7 ms·

It's very interesting watching the HN response to this. So far, it largely consists of: 1. It's not the responsibility of consumers to adjust their habits, it'

by ppf 6y ago

It's very interesting watching the HN response to this. So far, it largely consists of: 1. It's not the responsibility of consumers to adjust their habits, it's up to governments to mandate behavioural change 2. Tech will fix this In response, I would say individual behavoural change could result in some of the biggest gains. My personal purchasing habits, which consist of buying almost everything second hand (and most specifically for this discussion, electronic items), minimising the number of electronic gadgets I own, wearing an extra layer before turning up my home heating, and minimising fossil-fuel based travel, have an enormous impact on my total emissions and pollutants produced. This is without me needing to outwardly display much sign of my choices, nor abidcate responsibility to some central power. As for the second point - tech largely got us into this mess. Semiconductor manufacturing is incredibly energy-intensive, and electronics in general consume an huge amount of non-renewable minerals without much hope of recovering them. The mess generated by e-waste recycling has created some of the most persistently polluted places on the planet (take a look at Agbogbloshie, in Ghana). I don't see how increasing dependence on tech will reverse this.

lazysheepherd 6y ago
Well thank YOU, but not everyone is YOU. This is like saying: "I've been a huge strong male for 35 years and I haven't killed anyone so far. I think murder should not be a crime, we can regulate ourselves. Take me for example." No, you are not the example, you are the exception.
- bserge 6y ago
  The "you're the exception" excuse doesn't work here because no one is forced to buy a new phone every year, a new laptop cause the old one doesn't have nvme for Chrome, or a new dishwasher when the old one smells. No one is forced to go on vacation thousands of miles away or throw out half the meat they eat. It's all a choice, not a result of circumstances.
  - harimau777 6y ago
    No one is forced to murder either.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ppf 6y ago
  Thanks for your response. That's not the point I was making. I was referring to the idea that "nothing can be done without government mandates, and this kind of article that implies to conumers that it's their fault or that they need to take individual action is harmful".
bserge 6y ago
I kinda wonder about your history and other beliefs, because we think and do alike in this case :D
armada651 6y ago
> This is without me needing to outwardly display much sign of my choices, nor abidcate responsibility to some central power. You can have an enormous impact on your personal emmissions, but the impact you have nation-wide is negligible. Ofcourse if everyone acted like you there wouldn't be a problem, but it's a prisoners dillema. If we all choose to give up a little luxury we could have a huge impact. But if we leave that up to personal choice then anyone can choose to emit more carbon and reap the benefits of doing so. There's also the question of limiting the carbon emmissions of corporations. When emitting carbon is free most companies will choose to emit more if it helps their profit margins. And expecting those companies to limit emissions in exchange for goodwill is a bit naive.
CalRobert 6y ago
I pay several hundred euro more a year for renewably sourced electricity to heat my cottage. My neighbours all cut turf from a local bog and burn it - one of the only fuel sources WORSE than coal! They handily destroy biodiversity and emit enormous amounts of carbon at once. We are reforesting land and grow our own veggies. We compost as much of our own waste as possible. We drive a 49 MPG 11 year old vehicle about 6000 miles a year between the four of us. And my neighbours enjoy their free turf, subsidized roads, big-ass Land Rovers, ecological desert lawns, and as an added benefit climate and the connection to their actions _doesn't even cross their minds_ while I'm sitting here agonizing over accidentally introducing plastics to the compost and its impact on earthworms. I'm tired of being a chump. We need governments to make it more expensive to kill the planet than to not kill it. Unti then every liter of fuel I save is just more for my neighbour's second Land Rover.
- armada651 6y ago
  And that is exactly why blaming individual behavior is so harmful. Everyone is solving the prisoner's dilemma by playing tit-for-tat. If your neighbors cheat by emitting more carbon then you will eventually start cheating as well. The only way to solve the dillema is by ensuring that people can't reap the benefits of cheating.
  - lazysheepherd 6y ago
    Yes, it's called "horizontal aggression" or "lateral aggression". It is making people fight with each other instead of with the actual perpetrator. We should not fall for it.
- ppf 6y ago
  I understand your frustration, but (just to pose some devil's advocate questions), your neighbours' behaviours that you describe probably already are inline with government-mandated changes. Peat is in it's own category, so is neither renewable nor non-renewable according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, so that's a useful loophole. If your neighbours' cars are at all recent, there's an excellent chance they are hybrids, which meet all of the stringent emissions regulations. And as for your energy source - is there anything renewable about powering your house with energy generators manufactured far overseas, using brown coal to fuel that energy-intensive process?

