3 ms·
In many cases, not using fuels is a very viable alternative to using fossil fuels. There are compelling arguments for that alternative that don't amount to "you
by boomlinde 9y ago
In many cases, not using fuels is a very viable alternative to using fossil fuels. There are compelling arguments for that alternative that don't amount to "you're horrible" or "this is what brought us computers". A study found that for a third of car commuters in Stockholm, their commute would be a <30 minute bike ride. That's a viable alternative for most of those people.
- CalRobert 9y agoHonestly, just by • living in an apartment in a city • eating less meat • getting to work via bike, walking, public transport, or telecommuting • using renewably-sourced energy for heating and cooling a lot of people could cut out the vast majority of their personal emissions and live very comfortably. The above changes also mean far, far less land dedicated to asphalt, which means we can leave more land in its natural state (or rewild it if need be). It's sad to kill Earth no matter what, but it's especially sad that we're destroying the world not to keep 7 billion people alive, but to keep one or two billion in profound decadence.
- cm2012 9y agoFor most hacker news types, I would bet air travel was the vast majority of their emissions - probably putting them well over the average, even if they bike to the city daily. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/every-time-you-fly-you-trash-the-planet-and-theres-no-easy-fix/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/every-time-you-fly-you-...
- CalRobert 9y agoThat's true of myself. It's around 80% of our carbon footprint, depending on the year. We live on an island, which doesn't help. If there were a decent internet connection and I could work remotely I wouldn't mind a slow container ship for international travel.