6 ms·

It is not just governments, its people too. How many couples will have more than one child? How many people eat meat or fish every day? How many people drive

It is not just governments, its people too. How many couples will have more than one child? How many people eat meat or fish every day? How many people drive their car to the corner store less than a mile away? How many people buy huge SUVs and trucks as a status symbol when a smaller car is all they need? Governments won't solve this issue. We the consumers have to solve it, the problem is that nobody gives a fuck. I have tried to reduce my carbon footprint to the minimum and guess what? It won't matter because by the time I have saved a few kilos of Co2 there's a douchebag with a hummer driving down the street sucking gasoline like there is no tomorrow! And to top it off everybody thinks that the world's economy can continue to grow without any limits. I believe that as a species we are simply delusional.

abyssin 8y ago
Driving to the corner store isn't the issue. Having a lifestyle that makes you need a car is the issue. Also travelling in general is a big taboo, because environnementalists usually love to travel. Relying on individual's changes will lead to what we've been doing for 30 years. It leads to the current situation of “penny wise and pound foolish”, saving water when brushing teeth but taking planes.
- pimmen 8y ago
  > Driving to the corner store isn't the issue. Having a lifestyle that makes you need a car is the issue. This. I pissed off my ex's sister once when she said that since she was moving 40 kilometers outside of the city, she and her husband needs two cars. I asked her why she was moving then, you already have a house with a room for all your kids close enough to work that you can bike. She answered that she loves nature, and just going for a run there whenever she wants. So I said "wouldn't you then say that to go for a run in the woods whenever you want, you'll get two cars"? It sort of killed the mood. I'm a monster.
  - pendenthistory 8y ago
    I've had these kinds of conversations often with family, and I think it comes down to them believing in the "right" to live anywhere. They have a right to living in a house close to nature. This attitude comes up when some parties in our country want to raise the price of gas or some other way make it more expensive to drive (to save our planet). The reaction is always the same: "how am I supposed to bike or walk to work, it would take 10 hours!". Well yeah, but it's your choice to live so far away from everything, should we destroy our planet because you want to have a yard and live next to a forest?
    - carlmr 8y ago
      >Well yeah, but it's your choice to live so far away from everything, should we destroy our planet because you want to have a yard and live next to a forest? In most cities it's simply unaffordable to live in biking/walking distance to the city centre. And the jobs are there.
      - trashtester 8y ago
        That depends where you are in the world. Some cities are denser than others. Some places, people are willing to live in smaller appartments, etc. Adjustments to zoning laws and regulations as well as adjustments to personal expectations can go quite far. Also, there are trains, subways, etc, that has a very small environmental footprint. Bicycles can also take you a fair distance, especially the electric ones. If there is a will, there is a way.
      - pimmen 8y ago
        This really depends on the city. In this particular city (Sundsvall, Sweden) I would say no and especially if you’re willing to bike to a commuter’s parking lot next to the bus station. This goes for a lot of cities in Sweden, it comes down a lot to culture. In Copenhagen 40% of the inhabitants bike to work, in Stockholm less than 10%.
- rabidrat 8y ago
  But the planes run whether or not we take them. There are bigger forces at play than any individual's choices.
  - ent 8y ago
    The planes will stop running pretty soon after we stop taking them. Running them isn't cheap!
    - rabidrat 8y ago
      The airlines won't downsize in response to reduced demand, they will do many things to increase demand. Which will work for a very long time.
jesperlang 8y ago
I think people just deal with the culture/infrastructure they are born into. If you live in Los Angeles you buy a car, if you live in Amsterdam you buy a bicycle, if you live in Venice you walk. It's the institutions that set this up that are to blame (and the corporations/politicians/voters that affected them). Problem is that most infrastructure was "set up" during high growth years decades ago and now it's just there and very very hard/slow to change...
probably_wrong 8y ago
I think blaming the douchebag with a hummer is focusing on the wrong part of the problem. There are factories right now polluting the environment with CFC, which you might remember as being a. the cause of the hole in the Ozone layer, and b. forbidden. Whomever approved this awful idea will likely get no sanction, amd yet they'll cause way more damage than a guy with a hummer will do in their lifetime. Just like the ban on plastic straws, focusing on those things that are moderately bad while ignoring those that are ridiculously, catastrophically bad is a wasted effort. Unfortunately we created institutions to deal with those issues, and they have no interest in doing their jobs. That, I believe, is where the anger should be focused on.