by ppf 6y ago

lazysheepherd 6y ago

Well thank YOU, but not everyone is YOU. This is like saying: "I've been a huge strong male for 35 years and I haven't killed anyone so far. I think murder should not be a crime, we can regulate ourselves. Take me for example." No, you are not the example, you are the exception.

bserge 6y ago
The "you're the exception" excuse doesn't work here because no one is forced to buy a new phone every year, a new laptop cause the old one doesn't have nvme for Chrome, or a new dishwasher when the old one smells. No one is forced to go on vacation thousands of miles away or throw out half the meat they eat. It's all a choice, not a result of circumstances.
- harimau777 6y ago
  No one is forced to murder either.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ppf 6y ago
Thanks for your response. That's not the point I was making. I was referring to the idea that "nothing can be done without government mandates, and this kind of article that implies to conumers that it's their fault or that they need to take individual action is harmful".

bserge 6y ago

I kinda wonder about your history and other beliefs, because we think and do alike in this case :D

armada651 6y ago

> This is without me needing to outwardly display much sign of my choices, nor abidcate responsibility to some central power. You can have an enormous impact on your personal emmissions, but the impact you have nation-wide is negligible. Ofcourse if everyone acted like you there wouldn't be a problem, but it's a prisoners dillema. If we all choose to give up a little luxury we could have a huge impact. But if we leave that up to personal choice then anyone can choose to emit more carbon and reap the benefits of doing so. There's also the question of limiting the carbon emmissions of corporations. When emitting carbon is free most companies will choose to emit more if it helps their profit margins. And expecting those companies to limit emissions in exchange for goodwill is a bit naive.

CalRobert 6y ago

I pay several hundred euro more a year for renewably sourced electricity to heat my cottage. My neighbours all cut turf from a local bog and burn it - one of the only fuel sources WORSE than coal! They handily destroy biodiversity and emit enormous amounts of carbon at once. We are reforesting land and grow our own veggies. We compost as much of our own waste as possible. We drive a 49 MPG 11 year old vehicle about 6000 miles a year between the four of us. And my neighbours enjoy their free turf, subsidized roads, big-ass Land Rovers, ecological desert lawns, and as an added benefit climate and the connection to their actions _doesn't even cross their minds_ while I'm sitting here agonizing over accidentally introducing plastics to the compost and its impact on earthworms. I'm tired of being a chump. We need governments to make it more expensive to kill the planet than to not kill it. Unti then every liter of fuel I save is just more for my neighbour's second Land Rover.

armada651 6y ago
And that is exactly why blaming individual behavior is so harmful. Everyone is solving the prisoner's dilemma by playing tit-for-tat. If your neighbors cheat by emitting more carbon then you will eventually start cheating as well. The only way to solve the dillema is by ensuring that people can't reap the benefits of cheating.
- lazysheepherd 6y ago
  Yes, it's called "horizontal aggression" or "lateral aggression". It is making people fight with each other instead of with the actual perpetrator. We should not fall for it.
ppf 6y ago
I understand your frustration, but (just to pose some devil's advocate questions), your neighbours' behaviours that you describe probably already are inline with government-mandated changes. Peat is in it's own category, so is neither renewable nor non-renewable according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, so that's a useful loophole. If your neighbours' cars are at all recent, there's an excellent chance they are hybrids, which meet all of the stringent emissions regulations. And as for your energy source - is there anything renewable about powering your house with energy generators manufactured far overseas, using brown coal to fuel that energy-intensive process?