13 ms·

I don't have a single friend or even. aquaintence who would do any of the top 3 things long the list of 148 most impactful things an individual can do they wer

I don't have a single friend or even. aquaintence who would do any of the top 3 things long the list of 148 most impactful things an individual can do they were 1. have one less kid. I can maybe imagine a friend choosing not to have 3 but I can't imagine someone wanting 2 to go to 1 or someone wanting 1 to go to 0 for this reason 2. go carless Sone friends live in a city that supports a carless lifestyle and already live carless but I can't imagine a single person I know giving up their car or moving somewhere they don't need it for for purpose of helping the environment 3. don't travel zero friends would give this up. even the most eco "aware"

shoo 8y ago
would your friends agree to give this up if, in return, everyone else gave them up too?
- pdimitar 8y ago
  I would not. Whether I want to go somewhere 20km away (the other end of my city) or not has zero correlation if other people have cars or not.
  - shoo 8y ago
    what about if there was some kind of global system of decision-making where others could influence or incentivise your day-to-day actions? e.g. hypothetically would you support a global carbon tax* priced high enough so that driving somewhere wasn't by default a sensible decision? * supposing, hypothetically, we had some effective way of reaching such an agreement and enforcing it
    - pdimitar 8y ago
      If the alternative was just as comfortable and fast, I would be the first to throw away my car. I have zero ego attachments to such objects, I am after their comfort and practical value.
      - Scea91 8y ago
        Do you hold similar stance to other things that require effort? For example: recycling?
        pdimitar 8y ago
        I throw away stuff in designated trash cans but beyond that I don't see how I can help further. And I don't mind effort, at all. I go the extra mile at home to use less kitchen paper. I use less chemicals to clean around the house. I reuse phone and tablet chargers, and headphones. I don't buy new computers often (current PC is 8 years old now). I try and be disciplined. But I am no sewage treatment plant, or a plastic/metal melting foundry so I do what I can but not sure I am helping at all. I think many people misunderstand me in my bigger comment in this post: I try and help but (1) there's a line beyond which you are slaving yourself to supposed improvements you cannot see and so it becomes not worth it, and (2) I am asked to trust other organizations that if I throw away stuff in special areas then I am helping the planet. I don't mind #2 -- it's better than nothing. But I can and do mind #1 here and there. It's not such an unreasonable stance as many make it look.
  - k_ 8y ago
    Doesn't seem too bad to me with a bike and a city giving priority to bikes. Surely less convenient than using a car, but I guess you get used to it. Like you are used to do it in something like 25 minutes with a car, even though there could be near-instant methods of travel available (it's science fiction but still to the point: when you don't have (or don't have any more, for some time) a better alternative, you can overlook many inconveniences).
    - pdimitar 8y ago
      People would not care and would ditch cars if the time and comfort were the same. If the comfort factor is not there though, I feel most wouldn't part with their cars.
k_ 8y ago
Hi I'm Rudy, nice to meet you! Now you have one :) On a more serious note: 1. have one less kid. I really don't like how this one is worded, I always read it as "get rid of one of your kids". Though, except going from 1 to 0, it's not that bad. I definitely wanted more than one, but I can settle with the one I have. 2. go carless You get used to it. I even lived in small cities (~30k inhabitants) and while it's harder when your city isn't supporting a carless lifestyle (never lived in any that does that, sadly), it's definitely doable. 3. don't travel Maybe a bit extreme to give it up entirely. But you can still travel less, do it with more eco-friendly travel options (carpooling, etc.) or go to destinations which do not require planes. I guess it depends on where you live, but in Europe there's definitely lots of wonderful places I can go to with a low carbon impact. But I still am responsible for a lot more carbon emission than I should. I'm taking it slow (changing food habits, etc.) but there's still domains in which I am really bad (using too much tech, ordering things online..).
xapata 8y ago
3 can be to travel by bus instead of airplane for domestic trips. And to take fewer flights. I used to travel for work, flying nearly every week. I quit, party because of the environmental concern.
- refurb 8y ago
  But my understanding is airtravel is more fuel efficient than car. A fully loaded 747 gets about 100 miles per gallon per passanger and takes a more direct route. If you had a fuel inefficient van and four people for the same trip you’d like burn more fuel.
  - xapata 8y ago
    Bus, not car. Take a bicycle with you and you'll have decent transportation at your destination. Or rent when you arrive.
bskinny129 8y ago
This is exactly why I think offsets are a better short-term solution. Don't travel is too big of an ask even for the "eco aware". Would they pay an extra 17 cents to offset their driving that day or $3 for a flight across the US? It is shockingly cheap and much easier to say yes to that change. It isn't as direct as just not traveling in the first place, but will get much more adoption. I'm working on an app to make a personal travel offset pledge and track your impact publicly. If anyone is interested in keeping in the loop on progress: https://www.producthunt.com/upcoming/pledge-balance https://www.producthunt.com/upcoming/pledge-balance
folbec 8y ago
Then the short answer is : - Die. In large numbers. Preferably people from the developped world. - The planet may maybe be able to afford half a billion developped world people. There is a link to a Bill Gates blog post in the thread, look at it : agriculture (feeding people) is 25% of the CO2 budget, manufacturing+housing is 27%. Basically reducing these means reducing the population. That's the reason why having one less child is the biggest contribution you can do, short of dying. Any volunteer ?

