17 ms·

I'm sitting in my air conditioned room, in the USA. Doing computer stuff, naturally. I look at what I can do about this. I can turn up the temp in my room, and

I'm sitting in my air conditioned room, in the USA. Doing computer stuff, naturally. I look at what I can do about this. I can turn up the temp in my room, and the house. Meager difference. I can use less water - I already am, with getting showers every other day on average. I can eat less meat - which I do with purchase of the beef CSA. I'm big into the repair movement, and repair household equipment and electronics with my knowledge of circuitry and 3d printing. I recycle, but that's if its not repairable or reusable/repurposable. I look at what I'm actually doing, and I'm at my limit. There isn't anything else I can add on to reduce footprint. And in reality, the same goes for many people. These global climate change issues are the sum of all the work in this world, but the bulk of it is emitted by companies who do the cheapest thing. And if dumping gigatons of CO2 or methane in the air makes more sense, that's done. I can petition my congresscritters, but it's well known they do not listen to the little guy (https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-theories-of-american-politics-explained https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-... ). Your party is irrelevant here. So what do I do? know what we're doing is what we can and hope some rich people pull up the cause, and not try to escape the atmosphere in a penis-shaped rocket. I've given up hope that this will be solved.

eointierney 5y ago
Hope is what we share when we don't know what to do because someone else might just have the solution. Never give up hope :)
holoduke 5y ago
Its like a little kid making a mess of his room. He or she will never prevent the mess. But the mess will always be fixed. I have good faith that the human species will fix it. One day the entire biosphere will be controlled.
- rexpop 5y ago
  The mess will not "always be fixed," because we have no parents in this analogy. We are the leaders in this world. You are simply taking on the role of an adolescent shirking responsibility.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    > You are simply taking on the role of an adolescent shirking responsibility. Perhaps ironically, the actual adolescents are (among) the ones who aren't.
- bradenb 5y ago
  I think this is overly optimistic. While I think I agree, you make it sound like there will be no consequences. I think things will get much worse before the human race decides to do something about it.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
titzer 5y ago
> I look at what I'm actually doing, and I'm at my limit. Smaller house, solar panels, don't drive, don't eat meat, and don't have kids. And don't vote for politicians who are busy spreading nonsense. > I've given up hope that this will be solved. Oh, me too. Now it is about managing your personal guilt, which you realize at some level, judging from your comments. For me, I am likely past my lifetime CO2 budget, due to just 5 years of transatlantic flights for work (plus 15 years of driving in the US). I can't undo the damage that I have done, and now I have both eyes open staring into the abyss. I guess you gotta find low-impact ways of enjoying life. I can recommend slacklining.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- noasaservice 5y ago
  > Smaller house, solar panels, don't drive, don't eat meat, and don't have kids. And don't vote for politicians who are busy spreading nonsense. I already live in a trailer. Solar wouldn't make sense since we have 2 big trees over our trailer providing us shade. Cuts down on AC in the hotter months (now veering on March). Not driving has been easy with WfH since last early March. I'm happy with that. I don't like driving anyways. My SO and I are a DINK - double income no kids. This is one of the largest climate change decisions that can be made at a human level. > And don't vote for politicians who are busy spreading nonsense. Oh, I don't. Nor do I have any preconceived notions that my opinion does matter either. I'll do my civic part, and vote when its due, do jury duty, etc. But my opinions do not matter at any scale other than household. I guess for me, it's not as much guilt, but foreboding. I know what the science says, and it'll be worse than what they say. I know I've done my share of pollution of many sorts, simply by using a vehicle, or flying. But this problem isn't solvable by me. Or my politicians.. Or even by the USA. This needs a worldwide drastic response at every level. And do I see that happening? Not in a hundred years - until it's catastrophically too late.
  - bellyfullofbac 5y ago
    The kids thing is curious. Maybe I'm just selfish, but I have no kids and my thinking is, well, I'm not that worried about how the earth will be after I die. Meanwhile the folks with kids are the ones who produced giant resource consumers and ironically -- because they want to ensure their kids' wellbeing -- are the ones most worried about the planet's survival. Obviously the answer is for me to care about society (on a global level), but it's hard to do so without skin in the game. And considering it feels like others don't care or are still very wasteful... why should I be pious?
megablast 5y ago
> These global climate change issues are the sum of all the work in this world, but the bulk of it is emitted by companies who do the cheapest thing. Who you are giving money to. Do you own a car?? Then you are destroying the planet.
