3 ms·

As of now, posted four hours ago and only one comment. For a community that prides itself on disruption and global impact, HN sure is quiet on solutions.

by dvdhnt 7y ago

BubRoss 7y ago
Where are these expectations coming from?
perfunctory 7y ago
Maybe because solutions that are actually required are not in the area of expertise of the HN crowd.
- benologist 7y ago
  HN doesn't have answers because individually most of us have particularly massive carbon footprints that we're busy ignoring. Every computer, monitor, phone and peripheral carried a huge environmental cost to extract the resources and manufacture the goods. If you have a few laptops and desktops and some old phones and a wall of records your carbon footprint is a crater. In the last 6 years a lot of Apple users weren't inspired by the newer laptops and just clung to their old hardware for an unprecedented amount of time. This is how we can help but it's just not what we want!
  - imtringued 7y ago
    Compared to the environmental impact of transportation those environmental costs are absolutely negligible.
    - benologist 7y ago
      This data is from Apple last year. It simply is not negligible and they're one of the few trying to improve their processes. https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/notebooks/13-inch_MacBookPro_PER_June2019.pdf https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/notebooks/13-... 13-inch MacBook Pro = 210 kg carbon emissions, 77% during manufacturing and just 16% for transport https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/desktops/iMac_Pro_PER_June2019.pdf https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/desktops/iMac... iMac Pro = 1468 kg carbon emissions, about 1/2 during manufacturing and just 4% for transport
      - LyndsySimon 7y ago
        I don’t think that’s what the parent was saying. I think they were referring to the cost of transportation for the consumer, not for the product itself. The carbon emissions of burning a gallon of gasoline is about 11 kg - that’s an estimate, from a random website, so I don’t attest to its accuracy. It’s just a starting point for the following: I drive a 2000 Jeep Wrangler that gets 14 MPG. I drive about 20k miles per year, which works out to 1,430 gallons of gas or ~15,500 kg of carbon emissions. Based on this estimate, my vehicle’s fuel alone is equivalent to 75 10” MBPs per year.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        blue_devil 7y ago
        Wouldn't it be great to have the CO2 kg equivalent noted on the price tags of items/services?
  - blue_devil 7y ago
    Actually it's worse. The Apple "environment cards" estimate only 5% of CO2 equivalent going to use of the device but that's optimistic. According to this report, about half of the CO2 footprint of devices comes from usage - mobile data, streaming. https://theshiftproject.org/en/article/unsustainable-use-online-video/ https://theshiftproject.org/en/article/unsustainable-use-onl... >>The energy consumption of digital technologies is increasing by 9% a year, and already represents% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The use of digital technology accounts for 55% of its energy consumption, compared to 45% for the production of equipment. >>We live in a world where only one form of digital use, online video, generates 60% of of world data flows and thus over 300 million tons of CO2 per year. This use is far from being “dematerialized”. On the contrary, it represents 20% of the greenhouse gas emissions of all digital devices (use and production included), and 1% of global emissions, i.e. as much as Spain.
- imglorp 7y ago
  There are three kinds of solutions available to each of us personally. Civil engagement, demonstration, and just being an irritation to leadership. It's not a lot but it's some pressure. My congress critters are too busy riding their gravy train to interrupt it, but I hope to shame them at least. Examine personal carbon footprint. LED or incandescent? Commute or WFH? Meat today or local produce? Fly to a vacation or find something local? Support renewables. They're already competing with fossil to the point where they'll score some wins on their own economics despite political forces.
  - rad_gruchalski 7y ago
    > Civil engagement, demonstration, and just being an irritation to leadership. Are these the new methods? Those who are demonstrating and shouting the loudest now can only say “well, do something” and are skipping the school on Fridays. How does that benefit anyone. Also, HN probably isn’t the right place for this kind of dialogue. The people who need to listen aren’t here.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      Governments have leverage. Corporations, particularly the big ones, have leverage. I don't have the tiniest fraction as much, even if I do everything I possibly can. A government that sets an energy policy, introduces a carbon tax, or refuses planning permission for that mine or rig achieves millions of times more impact than a citizen or demonstrator. A corporation might make a negative carbon commitment, as Stripe did a month or two back. Civil disobedience, demonstrating, getting arrested, disruption and organising along with chaining yourself to things are time worn routes to change, not new methods. From the 14th C Peasant's Revolt[1] through civil rights, Indian independence and universal suffrage, and countless others, even the current HK protests, they succeeded via these sorts of tactics. Governments tend to ignore polite marches of many thousands, but take note when people start ignoring laws, striking or disrupting, and getting noticed or costing money. The striking school children appear to be doing an utterly marvellous job of making our elected leaders (all of them, pretty much everywhere) look foolish, incompetent and incredibly selfish. They achieved a remarkable amount of media exposure. Many are nearing voting age. Do you think they will all forget about climate when they can finally cast their vote? I don't. Do you think they will give up and go home? I don't. I wonder what we can look forward to when some of them start thinking of going into politics?... The people who need to listen may not be on HN, but many of the people who can get them to listen are - the potential demonstrators, the strikers, then the marketers, the website and app builders etc. Not forgetting employees and founders of hundreds of corporations who need to be making climate related change. [1] The Peasant's Revolt was far from peaceful, ultimately more riot and revolution than disobedience, and truly brutally suppressed, but the government was terrified of a repeat for decades after. Poll taxes died in England for 300 years. A few attempts around the Civil War and restoration, then 300 more years for Thatcher's attempt at a poll tax. Which got her a modern replay of the Peasant's Revolt in the shape of the Poll Tax Riots. Yet both the original and Thatcher's rerun started with discontent, then demonstration, then disobedience, then riot, and for the original, outright revolt.
codingdave 7y ago
You are holding this community to an unreasonable standard - we cannot jump onto every single link that is posted and have in-depth discussions about solutions. There are in-depth discussion about climate change on HN, including the possible directions that could be taken. I'd recommend seeking out those posts, and not expecting a repetition of the discussion on every post.
francisofascii 7y ago
Plenty of solutions have been proposed and even some proof of concepts have been developed, unfortunately "management" has not budged. (In the US anyway.)
imtringued 7y ago
There is no shortage of solutions but from what I have experienced there is almost no demand for them.

