11 ms·

> How anyone can experience it and keep acting like nothing's happening beats me. I look around my workplace, nobody seems to be compelled to change their life

> How anyone can experience it and keep acting like nothing's happening beats me. I look around my workplace, nobody seems to be compelled to change their lifestyle. Nobody seems to mind using a disposable cup every day, buying latest gadgets they don't need, talking about traveling to new places, etc. I bought people on my team reusable coffee mugs to reduce the amount of disposable waste, but inevitably they get too lazy to clean it and they are back on disposable cups.

konschubert 7y ago
Using a re-usable cup in the face of climate change is like passing by a burning house, spitting into the fire and feeling good for having helped. We need political action and economic incentives. Individuals changing their lifestyle isn’t going to accomplish anything.
- zapita 7y ago
  Political action, economic incentives and individual lifestyles are all inter-dependent. We need to acknowledge that at this point, no single action can save us. So using reusable cups may not on its own solve global heating... But neither will any single election, tax or international agreement. Instead of telling each other “what you’re doing is not solving everything therefore it’s useless”, we should be saying “what you’re doing is a good first step, and here are other ideas for doing more”.
  - konschubert 7y ago
    I am worried that people switch to re-usable cups and say: "Well, I've done my part, I'm good."
    - zapita 7y ago
      Yes, I worry about that too. But I also worry about the opposite: reinforcing the cynical idea that it’s all pointless anyway, so why bother doing anything. The way I see it, someone who makes the effort to switch to reusable cups is very likely willing to make another effort. They might just need you to point you in the right direction. For example, the issue of why we make so many non-reusable cups in the first place, where they come from, who has the power to stop them but doesn’t, and how they can be held accountable. Just a suggestion of course! :-)
      - konschubert 7y ago
        I appreciate your point of view and your arguments are good.
      - ForHackernews 7y ago
        What if it is all pointless and humanity is just f$%ked? That's a very real possibility at this point. The best scientific evidence suggests that we might still have a chance to avoid the worst-of-the-worst of climate change, but changes keep occurring sooner than predicted and that already slim chance is slipping away as we speak. What is the ethical way to live staring an unavoidable catastrophe in the face? When can we honestly give up?
        zapita 7y ago
        Personally I think we should never give up. We are not in a video game with a binary outcome - win or lose. There’s a wide spectrum of possible outcomes, and some involve less suffering than other. I think it’s our responsibility to keep going, and push towards less suffering. If only to make the most of the time we have.
- frankbreetz 7y ago
  If enough people "spit on the fire" it will go out. And of course, the people spitting on the fire are the same people sounding the fire alarm. I'm with though, people are too selfish and too short sighted to be mildly inconvenienced to spit on the fire and some government action needs to happen, I guess all we can do is be vocal about it and hope people cause science friendly politicians come election time
  - dwaltrip 7y ago
    You need to look at the size of the fire and how much spit everyone can produce. It might not be a viable solution. If so we, we should focus our energies on other solutions. If we want to to beat climate change, we have to do the math. And then check it twice.
- edejong 7y ago
  What would happen if we would publish each individual estimated CO_2 emissions of the past year? You'd be obliged to place it under your emails, on your Facebook and LinkedIn account and it'll be placed squarely on your WhatsApp photos. No way to hide it. Published CO_2 emissions would include an estimation of the total CO_2 emissions estimates of the complete production flow of each product you buy, the distance you travel for work and all other energy consumption. Would that incentivize people? (for the purpose of this argument, assume we can actually make such an estimate)
  - konschubert 7y ago
    It's almost impossible to compute. What's the CO2 impact of your google searches? What's easy and effective is a CO2 emissions tax directly on the emitter. Anyone who burns coal or gas or oil has to pay.
    - edejong 7y ago
      It's a bit old research, and probably flawed, but at least some researchers tried to answer this question back in 2008: https://searchengineland.com/calculating-the-carbon-footprint-of-a-google-search-16105 https://searchengineland.com/calculating-the-carbon-footprin...
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    I'd be delighted if that were to happen, impractical though it might be. Only if every product and company had to do the same, including all their externalities. That would both incentivise and enable people to shop and invest wisely. Colour code and grade them just like EU energy efficiency labels - which were so successful in pushing to higher efficiency they had to re-rate them all. Right now it's almost impossible to know the impact of what you buy, or which is better. Or how the impact of some produce available year round varies across the year. I know buying a lettuce in winter is going to have larger impact than in summer, but I have no way to quantify it. It would also be an excellent starting point for building a carbon tax, that could slowly escalate to punitive.
    - 7y ago
- bamboozled 7y ago
  You're absolutely right that in the scheme of it all the impact may be small but there is climate change and there is also a huge problem of waste which needs addressing. I agree that a single individuals actions will have minimal impact, but isn't it the individual that makes up the whole? "Individuals changing their lifestyle isn’t going to accomplish anything." Why do you say that? Does any evidence exist that individuals making changes doesn't do anything? For example, my partner and I no longer own cars, that's hopefully two whole cars off the road for practically a lifetime. Does this have zero impact ? Also think of it this way, imagine if all of the people in the world right now who couldn't afford to fly, own cars and consume as much as you, could afford to do so and proceeded to do so without thinking about the consequences, it would be 2050 pretty quickly. I agree legislation and emissions trading schemes etc are important but i don't see it happening fast enough just yet. So why not take some ownership of your own and do your best in the meantime ?