- noasaservice 5y ago
  Your comment reminds me of this comic: https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/ https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/
spoonjim 5y ago
You could live in 200 square feet. You could bathe with one bucket of room temperature water. You could use no air conditioning whatsoever. You could eat only vegetarian food. Etc etc. You won’t, (and I won’t either) but if it comes down to human survival, forces will find a way to make you do it.
- shawnz 5y ago
  This comment has gone grey but I think it is an important point. Our basic expectancies for what makes a comfortable life are higher than ever. Is that an ethical problem or just a result of more/better technology? I'm not really sure.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > Our basic expectancies for what makes a comfortable life are higher than ever. Not with regard to density, which has been going up, not down.
  - bcrosby95 5y ago
    I would argue we have the technology to sustainably live as we do, for the most part. What we don't have is the manpower and resources to go through and replace all the old tech with the new tech that would allow us to mostly maintain our standard of living.
- _eht 5y ago
  Not sure why you're being down voted-- This is the right answer. I see people getting mad at suppliers but they have yet to realize they would still please like their consumption supplied...
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    AWS and GCP are both suppliers, one of them is carbon neutral, the other is still polluting. The end consumer hets the same product. This idea of consumer fault is deplorable, its not lile i gey accurate information about carbon footprint when i shop
rexpop 5y ago
> So what do I do? know what we're doing is what we can and hope some rich people pull up the cause What we do is unionize, and in a way where we can then withdraw our industrial contributions to climate change. > I look at what I'm actually doing, and I'm at my limit. I am willing to bet you've not yet tried to "manage up." It's not our fellow consumers who are causing climate change, it is supply-side; it is management. Only industrial and trade unions have the leverage "stop the line," and demand a less-profitable, albeit life-saving economy.
joey_bob 5y ago
You can try to come up with or attempt to improve an existing technical solution - whether it be a green alternative to reduce emissions or carbon capture/terraforming. If you want a place to start, alternative power sources for freighters would have a huge impact.
PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
Apparently, a reasonably sustainable level of CO2 production is about 3T per person per year. The average in the US is about 17.5T pp/yr. But ... 5.3T pp/yr of that amount is caused by the existing coal fired power plants in the USA. So one thing you could do is to write to your elected representatives to specifically petition for the abandonment of this form of power generation and its replacement with renewable systems. Guaranteed to work? Nope. But if we do get rid of those plants, it will make a HUGE difference at the national and international scale. [ EDIT: missed the 1 in front of the 7 for the average US CO2 output ... 17 not 7 ]
- simonh 5y ago
  Even replacing coal with natural gas generation would eliminate about 2.5T PP/yr. Obviously we can do better than that, but it probably makes sense to some extent as an interim measure. What I mean is some highly beneficial changes don’t even need to be particularly drastic or costly.
- streblo 5y ago
  Source? Genuinely curious to read more about this.
- garblegarble 5y ago
  I don't think those figures are right - 5.3T/7.5T would mean 70% of CO2 in the US is caused by coal-fired power plants. According to the EPA data for 2019 [1], power generation accounted for 25% of greenhouse gas emissions, and 62% of that was fossil fuels ("mostly coal and natural gas") - so that means fossil fuels for electricity accounted for 16% of the greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA report shows transportation as the largest source, at 29% Their figures also suggest CO2 emissions were 20T pp in the US in 2019! (6558MT of CO2, 328.2M population) 1: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    > The EPA report shows transportation as the largest source, at 29% The reason I'm so struck by the coal-fired electricity production numbers are that this seems VASTLY easier to fix than the transportation numbers. Even if the latter would have more impact, I think we're still a long way from being able to dramatically affect that, whereas ramping up renewable electricity generation and ramping down fossil fuels seems like a (relatively) simple challenge.
jcoq 5y ago
I agree and I know that climate engineering is a terrifyingly fraught endeavor, but I worry it's our only hope at this point.
scoofy 5y ago
The American development pattern is the problem that we can actually solve. If you genuinely care, and this isn't pandering, read the book Strong Towns. Our cities are designed as inefficiently as possible, on purpose, and things like zoning and automobile infrastructure literally ban climate conscious living spaces. We should also at least have a carbon tax for things like normalizing beef as an alternative rather than a primary food source.
- SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
