable level. A reasonable, feasible long term solution would be a steady decline in population through birth control.
  - sctb 9y ago
    If you can't comment civilly and substantively, please don't post at all. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- melling 9y ago
  Is this actually true? A few days ago we found out 100 companies created 71% of the CO2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14743137 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14743137 Isn’t it really a matter of developing cleaner transportation and electricity to make us individually generate less CO2? Assuming of course, these companies become more efficient.
Ixiaus 9y ago
I'm someone who did a few things after reading a research paper attempting to quantify the detrimental effects of climate change. I no longer own a car, I bike everywhere. I work remote 100%. I do not eat beef if I can help it anymore. I use the train for long distance personal travel. I still fly when it is for my company, though. I take transit when biking would be too slow. I signed up for my city's green energy program. I pay more to receive 30% of my energy use from wind farms. I cancelled Amazon Prime. I buy items locally as much as possible. I avoid online shopping if possible. All of my food comes from local, small producers. Cutting consumption behavior down has, unsurprisingly, saved me a lot of money and these behaviors are reducing the amount of carbon I emit.
- dpcx 9y ago
  Links to said research paper, if you still have it?
  - Ixiaus 9y ago
    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081648 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.... fermatslibrary.com gets the credit for introducing me to this paper.
- jerry40 9y ago
  This explains late summer in european part of Russia this year. Another couple of persons like you will freeze us to death. Can you at least ride a bike more frequently? :)
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - nthcolumn 9y ago
    Apparently bikes are really bad for the environment being slow, low occupancy road vehicles? I think if are taking upon yourself to advise people you should advocate greener forms of transport such as existing public transit links, walking.
analog31 9y ago
I ride my bike to work, all weather, year round. I use my bike, or walk, for routine shopping trips. My family has a couple of cars, but they are fairly efficient and we use them sparingly. We combine trips and do other things to limit our car use. My family turns down the thermostat in the winter, and uses no air conditioning during the summer. I don't eat beef, and eat relatively little meat in general. I play alcohol powered musical instruments. I vote. ;-) But I think that trying to achieve widespread collective outcomes by encouraging individuals to voluntarily modify their behavior has never worked -- it is how I define "utopian." Society can accomplish things collectively when we have a mechanism for engaging in collective effort such as governments. While I have no illusions that governments will lead us to a perfect society either, I think that if we ever manage to address global warming, it will be through the actions of governments.
- cr0sh 9y ago
  > I play alcohol powered musical instruments. An interesting way of saying "I'm in a rock band with my buddies..." /jk
adrianN 9y ago
Individuals can only slow down climate change, we cannot stop it. To stop climate change's progression we need to completely stop producing green house gases. The sooner the better. No matter how I change my behavior I cannot decrease my impact to zero. The solution needs to happen top down by a massive investment in new energy infrastructure. The best thing we as consumers can do is voting for parties that are in favor of such changes and supporting change for example by paying extra for "green" electricity.
- averagewall 9y ago
  Since almost nobody is voting for Green parties around the world, that's not going to happen. Even most concerned Americans voted for a major party instead last year.
  - adrianN 9y ago
    Yes, we're basically fucked when it comes to climate change. I think it's highly unlikely that we'll manage to limit warming to less than four degrees. My only hope is some energy breakthrough that allows us to actively reduce CO2 concentration instead of just stopping its production.
    - njarboe 9y ago
      Nuclear fission powered CO2 scrubbers could be built with today's technology. Not to mention getting rid of current CO2 emissions from coal and natural gas electricity production. Unfortunately the Greens have been making that politically impossible for the last 50 years. Tax carbon and reduce acceptable man-made radiation exposure from power generation to something reasonable in the same bill. This would be a compromise position. Even ExxonMobil supports a carbon tax. Let's do it already.
  - wbl 9y ago
    The Sierra Club in California opposes urbanization, transit, and carbon free reliable power. It would be counterproductive to put them in power.
anon1253 9y ago
- I eat mostly vegetarian - I live in a small apartment block that is very insulted and has a lot of natural light - don't own a car and use bike / public transport - work 100% remote - I compensate CO2 when flying, even when for business - I try to have a minimal set of possessions, and buy second-hand if possible (and am really aggressive about ad blocking, don't watch commercial TV) - I got a vasectomy to not have children - I try to write and engage in social media about it, read the primary literature - Donate to reforestation / tree planting initiatives But it's all bullshit isn't it? I doesn't change a damn thing. The fixation on the idea that individual consumer behavior will make a noticeable impact is laughable. The only way to make a difference is by changing the companies and business that pollute in the first place, not the people who buy the stuff. And that means taxing, de-investing, subsidizing alternatives, and for the love-of stop subsidizing fossil fuels. But that's never going to happen. I mean even putting a stupid sail on cargo ships would cut down pollution more than the CO2 anything you and I could ever do. Or if we hike up the prices of transport considerably (so fruits from bloody Africa don't cost 20 cents in Northern Europe) we can change our entire logistics pipeline.
- erik_landerholm 9y ago
  Unfortunately, you are correct, it's all bullshit. It will take a technology revolution or divine/alien intervention to stop the coming climate apocalypse.
- mkstowegnv 9y ago
  Never stop working to change the system but reject cynicism and pessimism and honor all those who make even small contributions. Thank you. Thank you for buying a little time. The problem grows exponentially as tundra defrosts and releases methane and it grows in spurts as thresholds are crossed and glaciers calve for example. Keep hoping that the contributions you make and are inspiring others to make will buy enough time for exponentially growing technological advances to arrive. Arrive in time to keep us from crossing some of the really bad thresholds like the Gulf Stream shutting down. Visualize a melting ceiling of an ice cave in Greenland and tell yourself I am stopping this drop.
- pstuart 9y ago
FLUX-YOU 9y ago
Companies need to change before individuals do. That is harder to do than changing as an individual. Even if executives changed as individuals doesn't guarantee they will be able to change the company by the same way.