  - konschubert 7y ago
    > For example, my partner and I no longer own cars, that's hopefully two whole cars off the road for practically a lifetime. Does this have zero impact ? The impact is that you inspire others, which makes political change possible in the long run. But beyond that... as long as oil is coming out of the wells, and it's legal to burn it, somebody will do it.
    - dTal 7y ago
      Are there good reasons to think that the rate at which oil is extracted and burned is independent of consumer demand? It's not far-fetched, but it would be surprising.
      - konschubert 7y ago
        The rate might be affected by consumer demand. But I think that the total amount of oil that will be burnt only depends on the price of extracting the next barrel vs the price of other energy sources.
    - 7y ago
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- rwnspace 7y ago
  No. Individuals openly resisting norms alters the discourse and the boundaries of acceptable thought. Sufficiently aggregated, it is precisely what brings about change.
  - konschubert 7y ago
    I see that point. But, what’s the new norm we want to establish? “Let’s all use 20% less energy” Vs “Let’s produce all energy from renewable sources” I feel like the second option is the only one that’s going to save us, and option 1 is a distraction. If you were to, say, mount a solar panel on the roof of your electric car, that would probably be a better message to send than to drive less.
    - rwnspace 7y ago
      Yeah, for sure, there are degrees of success (as you suggest, "you might think it would be successful but it really isn't", or, "you spent loads of resources on something that felt good but achieved nothing when you could have done this unappealing effective thing"). I do think 'consume less, fix things, make reuse a hobby' is a good norm to work towards. I think the Restarters community is a good example (casual affiliation) [1] I'm quick to defend the belief at a 'meta level'. It seems good to pretend we each can make a difference, in the same way it's useful to pretend free will exists: if you act 'as if' such a thing is true, then you avoid the outcome of acting as if it is false, one that seems to me utterly terrible - 'you could have made a difference, but you chose not to'. I'd rather bring important but optimistic goals down a peg than abandon them - thinking I may as well leave things up to Moloch [2] leads me to despair. [1] https://www.restarters.net/about https://www.restarters.net/about [2] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
- imtringued 7y ago
  What matters isn't the action. It's the will to solve the problem. Right now no one cares and therefore the politicians don't care either.
GijsjanB 7y ago
I know places that use disposable carton cups, because their impact on the environment is less than cleaning a reusable cup. Which will probably make people scream that it's all too complicated to keep up with. I would love for people to be smart and change their lifestyle, but I'm afraid it's too much to ask. And I'm also afraid the solution lies with Big Government. Bans on gasoline cars, only allow disposable dishwasher detergent, subsidize train travel, speed up hydrogen powered air travel, etc, etc. It won't be fun, but it will be necessary. I believe it will happen. Hopefully we're not too sloooow to vote the right people in office
Theodores 7y ago
This is quite mind-blowing. In the UK workplace it is a common cultural norm to use the same 'favourite' cup every day for every drink. Same at home. People would think there was something wrong with you if every drink was a takeout. People do have single use cups on train journeys and as a special carry-in treat from a lunch break but generally the re-used cup idea is the normal, default option. Have people really got that lazy? Or is their work really that important? In all fairness though, in America the power is only 110v not 240. So boiling a kettle is not going to happen. Plus the Boston Tea Party thing means y'all don't have a nice sharp cup of tea. So it is kind of not economically viable to just have a cup of tea, which for me, with no milk or sugar, comes in at less than 1p per cup + electricity. (58 tea bags cost 80 pence). Even then I often re-use the same tea bag, so totally different economic level. I imagine my blood wouldn't be too useful if it was laced with caffeine, sugar, dairy products and/or artificial sweeteners on an hourly basis and that I might get too lazy to wash a cup. Maybe this is what happens. There is a feedback loop that goes on with the wasteful lifestyle with people not able to regulate their body heat in winter or summer. So everything has to be air conditioned the whole time. In the USA this is a requirement but in England there was no such thing as air conditioning in the 1970's. You would open a window instead. Nowadays the windows have to be closed and the AC is on. Also in the 1970's you put lights on when it got dark. You didn't have the lights on mid day in mid summer, the glowy thing in the sky was considered sufficient. Try turning off the lights in your workplace and see how people moan. Don't tell them that you are saving the environment, just say you had glare on your screen. See how they react. I would like to see an office segregated into two zones much like how places used to be segregated into smoking and non-smoking areas. In one zone there would be the planet trashers. Then in the other the people who can do actual work without having to be overly nannied. The 'eco' work zone would have no AC in places like England, instead there would be a breeze, some silence (instead of fans), nobody moaning about the weather but enjoying it and some sensible hours worked, so nobody sauntering in at 10 to moan all day, more of a decent lunch time, French style. Meanwhile, in the other zone would be the people who are no longer able to regulate their body temperatures due to weight considerations. They would be paid slightly less as in their part of the building there would be the fizzy drinks machine to pay for, the disposable cups, the air conditioning, the excess lighting and the excess trash to landfill. If this were in place then I am sure productivity would increase.