  Other than world war, what mechanisms do you propose to get China, India, and the entire 3rd world on to an effective carbon tax plan? I mean, if the answer is world war, I’ll at least give you credit for an honest answer. I just rarely see that come up. The truth is yes we can and should do better, but also realize that other nations will take any advantage they can, including ignoring climate concerns. So if it’s a global problem, it needs a global solution, so what is that mechanism to apply one?
  - betterunix2 5y ago
    You impose tariffs on their exported goods to compensate for their failure to impose carbon taxes, and maybe even impose an export tax on goods shipped to them. China needs trade with other countries and will get on board with a carbon tax if enough of the world is on board with such a plan, no war needed. Of course if things are truly implemented fairly, the US will also likely be subject to such taxes due to our own apparent inability to reduce our per capita carbon emissions...
  - AussieWog93 5y ago
    The EU already have a solution for this - they tax imports from nations that don't have an ETA themselves.
    - SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
      Yes. Taxing our way to a better climate is one consideration. But what happens when you need something more than they need to sell it? As in the case of China… steel, aluminum, titanium, food, machinery, computers, plastics, vehicles, or clothing… you know… those “couple of things” that we have collectively allowed China to make for us while pretending we’re all so green and the slave labor isn’t a problem. India, maybe you can tax into compliance. Third world, maybe, but someone will scream it isn’t “fair”. But China? I’m skeptical we tax ourselves greatly and them effectively without them becoming the number one superpower and then doing as they please anyhow.
01100011 5y ago
IMO individual action is nearly worthless beyond making you feel better. I did all the right things for decades and someone else just consumed the resources I saved by building golf courses and taking international vacations. The world needs more Elon Musk types to think big and bring a lower carbon footprint to modern living. Thinking people will voluntarily put themselves at a disadvantage for the greater good goes against much of what we know of human nature.
abeppu 5y ago
Up until now, I think it's been too hard to direct your money away from the companies emitting loads of carbon. But I wonder, now that Europe is talking about a border tax for imported carbon, and the US has introduced legislation for a border tax, could that change, even before other places institute the same? To be eligible for import to Europe, would producers elsewhere need to tally and report the carbon associated with goods, such that non-European consumers could also finally have the information to choose lower-emission options?
- jdavis703 5y ago
  Most of the companies on the various “top polluters” lists are energy companies. We can direct our money away from them by walking, biking, transiting or buying an EV.
  - lumost 5y ago
    A lot of energy goes into manufacturing products such as steel, plastic, aluminum, servers etc. The energy sources for these items are at the discretion of the large buyers. A steel plant can absolutely make the switch from coal to solar/wind at its own discretion.
  - abeppu 5y ago
    ... but also shipping goods, right? The 3000 mile caesar salad, spread-out global supply chains, etc? Yes, green transportation (or just less) is good. But if I sit at home and order goods to be delivered to me, it's actually quite difficult to pick which have the smallest footprints.
ostenning 5y ago
Civil disobedience? But even then it’s crazy that people have to glue themselves to objects in the middle of highways to be heard and even then nothing really changes. We had the technology to solve these problems years ago. This isn’t a technological problem, this is a problem about values. Do we value money or our environment more? The climate catastrophe unfolding will be the biggest wake up humanity has ever had. That is the only silver lining to this existential predicament
lotsofpulp 5y ago
> I look at what I can do about this. I can turn up the temp in my room, and the house. > So what do I do? know what we're doing is what we can Everything you do is inconsequential in the face of living in a detached single family home on a quarter acre lot. That very simple fact has exponential knock on effects requiring so much more mass to move so much further and hence consuming so much more energy, that everything else you do is meaningless. The only solution was reducing total consumption, either per capita or capitas itself, but the former is not going to happen if people live in insufficiently dense manners that preclude public transport or walking and bicycling, and necessitate large roads, parking lots, and personal vehicles. And of course, once you own or benefit from detached single family house lifestyles, you are not going to vote for anything that inconveniences you or causes you to reduce consumption, such as increased taxes on fossil fuels.
- zepto 5y ago
  > if people live in insufficiently dense manners Dense living is associated with poorer mental health and a variety of diseases, and that not taking into account people with autism, introversion etc, some of whom find urban density neurologically intolerable. Humans didn’t evolve to live densely.
- ip26 5y ago
  If we could wave a magic wand & cut global energy consumption in half via more public transit & denser living, but still burning fossil fuels... we would have the exact same crisis, perhaps delayed a few years. I'm naturally inclined towards austerity, but this problem cannot be fixed with cutbacks & efficiency alone.
