5 ms·

What can a software developer do about climate change?

13 points by thenobsta 7y ago

notmyfuture 7y ago
I’m all for the idea of incremental positive change. Yes, no individual person, city or country can fix this, but if our response to that is to be pessimistic, defeated and do nothing, then we all fail. Advocacy for cycling is one positive thing, and there are so many more.
_nhynes 7y ago
If you're into machine learning you might consider projects like improving crop yields from historical data and tracking deforestation using satellite imagery. Microsoft has a whole "AI for Earth Initiative", too [0], if you're looking for ideas. [0] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/ai/ai-for-earth https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/ai/ai-for-earth
kevas 7y ago
This idea has more holes than Swiss cheese, yet heck with it: remove layers of abstraction from entire systems—hardware to software and everything in between. Each layer consumes additional resources which ultimately consumes energy. In today’s environment, we try and abstract anything and everything away. From the services we use to the software we create and if we were to take a look at those dependencies, that graph would be stuff of nightmares.
jdmoreira 7y ago
I know how absurd this may sound but I think it’s still rationally true. We could remove all the bloat. There is a lot of bloat in modern systems that just causes unnecessary heat and energy consumption. I’m sure it adds up once we consider all the edge devices needing bigger lithium batteries and data centers needing air conditioning. I do exactly the same kind of computing today that I did in the early 90s. The devices got way faster and way more energy efficient but my experience is fundamentally the same. Boggles the mind.
thrower123 7y ago
Probably the best thing would be to resist all urges to get involved with bitcoin.
esotericn 7y ago
I made a post along these lines the other day regarding how best to put money to work via charitable donations. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21024358 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21024358 A software developer in a fairly standard job in the Western world likely earns double the minimum wage. Someone at an adtech company could well be an order of magnitude higher. 5, 10 or (insert value here)% of that is an amount you won't even notice but would make a spectacular difference if we all did it, and if you're somewhere like SF or London your money will go a hell of a long way elsewhere in the world. I've committed to putting at least $500 a month towards a selection of charities and plan to increase that over time. I don't need more toys. The article here also mentions the idea of negotiating, or strongarming, your way into a shorter working week in order that you have time to act politically. I agree with that wholeheartedly - variety is the spice of life in any case!
notmyfuture 7y ago
For anyone looking to get involved but unsure how or where, try this too: http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/ http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/. It's been posted before, but is a great starting point.
cmarschner 7y ago
I would love to invest in a fund that invests in solar and wind plants. With the investment goal to become carbon negative. What options are therefor people like us (i.e. one with detailed reporting how money was spent, perhaps options to invest more than just money, e.g. time and expertise etc.)?
powerbroker 7y ago
Try chipping in $100 to a local business so that it can offer free or subsidized electricity to electric vehicles. If you can do that with 20 people, then you can likely get it done. Offer to repair a damaged EV charger, if it is in a place where it can be effective. I've got a list of about 20 software projects that could possibly make a difference too. Let me add, that my MacBook Pro has taken a licking from at least one cycling accident, and held up like a champ.
blueadept111 7y ago
Good grief, there's ONLY one thing: have less than two children! In a couple of generations this would cut the word's population in half, assuming everyone followed step.
- avmich 7y ago
  The whole point of improving environment is to make it better for people. If there is no people, then any state of environment, naturally speaking, is perfectly fine. Having less children is, in effect, refusing to solve the problem.
  - blueadept111 7y ago
    The other way of solving the problem is to let people kill each other fighting over dwindling resources as the planet dies and becomes sterile, because we're not smart enough as a species to find and maintain a sustainable state of equilibrium with our environment. This scenario is apparently the one we're choosing, by default. Human industrial/economic activity is what's killing the planet. The planet cannot sustain the side effects of an economy of 7 billion people. It doesn't matter what you think, it doesn't matter what you say, it doesn't matter if you recycle, or drink out of paper straws, or vote for the green party, or switch to hydrogen cars, or bury your head in the sand. If you want to solve the problem, but don't want to have less children, then figure out another way to reduce the population by billions of people. I can't wait to hear it.
    - avmich 7y ago
      > If you want to solve the problem, but don't want to have less children, then figure out another way to reduce the population by billions of people. I can't wait to hear it. Maybe you don't need to reduce population at all - hence no need to find a way? How about just using existing resources - which are plentiful - and also new resources - which are available - to your needs without also getting those resources uses harming you (society)? > Human industrial/economic activity is what's killing the planet. Important here is that it's not the existence of this activity which kills, it's the way the activity is done. If so, we need to change the way. There are seemingly enough suggestions about how specifically it could be done - energy efficiency, better control for exhausts, pollutions, single-use items etc.
tracker1 7y ago
Buy and eat from local, sustainable farms. Consider broader impact when "upgrading". Donate used electronics to organizations that refurbish and reuse them. Donate to organizations that plant trees with minimal overhead. Step outside the surface level boxes that have people protesting over straws and consider your larger usage. Stop buying products from countries that have horrible track records for environmental waste and pollution. Inform those politicians that represent you that you want a higher level of accountability. To the aoc/green-new-deal supporters, drop the socialist and identity politics and push legislation centered on specific issues that can be implemented independently.
coder4life 7y ago
I read the article, and there was nothing in it about what you eat and how this _might_, a little bitty bit, also affect the climate/earth.
NoZZz 7y ago
Refuse to work on anything but C/C++ or Rust codebases.