by spodek 9y ago

kingkawn 9y ago

Blanket generalized condemnations that serve no end but satisfaction of the speaker's own sense of tragic moral certainty are also how we got here

spodek 9y ago
Your post ironically describes itself better than mine I didn't condemn or bring up morality. Satisfaction? I'm sad. I wish someone would write something like that they turned off their air conditioner, decided to take public transit instead of driving today, decided to avoid meat for a day, or something like that. Instead, edgy comments and no personal change, at least not so far.
- rubyn00bie 9y ago
  How about instead of writing posts that talk about what others could be doing or presumably aren't you talk about what YOU are doing. Going around condemning people and complaining is far less inspiring and doesn't lead to change. It just makes you seem judgemental and hollow to the "sins" you commit. Honey not vinegar. I find it very odd you post on leadership according to your bio but approach issues like you have here.
- mschaef 9y ago
  > I didn't condemn If you think you didn't condemn, you have a different view of the meaning of that word than I do. "Most people will blame someone else, ... and then go back to what they would have done otherwise, without meaningful change. ... Which is how we got here." Assuming the word 'here' refers to our current bad situation, that looks like condemnation to me. In some ways, I think that condemnation is warranted - in the first world, we do tend lead lives that are not sustainable. The trouble is that that lifestyle is less something we deliberately design and choose and more of an inherited set of expectations. It's how we've been trained to live by our upbringing. It's the rulebook we follow to participate in the society of our friends and peers. This isn't as much intended to be an excuse as it is an attempt to outline what has to be overcome for people to make a change to live more sustainably. It's not an easy thing, by any means. How many people will 1) see the need and 2) choose to make the personal sacrifices necessary to realize a greater good that may not actually happen? (Tragedy of the commons.) So.... what seems likely is that people will be compelled into those sacrifices and more by external forces. (Market prices, carbon taxes, rising water, armed conflicts, etc.)
bhickey 9y ago
We got here because carbon is mispriced not because of smug dilettantes on internet forums.
- ue_ 9y ago
  And by extension the price system in general, the mode of production we live in prioritising the maximisation of short term profit over care for the environment in future or even presently.
  - wbl 9y ago
    If we had a proper carbon tax you would see a very quick response to improve efficiency.