  - simonh 5y ago
    Not at all, reducing global energy consumption by half would massively reduce, as well as delay the total long term impact. It’s true a lot of impact is baked in due to past emissions, but that’s no reason for complacency or fatalism. There still a lot we can do to reduce total impact and mitigate the impact we will suffer.
jdavis703 5y ago
You can also: * Switch to using 100% renewable energy from your electric company. * Live in an apartment where shared walls, floors and ceilings means lower energy usage * Move to a city where you can walk, bicycle or transit (or at least have a short drive to most things). But the most important is to become involved in climate politics, especially state and local politics. Even in California (the largest state in the union) all you need is a dozen or so people to get a meeting with a state representative.
MyKneeGrows 5y ago
Fun fact: the US military is the largest polluter in the world and has held the record for decades. 750,000 tons of toxic waste every year in the form of depleted uranium, oil, jet fuels, pesticides, defoliants, lead and other chemicals. And hey we got the PRC military adding the equivalent of the German Navy, every year, in ships to their roster. No they don't run on solar panels in case you were wondering. So take your three showers a day. Keep your car idling at stop lights. Burn your garbage. I'm not trolling. Your 'foot print' is a drop in the ocean compared to the real behemoths out there. And I haven't even started on the companies that PRODUCE equipment for these large forces.
- gruez 5y ago
  >Fun fact: the US military is the largest polluter in the world and has held the record for decades Source? > So take your three showers a day. Keep your car idling at stop lights. Burn your garbage. I'm not trolling. Your 'foot print' is a drop in the ocean compared to the real behemoths out there. Your footprint is a drop in the ocean because you're one of 8 billion people on earth. Just from that figure alone it's obvious that a you can't do much by regulating your own consumption. However, telling people to do whatever they want and it doesn't matter because they're 1 in 8 billion is the wrong message to send, because if all 8 billion people follow your example that would lead to a massive increase in pollution.
  - leeoniya 5y ago
    it is far too late for individual action. it is major manufacturers and producers that need to act, because there are only tens of thousands of them (which can be regulated, with enough will) and not billions of individuals, who cannot. holding individuals accountable for ignored environmental externaities of producers is a dead end. people will buy/consume the cheapest thing made available to them.
  - lsllc 5y ago
    https://www.ecowatch.com/military-largest-polluter-2408760609.html https://www.ecowatch.com/military-largest-polluter-240876060... https://weaversway.coop/shuttle-online/2020/04/us-military-world-leader-pollution-and-wasteful-use-fossil-fuels https://weaversway.coop/shuttle-online/2020/04/us-military-w... https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190620100005.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190620100005.h... https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/06/13/report-the-u-s-military-emits-more-co2-than-many-industrialized-nations-infographic/?sh=6ae70c584372 https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/06/13/report...
yongjik 5y ago
Bezos and his phallic rocket is just a distraction: considering how much money he can burn, it's to him what a trip to Maui is to plebs like me. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter. I think we just have to keep pushing the society (and each other) in the right direction. Hang on, I believe it will eventually get better, though it will get a lot worse before it starts to get better.
trentnix 5y ago
I've given up hope that this will be solved. The buried lede is that, if the prophets of climate doom are correct, you need to substantially reduce your standard of living. And all those third-worlders that are trying to improve their standard of living? They need to stop doing so, yesterday, and learn to accept their impoverished standard of living. But do it cleaner! But they won't want to do that, predictably. And to get them to do so will require enforcement. And enforcement will require coercive power - so violence. And that will result in war that has the potential to be more destructive than the doom being predicted. If the problem is as significant as alarmists predict, the only palatable solution is technological. So if you feel so motivated, concentrate your effort there. Because the data says everything else you can do is inconsequential and is mostly virtue signaling. I'm not making any claim about the legitimacy or seriousness of global climate change. Just pointing out that the medicine we choose can destroy as much or more than the disease.
- jmcgough 5y ago
  The problem would be solved if we had cleaner sources of energy. Get rid of coal and you're most of the way there. None of that requires us to change our way of living, it just makes certain rich people less wealthy. No scientist is arguing that we need to live in poverty, please keep the straw man arguments out of this.
- betterunix2 5y ago