As of now, posted four hours ago and only one comment. For a community that prides itself on disruption and global impact, HN sure is quiet on solutions.

by dvdhnt 7y ago

As of now, posted four hours ago and only one comment. For a community that prides itself on disruption and global impact, HN sure is quiet on solutions.

BubRoss 7y ago

Where are these expectations coming from?

perfunctory 7y ago

Maybe because solutions that are actually required are not in the area of expertise of the HN crowd.

benologist 7y ago
HN doesn't have answers because individually most of us have particularly massive carbon footprints that we're busy ignoring. Every computer, monitor, phone and peripheral carried a huge environmental cost to extract the resources and manufacture the goods. If you have a few laptops and desktops and some old phones and a wall of records your carbon footprint is a crater. In the last 6 years a lot of Apple users weren't inspired by the newer laptops and just clung to their old hardware for an unprecedented amount of time. This is how we can help but it's just not what we want!
- imtringued 7y ago
  Compared to the environmental impact of transportation those environmental costs are absolutely negligible.
  - benologist 7y ago
    This data is from Apple last year. It simply is not negligible and they're one of the few trying to improve their processes. https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/notebooks/13-inch_MacBookPro_PER_June2019.pdf https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/notebooks/13-... 13-inch MacBook Pro = 210 kg carbon emissions, 77% during manufacturing and just 16% for transport https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/desktops/iMac_Pro_PER_June2019.pdf https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/desktops/iMac... iMac Pro = 1468 kg carbon emissions, about 1/2 during manufacturing and just 4% for transport
    - LyndsySimon 7y ago
      I don’t think that’s what the parent was saying. I think they were referring to the cost of transportation for the consumer, not for the product itself. The carbon emissions of burning a gallon of gasoline is about 11 kg - that’s an estimate, from a random website, so I don’t attest to its accuracy. It’s just a starting point for the following: I drive a 2000 Jeep Wrangler that gets 14 MPG. I drive about 20k miles per year, which works out to 1,430 gallons of gas or ~15,500 kg of carbon emissions. Based on this estimate, my vehicle’s fuel alone is equivalent to 75 10” MBPs per year.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - blue_devil 7y ago
        Wouldn't it be great to have the CO2 kg equivalent noted on the price tags of items/services?
- blue_devil 7y ago
  Actually it's worse. The Apple "environment cards" estimate only 5% of CO2 equivalent going to use of the device but that's optimistic. According to this report, about half of the CO2 footprint of devices comes from usage - mobile data, streaming. https://theshiftproject.org/en/article/unsustainable-use-online-video/ https://theshiftproject.org/en/article/unsustainable-use-onl... >>The energy consumption of digital technologies is increasing by 9% a year, and already represents% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The use of digital technology accounts for 55% of its energy consumption, compared to 45% for the production of equipment. >>We live in a world where only one form of digital use, online video, generates 60% of of world data flows and thus over 300 million tons of CO2 per year. This use is far from being “dematerialized”. On the contrary, it represents 20% of the greenhouse gas emissions of all digital devices (use and production included), and 1% of global emissions, i.e. as much as Spain.
imglorp 7y ago