konschubert 7y ago

Using a re-usable cup in the face of climate change is like passing by a burning house, spitting into the fire and feeling good for having helped. We need political action and economic incentives. Individuals changing their lifestyle isn’t going to accomplish anything.

zapita 7y ago
Political action, economic incentives and individual lifestyles are all inter-dependent. We need to acknowledge that at this point, no single action can save us. So using reusable cups may not on its own solve global heating... But neither will any single election, tax or international agreement. Instead of telling each other “what you’re doing is not solving everything therefore it’s useless”, we should be saying “what you’re doing is a good first step, and here are other ideas for doing more”.
- konschubert 7y ago
  I am worried that people switch to re-usable cups and say: "Well, I've done my part, I'm good."
  - zapita 7y ago
    Yes, I worry about that too. But I also worry about the opposite: reinforcing the cynical idea that it’s all pointless anyway, so why bother doing anything. The way I see it, someone who makes the effort to switch to reusable cups is very likely willing to make another effort. They might just need you to point you in the right direction. For example, the issue of why we make so many non-reusable cups in the first place, where they come from, who has the power to stop them but doesn’t, and how they can be held accountable. Just a suggestion of course! :-)
    - konschubert 7y ago
      I appreciate your point of view and your arguments are good.
    - ForHackernews 7y ago
      What if it is all pointless and humanity is just f$%ked? That's a very real possibility at this point. The best scientific evidence suggests that we might still have a chance to avoid the worst-of-the-worst of climate change, but changes keep occurring sooner than predicted and that already slim chance is slipping away as we speak. What is the ethical way to live staring an unavoidable catastrophe in the face? When can we honestly give up?
      - zapita 7y ago
        Personally I think we should never give up. We are not in a video game with a binary outcome - win or lose. There’s a wide spectrum of possible outcomes, and some involve less suffering than other. I think it’s our responsibility to keep going, and push towards less suffering. If only to make the most of the time we have.
frankbreetz 7y ago
If enough people "spit on the fire" it will go out. And of course, the people spitting on the fire are the same people sounding the fire alarm. I'm with though, people are too selfish and too short sighted to be mildly inconvenienced to spit on the fire and some government action needs to happen, I guess all we can do is be vocal about it and hope people cause science friendly politicians come election time
- dwaltrip 7y ago
  You need to look at the size of the fire and how much spit everyone can produce. It might not be a viable solution. If so we, we should focus our energies on other solutions. If we want to to beat climate change, we have to do the math. And then check it twice.
edejong 7y ago
What would happen if we would publish each individual estimated CO_2 emissions of the past year? You'd be obliged to place it under your emails, on your Facebook and LinkedIn account and it'll be placed squarely on your WhatsApp photos. No way to hide it. Published CO_2 emissions would include an estimation of the total CO_2 emissions estimates of the complete production flow of each product you buy, the distance you travel for work and all other energy consumption. Would that incentivize people? (for the purpose of this argument, assume we can actually make such an estimate)
- konschubert 7y ago
  It's almost impossible to compute. What's the CO2 impact of your google searches? What's easy and effective is a CO2 emissions tax directly on the emitter. Anyone who burns coal or gas or oil has to pay.
  - edejong 7y ago
    It's a bit old research, and probably flawed, but at least some researchers tried to answer this question back in 2008: https://searchengineland.com/calculating-the-carbon-footprint-of-a-google-search-16105 https://searchengineland.com/calculating-the-carbon-footprin...