shoo 8y ago

would your friends agree to give this up if, in return, everyone else gave them up too?

pdimitar 8y ago
I would not. Whether I want to go somewhere 20km away (the other end of my city) or not has zero correlation if other people have cars or not.
- shoo 8y ago
  what about if there was some kind of global system of decision-making where others could influence or incentivise your day-to-day actions? e.g. hypothetically would you support a global carbon tax* priced high enough so that driving somewhere wasn't by default a sensible decision? * supposing, hypothetically, we had some effective way of reaching such an agreement and enforcing it
  - pdimitar 8y ago
    If the alternative was just as comfortable and fast, I would be the first to throw away my car. I have zero ego attachments to such objects, I am after their comfort and practical value.
    - Scea91 8y ago
      Do you hold similar stance to other things that require effort? For example: recycling?
      - pdimitar 8y ago
        I throw away stuff in designated trash cans but beyond that I don't see how I can help further. And I don't mind effort, at all. I go the extra mile at home to use less kitchen paper. I use less chemicals to clean around the house. I reuse phone and tablet chargers, and headphones. I don't buy new computers often (current PC is 8 years old now). I try and be disciplined. But I am no sewage treatment plant, or a plastic/metal melting foundry so I do what I can but not sure I am helping at all. I think many people misunderstand me in my bigger comment in this post: I try and help but (1) there's a line beyond which you are slaving yourself to supposed improvements you cannot see and so it becomes not worth it, and (2) I am asked to trust other organizations that if I throw away stuff in special areas then I am helping the planet. I don't mind #2 -- it's better than nothing. But I can and do mind #1 here and there. It's not such an unreasonable stance as many make it look.
- k_ 8y ago
  Doesn't seem too bad to me with a bike and a city giving priority to bikes. Surely less convenient than using a car, but I guess you get used to it. Like you are used to do it in something like 25 minutes with a car, even though there could be near-instant methods of travel available (it's science fiction but still to the point: when you don't have (or don't have any more, for some time) a better alternative, you can overlook many inconveniences).
  - pdimitar 8y ago
    People would not care and would ditch cars if the time and comfort were the same. If the comfort factor is not there though, I feel most wouldn't part with their cars.

k_ 8y ago

Hi I'm Rudy, nice to meet you! Now you have one :) On a more serious note: 1. have one less kid. I really don't like how this one is worded, I always read it as "get rid of one of your kids". Though, except going from 1 to 0, it's not that bad. I definitely wanted more than one, but I can settle with the one I have. 2. go carless You get used to it. I even lived in small cities (~30k inhabitants) and while it's harder when your city isn't supporting a carless lifestyle (never lived in any that does that, sadly), it's definitely doable. 3. don't travel Maybe a bit extreme to give it up entirely. But you can still travel less, do it with more eco-friendly travel options (carpooling, etc.) or go to destinations which do not require planes. I guess it depends on where you live, but in Europe there's definitely lots of wonderful places I can go to with a low carbon impact. But I still am responsible for a lot more carbon emission than I should. I'm taking it slow (changing food habits, etc.) but there's still domains in which I am really bad (using too much tech, ordering things online..).

xapata 8y ago

3 can be to travel by bus instead of airplane for domestic trips. And to take fewer flights. I used to travel for work, flying nearly every week. I quit, party because of the environmental concern.

refurb 8y ago
But my understanding is airtravel is more fuel efficient than car. A fully loaded 747 gets about 100 miles per gallon per passanger and takes a more direct route. If you had a fuel inefficient van and four people for the same trip you’d like burn more fuel.
- xapata 8y ago
  Bus, not car. Take a bicycle with you and you'll have decent transportation at your destination. Or rent when you arrive.

bskinny129 8y ago

This is exactly why I think offsets are a better short-term solution. Don't travel is too big of an ask even for the "eco aware". Would they pay an extra 17 cents to offset their driving that day or $3 for a flight across the US? It is shockingly cheap and much easier to say yes to that change. It isn't as direct as just not traveling in the first place, but will get much more adoption. I'm working on an app to make a personal travel offset pledge and track your impact publicly. If anyone is interested in keeping in the loop on progress: https://www.producthunt.com/upcoming/pledge-balance https://www.producthunt.com/upcoming/pledge-balance

folbec 8y ago

Then the short answer is : - Die. In large numbers. Preferably people from the developped world. - The planet may maybe be able to afford half a billion developped world people. There is a link to a Bill Gates blog post in the thread, look at it : agriculture (feeding people) is 25% of the CO2 budget, manufacturing+housing is 27%. Basically reducing these means reducing the population. That's the reason why having one less child is the biggest contribution you can do, short of dying. Any volunteer ?