  You do not need to reduce your standard of living, you need to alter your lifestyle to achieve the same standard of living in a more energy-efficient way. Many American cities are set up to encourage car use; we can change that. Many Americans live in detached homes that require more energy to heat or cool; we can change that, and in fact we would likely reduce the need to drive a car everywhere in the process, while also reducing the amount of coal being burned to power all those ACs. Really though, "alarmists?" You might have been able to accuse scientists of being alarmist 30 years ago, but they predicted increasingly frequent extreme weather events, and for the past decade we have watched the trend do exactly what was predicted. Now instead of talking about how we can avoid this outcome we are sitting here talking about how to not make things worse while we learn to live with floods, hurricanes, heat domes, and polar vortexes.
908B64B197 5y ago
> I look at what I can do about this. I can turn up the temp in my room, and the house. Meager difference. I can use less water - I already am, with getting showers every other day on average. Depending where you live, it might not even make a difference. I'd say the biggest contribution one can make is to aggressively vote for parties that support green power generation. Project like these [0] are stalled by lobbyist but offer a real chance to curb emissions. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_%E2%80%93_New_England_Transmission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_%E2%80%93_New_England_T...
WorkLobster 5y ago
> I can eat less meat It's something I keep quiet about in day-to-day life since it seems to invite reprisal, but if we're soul-searching for what we as individuals can do, I beg you to try eating no meat at all. There seems to be an increasing awareness that animal farming as currently practised is an environmental catastrophe on many levels, including emissions[1]—I dimly recall the IPCC report being quite clear that it's incompatible with a world that isn't ever-worsening, and suspect the obvious conclusion of "stop entirely" has been watered down to "try to eat less" because they fear people will just assume the former is too onerous and not bother. I have found it to be the opposite—simple steps, fun, healthy—and sort of want to launch into a full tale, but it has been a long week and I was just heading to bed. Still, I'm more than happy later to suggest recommendations and recipes and/or generally chat if you (or anyone) would like. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/food-emissions-supply-chain https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/food-emissions-supply-cha...
- r00fus 5y ago
  Absolutism ("eat no meat") really does turn people off (because they can't envision a lifestyle without meat). I have cut down my meat intake by about 90% and it's great. I still eat a burger every quarter or so. I think 90% is better than 0%.
elihu 5y ago
Transportation and energy production make up a majority of CO2 emissions in the U.S. and probably most industrialized countries. As an individual person, you can get rid of gas-burning cars (perhaps replace with an EV if you need a car) and put solar panels on your roof if that's an option. At the state and national level, though, a lot more could be done. Ground transportation could be fully electrified. (I think the quickest way to get there is not to wait for battery technology to get better but rather just electrify the major freeways so that cars and trucks can charge while they're moving, and people won't need huge, heavy, expensive batteries to get anywhere.) We could also expand solar and wind investments. To even out power production and consumption, we could finance the construction of intercontinental high-voltage DC lines, so we can buy solar power from the Sahara in the middle of the night and sell to Europe or wherever in the daytime. We could invest in battery manufacturing. Most U.S. made electric vehicles are basically luxury supercars that use expensive batteries that require large amounts of nickel and cobalt. What we need to get away from burning gas is mass-production of lithium iron phosphate cells (or whatever technology that replaces it) which have somewhat lower energy density but use cheaper, more readily available raw materials and are much safer and much more durable. This is the kind of technology we need to make cheap cars for ordinary middle-class people with low environmental footprint. For that matter, it would be great if EV tax credits applied to conversions as well as new vehicles. Hardly anyone converts vehicles now because it's expensive and high-effort, but if there was a simple kit to convert, say, a semi-recent Honda Civic to electric that can be installed easily by a mechanic and doesn't require any custom fabrication, maybe we'd have a lot more people going that route. Especially if it was subsidized to the point where the out-of-pocket expense is low. More nuclear plants might be a good thing too, but it's not absolutely essential.
sourdeau 5y ago
Like most problems in the world today, your money can do more good that your individual actions. The Effective Altruism movement has found some charities that either have proven advocacy records or offer legitimate carbon offsets, and which have a need for more funding. The Clean Air Task Force seems widely approved of by a variety of EA researcher organizations, with one estimating that they prevent a ton of emissions for less than a dollar. The offset programs are probably less effective in EV, but more certain. $10 per ton, I believe? Still highly affordable. https://www.givinggreen.earth https://www.givinggreen.earth
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