There are three kinds of solutions available to each of us personally. Civil engagement, demonstration, and just being an irritation to leadership. It's not a lot but it's some pressure. My congress critters are too busy riding their gravy train to interrupt it, but I hope to shame them at least. Examine personal carbon footprint. LED or incandescent? Commute or WFH? Meat today or local produce? Fly to a vacation or find something local? Support renewables. They're already competing with fossil to the point where they'll score some wins on their own economics despite political forces.
- rad_gruchalski 7y ago
  > Civil engagement, demonstration, and just being an irritation to leadership. Are these the new methods? Those who are demonstrating and shouting the loudest now can only say “well, do something” and are skipping the school on Fridays. How does that benefit anyone. Also, HN probably isn’t the right place for this kind of dialogue. The people who need to listen aren’t here.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Governments have leverage. Corporations, particularly the big ones, have leverage. I don't have the tiniest fraction as much, even if I do everything I possibly can. A government that sets an energy policy, introduces a carbon tax, or refuses planning permission for that mine or rig achieves millions of times more impact than a citizen or demonstrator. A corporation might make a negative carbon commitment, as Stripe did a month or two back. Civil disobedience, demonstrating, getting arrested, disruption and organising along with chaining yourself to things are time worn routes to change, not new methods. From the 14th C Peasant's Revolt[1] through civil rights, Indian independence and universal suffrage, and countless others, even the current HK protests, they succeeded via these sorts of tactics. Governments tend to ignore polite marches of many thousands, but take note when people start ignoring laws, striking or disrupting, and getting noticed or costing money. The striking school children appear to be doing an utterly marvellous job of making our elected leaders (all of them, pretty much everywhere) look foolish, incompetent and incredibly selfish. They achieved a remarkable amount of media exposure. Many are nearing voting age. Do you think they will all forget about climate when they can finally cast their vote? I don't. Do you think they will give up and go home? I don't. I wonder what we can look forward to when some of them start thinking of going into politics?... The people who need to listen may not be on HN, but many of the people who can get them to listen are - the potential demonstrators, the strikers, then the marketers, the website and app builders etc. Not forgetting employees and founders of hundreds of corporations who need to be making climate related change. [1] The Peasant's Revolt was far from peaceful, ultimately more riot and revolution than disobedience, and truly brutally suppressed, but the government was terrified of a repeat for decades after. Poll taxes died in England for 300 years. A few attempts around the Civil War and restoration, then 300 more years for Thatcher's attempt at a poll tax. Which got her a modern replay of the Peasant's Revolt in the shape of the Poll Tax Riots. Yet both the original and Thatcher's rerun started with discontent, then demonstration, then disobedience, then riot, and for the original, outright revolt.

codingdave 7y ago

You are holding this community to an unreasonable standard - we cannot jump onto every single link that is posted and have in-depth discussions about solutions. There are in-depth discussion about climate change on HN, including the possible directions that could be taken. I'd recommend seeking out those posts, and not expecting a repetition of the discussion on every post.

francisofascii 7y ago

Plenty of solutions have been proposed and even some proof of concepts have been developed, unfortunately "management" has not budged. (In the US anyway.)

imtringued 7y ago

There is no shortage of solutions but from what I have experienced there is almost no demand for them.