- 6nf 8y ago
  I understand the source of that CFC pollution is unknown at this stage, we're not even sure which country it's coming from. CFC production is banned worldwide already so it's a matter of finding the culprit and shutting it down.
mjfl 8y ago
My parents had 9 children. What do you think of that?
another-cuppa 8y ago
> Governments won't solve this issue. We the consumers have to solve it, the problem is that nobody gives a fuck. Consumers will never "solve the problem". Why would they? Why would someone downgrade their lifestyle when everyone around them continues to live unsustainably and are more happy as a result? It's all or nothing, and only governments can enforce that.
- bigbugbag 8y ago
  So according to you there is no possible solution for people living in the zomia[1] despite people in the zomia actually living in a sustainable way. Governements is something we could do without and probably fare much better, the logic is simple when you do not relinquish your sovereignity to a hierachy of power then you are in power and feel responsible of your own life so you are an actor of your own life and consequences instead of being a passive consumer, consuming things to try to alleviate fearful living of an unfilfilling life. Happy and fulfilled people do not consume. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zomia_%28geography%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zomia_%28geography%29
  - another-cuppa 8y ago
    But we are already living unsustainably. I don't believe for a second that if governments were disbanded everyone would downgrade their lifestyles to become sustainable. It's one thing preventing inflation to the point of unsustainability, it's quite another to require deflation.
Vinnl 8y ago
> How many people drive their car to the corner store less than a mile away? I'm sure that in the Netherlands, far fewer people do so than in the US. A reason is that the government has invested a lot in bicycle infrastructure, to the point where for many people, going to the store by bicycle is far more comfortable than doing so by car. In other words, governments can very much influence this issue. Though of course, they usually need popular support for that to some extent, which in the end still comes down to consumers, or at least people.
doombolt 8y ago
> How many couples will have more than one child? I think this speech should be aimed at nations of Africa, Middle East and India. After all, they have way greater fertility rate than Europe, US and Far East, and they are also in greatest immediate danger from Climate Change. Why this moot point is being made to HN audience, I fail to understand. We're on track to dwindle our numbers anyway.
- bnhjg 8y ago
  The average carbon footprint of an individual is however much larger for rich countries. It is true that n_children is higher for say, Nigeria rather than Germany. However n_children times footprint_of_a_child is much higher in Germany. Using the very limited numbers from this wikipedia page [0], the carbon footprint of a German individual is about 15 times more than a Nigerian individual. Yet Nigerians "only" have 3.7 more births per woman than the Germans, and that's without taking into account the enormous difference in life expectancy. Taking the two numbers, the carbon footprint of the average German couple fertility behavior is about 4 times bigger than for a Nigerian couple. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
  - doombolt 8y ago
    Yes, but people in Europe and US are among the last to be affected by Climate Change. This means they will only cooperate if you manage to not piss them off. Telling people they should not have a second child is very potent at pissing them off. If you're curious how a pissed off person looks like, see a case of Trump, a person who totally declines to cooperate with you. This is unless you have an army to extort measures from unwilling people in the Europe and US. I think you really don't have one. So please consider how you can avoid annoying the very people who could help you. It's more important to not lose points in the eyes of 2/3 of population (people from, or with, families of more than 1 child), than scoring points with 1% Climate Change fanatics who. A person being told their second child is a sin against planet, a Trump voter next season. There is also a case of not understanding geometric progression. At fertility of 1.5, 80 mln germans are 60 mln in a generation and 45 mln in two generations. At fertility of 3.9, 140 mln nigerians are 270 mln in a generation and 530 mln in two generations. Who would produce more CO2, 45 mln germans or 530 mln nigerians? This without consideration that germans will move to green tec, while nigerians will prop up their consumption standards.
sdinsn 8y ago
It's ridiculous to blame climate change on couples who have more than one child.