eointierney 5y ago

Hope is what we share when we don't know what to do because someone else might just have the solution. Never give up hope :)

holoduke 5y ago

Its like a little kid making a mess of his room. He or she will never prevent the mess. But the mess will always be fixed. I have good faith that the human species will fix it. One day the entire biosphere will be controlled.

rexpop 5y ago
The mess will not "always be fixed," because we have no parents in this analogy. We are the leaders in this world. You are simply taking on the role of an adolescent shirking responsibility.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  > You are simply taking on the role of an adolescent shirking responsibility. Perhaps ironically, the actual adolescents are (among) the ones who aren't.
bradenb 5y ago
I think this is overly optimistic. While I think I agree, you make it sound like there will be no consequences. I think things will get much worse before the human race decides to do something about it.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

titzer 5y ago

> I look at what I'm actually doing, and I'm at my limit. Smaller house, solar panels, don't drive, don't eat meat, and don't have kids. And don't vote for politicians who are busy spreading nonsense. > I've given up hope that this will be solved. Oh, me too. Now it is about managing your personal guilt, which you realize at some level, judging from your comments. For me, I am likely past my lifetime CO2 budget, due to just 5 years of transatlantic flights for work (plus 15 years of driving in the US). I can't undo the damage that I have done, and now I have both eyes open staring into the abyss. I guess you gotta find low-impact ways of enjoying life. I can recommend slacklining.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
noasaservice 5y ago
> Smaller house, solar panels, don't drive, don't eat meat, and don't have kids. And don't vote for politicians who are busy spreading nonsense. I already live in a trailer. Solar wouldn't make sense since we have 2 big trees over our trailer providing us shade. Cuts down on AC in the hotter months (now veering on March). Not driving has been easy with WfH since last early March. I'm happy with that. I don't like driving anyways. My SO and I are a DINK - double income no kids. This is one of the largest climate change decisions that can be made at a human level. > And don't vote for politicians who are busy spreading nonsense. Oh, I don't. Nor do I have any preconceived notions that my opinion does matter either. I'll do my civic part, and vote when its due, do jury duty, etc. But my opinions do not matter at any scale other than household. I guess for me, it's not as much guilt, but foreboding. I know what the science says, and it'll be worse than what they say. I know I've done my share of pollution of many sorts, simply by using a vehicle, or flying. But this problem isn't solvable by me. Or my politicians.. Or even by the USA. This needs a worldwide drastic response at every level. And do I see that happening? Not in a hundred years - until it's catastrophically too late.
- bellyfullofbac 5y ago
  The kids thing is curious. Maybe I'm just selfish, but I have no kids and my thinking is, well, I'm not that worried about how the earth will be after I die. Meanwhile the folks with kids are the ones who produced giant resource consumers and ironically -- because they want to ensure their kids' wellbeing -- are the ones most worried about the planet's survival. Obviously the answer is for me to care about society (on a global level), but it's hard to do so without skin in the game. And considering it feels like others don't care or are still very wasteful... why should I be pious?

megablast 5y ago

> These global climate change issues are the sum of all the work in this world, but the bulk of it is emitted by companies who do the cheapest thing. Who you are giving money to. Do you own a car?? Then you are destroying the planet.

noasaservice 5y ago
Your comment reminds me of this comic: https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/ https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/

spoonjim 5y ago

You could live in 200 square feet. You could bathe with one bucket of room temperature water. You could use no air conditioning whatsoever. You could eat only vegetarian food. Etc etc. You won’t, (and I won’t either) but if it comes down to human survival, forces will find a way to make you do it.

shawnz 5y ago
This comment has gone grey but I think it is an important point. Our basic expectancies for what makes a comfortable life are higher than ever. Is that an ethical problem or just a result of more/better technology? I'm not really sure.
- zepto 5y ago
  > Our basic expectancies for what makes a comfortable life are higher than ever. Not with regard to density, which has been going up, not down.
- bcrosby95 5y ago
  I would argue we have the technology to sustainably live as we do, for the most part. What we don't have is the manpower and resources to go through and replace all the old tech with the new tech that would allow us to mostly maintain our standard of living.
_eht 5y ago
Not sure why you're being down voted-- This is the right answer. I see people getting mad at suppliers but they have yet to realize they would still please like their consumption supplied...
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  AWS and GCP are both suppliers, one of them is carbon neutral, the other is still polluting. The end consumer hets the same product. This idea of consumer fault is deplorable, its not lile i gey accurate information about carbon footprint when i shop

rexpop 5y ago

> So what do I do? know what we're doing is what we can and hope some rich people pull up the cause What we do is unionize, and in a way where we can then withdraw our industrial contributions to climate change. > I look at what I'm actually doing, and I'm at my limit. I am willing to bet you've not yet tried to "manage up." It's not our fellow consumers who are causing climate change, it is supply-side; it is management. Only industrial and trade unions have the leverage "stop the line," and demand a less-profitable, albeit life-saving economy.

joey_bob 5y ago

You can try to come up with or attempt to improve an existing technical solution - whether it be a green alternative to reduce emissions or carbon capture/terraforming. If you want a place to start, alternative power sources for freighters would have a huge impact.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