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  I'd be delighted if that were to happen, impractical though it might be. Only if every product and company had to do the same, including all their externalities. That would both incentivise and enable people to shop and invest wisely. Colour code and grade them just like EU energy efficiency labels - which were so successful in pushing to higher efficiency they had to re-rate them all. Right now it's almost impossible to know the impact of what you buy, or which is better. Or how the impact of some produce available year round varies across the year. I know buying a lettuce in winter is going to have larger impact than in summer, but I have no way to quantify it. It would also be an excellent starting point for building a carbon tax, that could slowly escalate to punitive.
  - 7y ago
bamboozled 7y ago
You're absolutely right that in the scheme of it all the impact may be small but there is climate change and there is also a huge problem of waste which needs addressing. I agree that a single individuals actions will have minimal impact, but isn't it the individual that makes up the whole? "Individuals changing their lifestyle isn’t going to accomplish anything." Why do you say that? Does any evidence exist that individuals making changes doesn't do anything? For example, my partner and I no longer own cars, that's hopefully two whole cars off the road for practically a lifetime. Does this have zero impact ? Also think of it this way, imagine if all of the people in the world right now who couldn't afford to fly, own cars and consume as much as you, could afford to do so and proceeded to do so without thinking about the consequences, it would be 2050 pretty quickly. I agree legislation and emissions trading schemes etc are important but i don't see it happening fast enough just yet. So why not take some ownership of your own and do your best in the meantime ?
- konschubert 7y ago
  > For example, my partner and I no longer own cars, that's hopefully two whole cars off the road for practically a lifetime. Does this have zero impact ? The impact is that you inspire others, which makes political change possible in the long run. But beyond that... as long as oil is coming out of the wells, and it's legal to burn it, somebody will do it.
  - dTal 7y ago
    Are there good reasons to think that the rate at which oil is extracted and burned is independent of consumer demand? It's not far-fetched, but it would be surprising.
    - konschubert 7y ago
      The rate might be affected by consumer demand. But I think that the total amount of oil that will be burnt only depends on the price of extracting the next barrel vs the price of other energy sources.
  - 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
rwnspace 7y ago
No. Individuals openly resisting norms alters the discourse and the boundaries of acceptable thought. Sufficiently aggregated, it is precisely what brings about change.
- konschubert 7y ago
  I see that point. But, what’s the new norm we want to establish? “Let’s all use 20% less energy” Vs “Let’s produce all energy from renewable sources” I feel like the second option is the only one that’s going to save us, and option 1 is a distraction. If you were to, say, mount a solar panel on the roof of your electric car, that would probably be a better message to send than to drive less.
  - rwnspace 7y ago
    Yeah, for sure, there are degrees of success (as you suggest, "you might think it would be successful but it really isn't", or, "you spent loads of resources on something that felt good but achieved nothing when you could have done this unappealing effective thing"). I do think 'consume less, fix things, make reuse a hobby' is a good norm to work towards. I think the Restarters community is a good example (casual affiliation) [1] I'm quick to defend the belief at a 'meta level'. It seems good to pretend we each can make a difference, in the same way it's useful to pretend free will exists: if you act 'as if' such a thing is true, then you avoid the outcome of acting as if it is false, one that seems to me utterly terrible - 'you could have made a difference, but you chose not to'. I'd rather bring important but optimistic goals down a peg than abandon them - thinking I may as well leave things up to Moloch [2] leads me to despair. [1] https://www.restarters.net/about https://www.restarters.net/about [2] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
imtringued 7y ago
What matters isn't the action. It's the will to solve the problem. Right now no one cares and therefore the politicians don't care either.