abyssin 8y ago

Driving to the corner store isn't the issue. Having a lifestyle that makes you need a car is the issue. Also travelling in general is a big taboo, because environnementalists usually love to travel. Relying on individual's changes will lead to what we've been doing for 30 years. It leads to the current situation of “penny wise and pound foolish”, saving water when brushing teeth but taking planes.

pimmen 8y ago
> Driving to the corner store isn't the issue. Having a lifestyle that makes you need a car is the issue. This. I pissed off my ex's sister once when she said that since she was moving 40 kilometers outside of the city, she and her husband needs two cars. I asked her why she was moving then, you already have a house with a room for all your kids close enough to work that you can bike. She answered that she loves nature, and just going for a run there whenever she wants. So I said "wouldn't you then say that to go for a run in the woods whenever you want, you'll get two cars"? It sort of killed the mood. I'm a monster.
- pendenthistory 8y ago
  I've had these kinds of conversations often with family, and I think it comes down to them believing in the "right" to live anywhere. They have a right to living in a house close to nature. This attitude comes up when some parties in our country want to raise the price of gas or some other way make it more expensive to drive (to save our planet). The reaction is always the same: "how am I supposed to bike or walk to work, it would take 10 hours!". Well yeah, but it's your choice to live so far away from everything, should we destroy our planet because you want to have a yard and live next to a forest?
  - carlmr 8y ago
    >Well yeah, but it's your choice to live so far away from everything, should we destroy our planet because you want to have a yard and live next to a forest? In most cities it's simply unaffordable to live in biking/walking distance to the city centre. And the jobs are there.
    - trashtester 8y ago
      That depends where you are in the world. Some cities are denser than others. Some places, people are willing to live in smaller appartments, etc. Adjustments to zoning laws and regulations as well as adjustments to personal expectations can go quite far. Also, there are trains, subways, etc, that has a very small environmental footprint. Bicycles can also take you a fair distance, especially the electric ones. If there is a will, there is a way.
    - pimmen 8y ago
      This really depends on the city. In this particular city (Sundsvall, Sweden) I would say no and especially if you’re willing to bike to a commuter’s parking lot next to the bus station. This goes for a lot of cities in Sweden, it comes down a lot to culture. In Copenhagen 40% of the inhabitants bike to work, in Stockholm less than 10%.
rabidrat 8y ago
But the planes run whether or not we take them. There are bigger forces at play than any individual's choices.
- ent 8y ago
  The planes will stop running pretty soon after we stop taking them. Running them isn't cheap!
  - rabidrat 8y ago
    The airlines won't downsize in response to reduced demand, they will do many things to increase demand. Which will work for a very long time.

jesperlang 8y ago

I think people just deal with the culture/infrastructure they are born into. If you live in Los Angeles you buy a car, if you live in Amsterdam you buy a bicycle, if you live in Venice you walk. It's the institutions that set this up that are to blame (and the corporations/politicians/voters that affected them). Problem is that most infrastructure was "set up" during high growth years decades ago and now it's just there and very very hard/slow to change...

probably_wrong 8y ago

I think blaming the douchebag with a hummer is focusing on the wrong part of the problem. There are factories right now polluting the environment with CFC, which you might remember as being a. the cause of the hole in the Ozone layer, and b. forbidden. Whomever approved this awful idea will likely get no sanction, amd yet they'll cause way more damage than a guy with a hummer will do in their lifetime. Just like the ban on plastic straws, focusing on those things that are moderately bad while ignoring those that are ridiculously, catastrophically bad is a wasted effort. Unfortunately we created institutions to deal with those issues, and they have no interest in doing their jobs. That, I believe, is where the anger should be focused on.