Apparently, a reasonably sustainable level of CO2 production is about 3T per person per year. The average in the US is about 17.5T pp/yr. But ... 5.3T pp/yr of that amount is caused by the existing coal fired power plants in the USA. So one thing you could do is to write to your elected representatives to specifically petition for the abandonment of this form of power generation and its replacement with renewable systems. Guaranteed to work? Nope. But if we do get rid of those plants, it will make a HUGE difference at the national and international scale. [ EDIT: missed the 1 in front of the 7 for the average US CO2 output ... 17 not 7 ]

simonh 5y ago
Even replacing coal with natural gas generation would eliminate about 2.5T PP/yr. Obviously we can do better than that, but it probably makes sense to some extent as an interim measure. What I mean is some highly beneficial changes don’t even need to be particularly drastic or costly.
streblo 5y ago
Source? Genuinely curious to read more about this.
garblegarble 5y ago
I don't think those figures are right - 5.3T/7.5T would mean 70% of CO2 in the US is caused by coal-fired power plants. According to the EPA data for 2019 [1], power generation accounted for 25% of greenhouse gas emissions, and 62% of that was fossil fuels ("mostly coal and natural gas") - so that means fossil fuels for electricity accounted for 16% of the greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA report shows transportation as the largest source, at 29% Their figures also suggest CO2 emissions were 20T pp in the US in 2019! (6558MT of CO2, 328.2M population) 1: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  > The EPA report shows transportation as the largest source, at 29% The reason I'm so struck by the coal-fired electricity production numbers are that this seems VASTLY easier to fix than the transportation numbers. Even if the latter would have more impact, I think we're still a long way from being able to dramatically affect that, whereas ramping up renewable electricity generation and ramping down fossil fuels seems like a (relatively) simple challenge.

jcoq 5y ago

I agree and I know that climate engineering is a terrifyingly fraught endeavor, but I worry it's our only hope at this point.

scoofy 5y ago

The American development pattern is the problem that we can actually solve. If you genuinely care, and this isn't pandering, read the book Strong Towns. Our cities are designed as inefficiently as possible, on purpose, and things like zoning and automobile infrastructure literally ban climate conscious living spaces. We should also at least have a carbon tax for things like normalizing beef as an alternative rather than a primary food source.

SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
Other than world war, what mechanisms do you propose to get China, India, and the entire 3rd world on to an effective carbon tax plan? I mean, if the answer is world war, I’ll at least give you credit for an honest answer. I just rarely see that come up. The truth is yes we can and should do better, but also realize that other nations will take any advantage they can, including ignoring climate concerns. So if it’s a global problem, it needs a global solution, so what is that mechanism to apply one?
- betterunix2 5y ago
  You impose tariffs on their exported goods to compensate for their failure to impose carbon taxes, and maybe even impose an export tax on goods shipped to them. China needs trade with other countries and will get on board with a carbon tax if enough of the world is on board with such a plan, no war needed. Of course if things are truly implemented fairly, the US will also likely be subject to such taxes due to our own apparent inability to reduce our per capita carbon emissions...
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  The EU already have a solution for this - they tax imports from nations that don't have an ETA themselves.
  - SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
    Yes. Taxing our way to a better climate is one consideration. But what happens when you need something more than they need to sell it? As in the case of China… steel, aluminum, titanium, food, machinery, computers, plastics, vehicles, or clothing… you know… those “couple of things” that we have collectively allowed China to make for us while pretending we’re all so green and the slave labor isn’t a problem. India, maybe you can tax into compliance. Third world, maybe, but someone will scream it isn’t “fair”. But China? I’m skeptical we tax ourselves greatly and them effectively without them becoming the number one superpower and then doing as they please anyhow.

01100011 5y ago

IMO individual action is nearly worthless beyond making you feel better. I did all the right things for decades and someone else just consumed the resources I saved by building golf courses and taking international vacations. The world needs more Elon Musk types to think big and bring a lower carbon footprint to modern living. Thinking people will voluntarily put themselves at a disadvantage for the greater good goes against much of what we know of human nature.

abeppu 5y ago

Up until now, I think it's been too hard to direct your money away from the companies emitting loads of carbon. But I wonder, now that Europe is talking about a border tax for imported carbon, and the US has introduced legislation for a border tax, could that change, even before other places institute the same? To be eligible for import to Europe, would producers elsewhere need to tally and report the carbon associated with goods, such that non-European consumers could also finally have the information to choose lower-emission options?

jdavis703 5y ago
Most of the companies on the various “top polluters” lists are energy companies. We can direct our money away from them by walking, biking, transiting or buying an EV.
- lumost 5y ago
  A lot of energy goes into manufacturing products such as steel, plastic, aluminum, servers etc. The energy sources for these items are at the discretion of the large buyers. A steel plant can absolutely make the switch from coal to solar/wind at its own discretion.
- abeppu 5y ago
  ... but also shipping goods, right? The 3000 mile caesar salad, spread-out global supply chains, etc? Yes, green transportation (or just less) is good. But if I sit at home and order goods to be delivered to me, it's actually quite difficult to pick which have the smallest footprints.