43224gg252 9y ago

From what I understand, it's something like 10% of our infrastructure that contributes 99% of green house gasses. Even if 90% of people on earth decided to recycle and go vegan and drive an electric car, it wouldn't make any difference as long as that 10% is using un-clean infrastructure (container ships are said to produce the pollution of millions of cars, we still burn coal for most of our energy needs, etc).

roryisok 9y ago
Well, that 10% exists to serve us consumers. Container ships are big polluters. Maybe if we tried to buy things locally and second hand rather than ordering new stuff from overseas, it might have a minor impact on shipping? And regarding coal, it's possible to choose a green electricity supplier here in Ireland at least
- dwhabcdefg 9y ago
  Another thing we can do is to continue to bring attention to projects like this one: http://www.whiteboardmag.com/propelwind-wingsail-technology-cargo-ships/ http://www.whiteboardmag.com/propelwind-wingsail-technology-... I'm probably more in the "use technology to help, while I do what I can" rather than "technology will save us, so carry on" camp.
- peteretep 9y ago
  > Maybe if we tried to buy things locally Or just tax items that have shown up by container enough to reflect environmental cost; this is a political issue.
spodek 9y ago
1. That's not how supply and demand works. The infrastructure is there to sustain our behavior. If we change our behavior, we'll change the system. 2. We can do other things than what you suggested. We can reduce consumption over mere recycling. We can have fewer children. We can drive less and reduce car ownership beyond just using electric cars. We can shift taxes to carbon from other things. 3. If other things make bigger differences, we can work on them too. Eating less meat is not exclusive with reducing consumption to reduce the number of container ships. 4. If you don't want to do anything, you don't have to. You can give up on making a difference. That's what billions of people are already doing. If you have more important things to do, you should probably do them.

yequalsx 9y ago

The best way a person can do something is to have less than or equal to 1 child. The world can not sustain large numbers of people who live like Americans. It can not sustain large numbers of people who live like rich Europeans. Pollution, garbage, effect of resource extraction are beginning to toxify the planet. Since globalization billions of people have gotten out of poverty. As this trend continues the strain on the environment similarly increases. Want to genuinely help,the environment? Have fewer kids. Think of this, the average environmentally conscious consumer still contributes massive amounts of trash and still relies on resources extracted from countries with mild environmental standards.

skinpop 9y ago
Even better, just commit suicide.
- yequalsx 9y ago
  Sure, if several billion people did this then that would be helpful in greatly decreasing humanity's pollution impact. But just me committing suicide isn't going to help. The fact is there are way too many people consuming at an unsustainable level. A reasonable, feasible long term solution would be a steady decline in population through birth control.
- sctb 9y ago
  If you can't comment civilly and substantively, please don't post at all. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
melling 9y ago
Is this actually true? A few days ago we found out 100 companies created 71% of the CO2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14743137 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14743137 Isn’t it really a matter of developing cleaner transportation and electricity to make us individually generate less CO2? Assuming of course, these companies become more efficient.

Ixiaus 9y ago

I'm someone who did a few things after reading a research paper attempting to quantify the detrimental effects of climate change. I no longer own a car, I bike everywhere. I work remote 100%. I do not eat beef if I can help it anymore. I use the train for long distance personal travel. I still fly when it is for my company, though. I take transit when biking would be too slow. I signed up for my city's green energy program. I pay more to receive 30% of my energy use from wind farms. I cancelled Amazon Prime. I buy items locally as much as possible. I avoid online shopping if possible. All of my food comes from local, small producers. Cutting consumption behavior down has, unsurprisingly, saved me a lot of money and these behaviors are reducing the amount of carbon I emit.

dpcx 9y ago
Links to said research paper, if you still have it?
- Ixiaus 9y ago
  http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081648 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.... fermatslibrary.com gets the credit for introducing me to this paper.
jerry40 9y ago
This explains late summer in european part of Russia this year. Another couple of persons like you will freeze us to death. Can you at least ride a bike more frequently? :)
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- nthcolumn 9y ago
  Apparently bikes are really bad for the environment being slow, low occupancy road vehicles? I think if are taking upon yourself to advise people you should advocate greener forms of transport such as existing public transit links, walking.