6nf 8y ago
I understand the source of that CFC pollution is unknown at this stage, we're not even sure which country it's coming from. CFC production is banned worldwide already so it's a matter of finding the culprit and shutting it down.

mjfl 8y ago

My parents had 9 children. What do you think of that?

another-cuppa 8y ago

> Governments won't solve this issue. We the consumers have to solve it, the problem is that nobody gives a fuck. Consumers will never "solve the problem". Why would they? Why would someone downgrade their lifestyle when everyone around them continues to live unsustainably and are more happy as a result? It's all or nothing, and only governments can enforce that.

bigbugbag 8y ago
So according to you there is no possible solution for people living in the zomia[1] despite people in the zomia actually living in a sustainable way. Governements is something we could do without and probably fare much better, the logic is simple when you do not relinquish your sovereignity to a hierachy of power then you are in power and feel responsible of your own life so you are an actor of your own life and consequences instead of being a passive consumer, consuming things to try to alleviate fearful living of an unfilfilling life. Happy and fulfilled people do not consume. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zomia_%28geography%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zomia_%28geography%29
- another-cuppa 8y ago
  But we are already living unsustainably. I don't believe for a second that if governments were disbanded everyone would downgrade their lifestyles to become sustainable. It's one thing preventing inflation to the point of unsustainability, it's quite another to require deflation.

Vinnl 8y ago

> How many people drive their car to the corner store less than a mile away? I'm sure that in the Netherlands, far fewer people do so than in the US. A reason is that the government has invested a lot in bicycle infrastructure, to the point where for many people, going to the store by bicycle is far more comfortable than doing so by car. In other words, governments can very much influence this issue. Though of course, they usually need popular support for that to some extent, which in the end still comes down to consumers, or at least people.

doombolt 8y ago

> How many couples will have more than one child? I think this speech should be aimed at nations of Africa, Middle East and India. After all, they have way greater fertility rate than Europe, US and Far East, and they are also in greatest immediate danger from Climate Change. Why this moot point is being made to HN audience, I fail to understand. We're on track to dwindle our numbers anyway.

bnhjg 8y ago
The average carbon footprint of an individual is however much larger for rich countries. It is true that n_children is higher for say, Nigeria rather than Germany. However n_children times footprint_of_a_child is much higher in Germany. Using the very limited numbers from this wikipedia page [0], the carbon footprint of a German individual is about 15 times more than a Nigerian individual. Yet Nigerians "only" have 3.7 more births per woman than the Germans, and that's without taking into account the enormous difference in life expectancy. Taking the two numbers, the carbon footprint of the average German couple fertility behavior is about 4 times bigger than for a Nigerian couple. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
- doombolt 8y ago
  Yes, but people in Europe and US are among the last to be affected by Climate Change. This means they will only cooperate if you manage to not piss them off. Telling people they should not have a second child is very potent at pissing them off. If you're curious how a pissed off person looks like, see a case of Trump, a person who totally declines to cooperate with you. This is unless you have an army to extort measures from unwilling people in the Europe and US. I think you really don't have one. So please consider how you can avoid annoying the very people who could help you. It's more important to not lose points in the eyes of 2/3 of population (people from, or with, families of more than 1 child), than scoring points with 1% Climate Change fanatics who. A person being told their second child is a sin against planet, a Trump voter next season. There is also a case of not understanding geometric progression. At fertility of 1.5, 80 mln germans are 60 mln in a generation and 45 mln in two generations. At fertility of 3.9, 140 mln nigerians are 270 mln in a generation and 530 mln in two generations. Who would produce more CO2, 45 mln germans or 530 mln nigerians? This without consideration that germans will move to green tec, while nigerians will prop up their consumption standards.

sdinsn 8y ago

It's ridiculous to blame climate change on couples who have more than one child.