GijsjanB 7y ago

I know places that use disposable carton cups, because their impact on the environment is less than cleaning a reusable cup. Which will probably make people scream that it's all too complicated to keep up with. I would love for people to be smart and change their lifestyle, but I'm afraid it's too much to ask. And I'm also afraid the solution lies with Big Government. Bans on gasoline cars, only allow disposable dishwasher detergent, subsidize train travel, speed up hydrogen powered air travel, etc, etc. It won't be fun, but it will be necessary. I believe it will happen. Hopefully we're not too sloooow to vote the right people in office

Theodores 7y ago

This is quite mind-blowing. In the UK workplace it is a common cultural norm to use the same 'favourite' cup every day for every drink. Same at home. People would think there was something wrong with you if every drink was a takeout. People do have single use cups on train journeys and as a special carry-in treat from a lunch break but generally the re-used cup idea is the normal, default option. Have people really got that lazy? Or is their work really that important? In all fairness though, in America the power is only 110v not 240. So boiling a kettle is not going to happen. Plus the Boston Tea Party thing means y'all don't have a nice sharp cup of tea. So it is kind of not economically viable to just have a cup of tea, which for me, with no milk or sugar, comes in at less than 1p per cup + electricity. (58 tea bags cost 80 pence). Even then I often re-use the same tea bag, so totally different economic level. I imagine my blood wouldn't be too useful if it was laced with caffeine, sugar, dairy products and/or artificial sweeteners on an hourly basis and that I might get too lazy to wash a cup. Maybe this is what happens. There is a feedback loop that goes on with the wasteful lifestyle with people not able to regulate their body heat in winter or summer. So everything has to be air conditioned the whole time. In the USA this is a requirement but in England there was no such thing as air conditioning in the 1970's. You would open a window instead. Nowadays the windows have to be closed and the AC is on. Also in the 1970's you put lights on when it got dark. You didn't have the lights on mid day in mid summer, the glowy thing in the sky was considered sufficient. Try turning off the lights in your workplace and see how people moan. Don't tell them that you are saving the environment, just say you had glare on your screen. See how they react. I would like to see an office segregated into two zones much like how places used to be segregated into smoking and non-smoking areas. In one zone there would be the planet trashers. Then in the other the people who can do actual work without having to be overly nannied. The 'eco' work zone would have no AC in places like England, instead there would be a breeze, some silence (instead of fans), nobody moaning about the weather but enjoying it and some sensible hours worked, so nobody sauntering in at 10 to moan all day, more of a decent lunch time, French style. Meanwhile, in the other zone would be the people who are no longer able to regulate their body temperatures due to weight considerations. They would be paid slightly less as in their part of the building there would be the fizzy drinks machine to pay for, the disposable cups, the air conditioning, the excess lighting and the excess trash to landfill. If this were in place then I am sure productivity would increase.