analog31 9y ago

I ride my bike to work, all weather, year round. I use my bike, or walk, for routine shopping trips. My family has a couple of cars, but they are fairly efficient and we use them sparingly. We combine trips and do other things to limit our car use. My family turns down the thermostat in the winter, and uses no air conditioning during the summer. I don't eat beef, and eat relatively little meat in general. I play alcohol powered musical instruments. I vote. ;-) But I think that trying to achieve widespread collective outcomes by encouraging individuals to voluntarily modify their behavior has never worked -- it is how I define "utopian." Society can accomplish things collectively when we have a mechanism for engaging in collective effort such as governments. While I have no illusions that governments will lead us to a perfect society either, I think that if we ever manage to address global warming, it will be through the actions of governments.

cr0sh 9y ago
> I play alcohol powered musical instruments. An interesting way of saying "I'm in a rock band with my buddies..." /jk

adrianN 9y ago

Individuals can only slow down climate change, we cannot stop it. To stop climate change's progression we need to completely stop producing green house gases. The sooner the better. No matter how I change my behavior I cannot decrease my impact to zero. The solution needs to happen top down by a massive investment in new energy infrastructure. The best thing we as consumers can do is voting for parties that are in favor of such changes and supporting change for example by paying extra for "green" electricity.

averagewall 9y ago
Since almost nobody is voting for Green parties around the world, that's not going to happen. Even most concerned Americans voted for a major party instead last year.
- adrianN 9y ago
  Yes, we're basically fucked when it comes to climate change. I think it's highly unlikely that we'll manage to limit warming to less than four degrees. My only hope is some energy breakthrough that allows us to actively reduce CO2 concentration instead of just stopping its production.
  - njarboe 9y ago
    Nuclear fission powered CO2 scrubbers could be built with today's technology. Not to mention getting rid of current CO2 emissions from coal and natural gas electricity production. Unfortunately the Greens have been making that politically impossible for the last 50 years. Tax carbon and reduce acceptable man-made radiation exposure from power generation to something reasonable in the same bill. This would be a compromise position. Even ExxonMobil supports a carbon tax. Let's do it already.
- wbl 9y ago
  The Sierra Club in California opposes urbanization, transit, and carbon free reliable power. It would be counterproductive to put them in power.

anon1253 9y ago

- I eat mostly vegetarian - I live in a small apartment block that is very insulted and has a lot of natural light - don't own a car and use bike / public transport - work 100% remote - I compensate CO2 when flying, even when for business - I try to have a minimal set of possessions, and buy second-hand if possible (and am really aggressive about ad blocking, don't watch commercial TV) - I got a vasectomy to not have children - I try to write and engage in social media about it, read the primary literature - Donate to reforestation / tree planting initiatives But it's all bullshit isn't it? I doesn't change a damn thing. The fixation on the idea that individual consumer behavior will make a noticeable impact is laughable. The only way to make a difference is by changing the companies and business that pollute in the first place, not the people who buy the stuff. And that means taxing, de-investing, subsidizing alternatives, and for the love-of stop subsidizing fossil fuels. But that's never going to happen. I mean even putting a stupid sail on cargo ships would cut down pollution more than the CO2 anything you and I could ever do. Or if we hike up the prices of transport considerably (so fruits from bloody Africa don't cost 20 cents in Northern Europe) we can change our entire logistics pipeline.

erik_landerholm 9y ago
Unfortunately, you are correct, it's all bullshit. It will take a technology revolution or divine/alien intervention to stop the coming climate apocalypse.
mkstowegnv 9y ago
Never stop working to change the system but reject cynicism and pessimism and honor all those who make even small contributions. Thank you. Thank you for buying a little time. The problem grows exponentially as tundra defrosts and releases methane and it grows in spurts as thresholds are crossed and glaciers calve for example. Keep hoping that the contributions you make and are inspiring others to make will buy enough time for exponentially growing technological advances to arrive. Arrive in time to keep us from crossing some of the really bad thresholds like the Gulf Stream shutting down. Visualize a melting ceiling of an ice cave in Greenland and tell yourself I am stopping this drop.
pstuart 9y ago

FLUX-YOU 9y ago

Companies need to change before individuals do. That is harder to do than changing as an individual. Even if executives changed as individuals doesn't guarantee they will be able to change the company by the same way.