13 points by thenobsta 7y ago

I’m all for the idea of incremental positive change. Yes, no individual person, city or country can fix this, but if our response to that is to be pessimistic, defeated and do nothing, then we all fail. Advocacy for cycling is one positive thing, and there are so many more.

_nhynes 7y ago

If you're into machine learning you might consider projects like improving crop yields from historical data and tracking deforestation using satellite imagery. Microsoft has a whole "AI for Earth Initiative", too [0], if you're looking for ideas. [0] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/ai/ai-for-earth https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/ai/ai-for-earth

kevas 7y ago

This idea has more holes than Swiss cheese, yet heck with it: remove layers of abstraction from entire systems—hardware to software and everything in between. Each layer consumes additional resources which ultimately consumes energy. In today’s environment, we try and abstract anything and everything away. From the services we use to the software we create and if we were to take a look at those dependencies, that graph would be stuff of nightmares.

jdmoreira 7y ago

I know how absurd this may sound but I think it’s still rationally true. We could remove all the bloat. There is a lot of bloat in modern systems that just causes unnecessary heat and energy consumption. I’m sure it adds up once we consider all the edge devices needing bigger lithium batteries and data centers needing air conditioning. I do exactly the same kind of computing today that I did in the early 90s. The devices got way faster and way more energy efficient but my experience is fundamentally the same. Boggles the mind.

thrower123 7y ago

Probably the best thing would be to resist all urges to get involved with bitcoin.

esotericn 7y ago

I made a post along these lines the other day regarding how best to put money to work via charitable donations. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21024358 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21024358 A software developer in a fairly standard job in the Western world likely earns double the minimum wage. Someone at an adtech company could well be an order of magnitude higher. 5, 10 or (insert value here)% of that is an amount you won't even notice but would make a spectacular difference if we all did it, and if you're somewhere like SF or London your money will go a hell of a long way elsewhere in the world. I've committed to putting at least $500 a month towards a selection of charities and plan to increase that over time. I don't need more toys. The article here also mentions the idea of negotiating, or strongarming, your way into a shorter working week in order that you have time to act politically. I agree with that wholeheartedly - variety is the spice of life in any case!

notmyfuture 7y ago

For anyone looking to get involved but unsure how or where, try this too: http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/ http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/. It's been posted before, but is a great starting point.

cmarschner 7y ago

I would love to invest in a fund that invests in solar and wind plants. With the investment goal to become carbon negative. What options are therefor people like us (i.e. one with detailed reporting how money was spent, perhaps options to invest more than just money, e.g. time and expertise etc.)?

powerbroker 7y ago

Try chipping in $100 to a local business so that it can offer free or subsidized electricity to electric vehicles. If you can do that with 20 people, then you can likely get it done. Offer to repair a damaged EV charger, if it is in a place where it can be effective. I've got a list of about 20 software projects that could possibly make a difference too. Let me add, that my MacBook Pro has taken a licking from at least one cycling accident, and held up like a champ.

blueadept111 7y ago

Good grief, there's ONLY one thing: have less than two children! In a couple of generations this would cut the word's population in half, assuming everyone followed step.

avmich 7y ago
The whole point of improving environment is to make it better for people. If there is no people, then any state of environment, naturally speaking, is perfectly fine. Having less children is, in effect, refusing to solve the problem.
- blueadept111 7y ago
  The other way of solving the problem is to let people kill each other fighting over dwindling resources as the planet dies and becomes sterile, because we're not smart enough as a species to find and maintain a sustainable state of equilibrium with our environment. This scenario is apparently the one we're choosing, by default. Human industrial/economic activity is what's killing the planet. The planet cannot sustain the side effects of an economy of 7 billion people. It doesn't matter what you think, it doesn't matter what you say, it doesn't matter if you recycle, or drink out of paper straws, or vote for the green party, or switch to hydrogen cars, or bury your head in the sand. If you want to solve the problem, but don't want to have less children, then figure out another way to reduce the population by billions of people. I can't wait to hear it.
  - avmich 7y ago
    > If you want to solve the problem, but don't want to have less children, then figure out another way to reduce the population by billions of people. I can't wait to hear it. Maybe you don't need to reduce population at all - hence no need to find a way? How about just using existing resources - which are plentiful - and also new resources - which are available - to your needs without also getting those resources uses harming you (society)? > Human industrial/economic activity is what's killing the planet. Important here is that it's not the existence of this activity which kills, it's the way the activity is done. If so, we need to change the way. There are seemingly enough suggestions about how specifically it could be done - energy efficiency, better control for exhausts, pollutions, single-use items etc.

tracker1 7y ago

Buy and eat from local, sustainable farms. Consider broader impact when "upgrading". Donate used electronics to organizations that refurbish and reuse them. Donate to organizations that plant trees with minimal overhead. Step outside the surface level boxes that have people protesting over straws and consider your larger usage. Stop buying products from countries that have horrible track records for environmental waste and pollution. Inform those politicians that represent you that you want a higher level of accountability. To the aoc/green-new-deal supporters, drop the socialist and identity politics and push legislation centered on specific issues that can be implemented independently.

coder4life 7y ago

I read the article, and there was nothing in it about what you eat and how this _might_, a little bitty bit, also affect the climate/earth.

NoZZz 7y ago

Refuse to work on anything but C/C++ or Rust codebases.