ostenning 5y ago

Civil disobedience? But even then it’s crazy that people have to glue themselves to objects in the middle of highways to be heard and even then nothing really changes. We had the technology to solve these problems years ago. This isn’t a technological problem, this is a problem about values. Do we value money or our environment more? The climate catastrophe unfolding will be the biggest wake up humanity has ever had. That is the only silver lining to this existential predicament

lotsofpulp 5y ago

> I look at what I can do about this. I can turn up the temp in my room, and the house. > So what do I do? know what we're doing is what we can Everything you do is inconsequential in the face of living in a detached single family home on a quarter acre lot. That very simple fact has exponential knock on effects requiring so much more mass to move so much further and hence consuming so much more energy, that everything else you do is meaningless. The only solution was reducing total consumption, either per capita or capitas itself, but the former is not going to happen if people live in insufficiently dense manners that preclude public transport or walking and bicycling, and necessitate large roads, parking lots, and personal vehicles. And of course, once you own or benefit from detached single family house lifestyles, you are not going to vote for anything that inconveniences you or causes you to reduce consumption, such as increased taxes on fossil fuels.

zepto 5y ago
> if people live in insufficiently dense manners Dense living is associated with poorer mental health and a variety of diseases, and that not taking into account people with autism, introversion etc, some of whom find urban density neurologically intolerable. Humans didn’t evolve to live densely.
ip26 5y ago
If we could wave a magic wand & cut global energy consumption in half via more public transit & denser living, but still burning fossil fuels... we would have the exact same crisis, perhaps delayed a few years. I'm naturally inclined towards austerity, but this problem cannot be fixed with cutbacks & efficiency alone.
- simonh 5y ago
  Not at all, reducing global energy consumption by half would massively reduce, as well as delay the total long term impact. It’s true a lot of impact is baked in due to past emissions, but that’s no reason for complacency or fatalism. There still a lot we can do to reduce total impact and mitigate the impact we will suffer.

jdavis703 5y ago

You can also: * Switch to using 100% renewable energy from your electric company. * Live in an apartment where shared walls, floors and ceilings means lower energy usage * Move to a city where you can walk, bicycle or transit (or at least have a short drive to most things). But the most important is to become involved in climate politics, especially state and local politics. Even in California (the largest state in the union) all you need is a dozen or so people to get a meeting with a state representative.

MyKneeGrows 5y ago

Fun fact: the US military is the largest polluter in the world and has held the record for decades. 750,000 tons of toxic waste every year in the form of depleted uranium, oil, jet fuels, pesticides, defoliants, lead and other chemicals. And hey we got the PRC military adding the equivalent of the German Navy, every year, in ships to their roster. No they don't run on solar panels in case you were wondering. So take your three showers a day. Keep your car idling at stop lights. Burn your garbage. I'm not trolling. Your 'foot print' is a drop in the ocean compared to the real behemoths out there. And I haven't even started on the companies that PRODUCE equipment for these large forces.

gruez 5y ago
>Fun fact: the US military is the largest polluter in the world and has held the record for decades Source? > So take your three showers a day. Keep your car idling at stop lights. Burn your garbage. I'm not trolling. Your 'foot print' is a drop in the ocean compared to the real behemoths out there. Your footprint is a drop in the ocean because you're one of 8 billion people on earth. Just from that figure alone it's obvious that a you can't do much by regulating your own consumption. However, telling people to do whatever they want and it doesn't matter because they're 1 in 8 billion is the wrong message to send, because if all 8 billion people follow your example that would lead to a massive increase in pollution.
- leeoniya 5y ago
  it is far too late for individual action. it is major manufacturers and producers that need to act, because there are only tens of thousands of them (which can be regulated, with enough will) and not billions of individuals, who cannot. holding individuals accountable for ignored environmental externaities of producers is a dead end. people will buy/consume the cheapest thing made available to them.
- lsllc 5y ago
  https://www.ecowatch.com/military-largest-polluter-2408760609.html https://www.ecowatch.com/military-largest-polluter-240876060... https://weaversway.coop/shuttle-online/2020/04/us-military-world-leader-pollution-and-wasteful-use-fossil-fuels https://weaversway.coop/shuttle-online/2020/04/us-military-w... https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190620100005.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190620100005.h... https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/06/13/report-the-u-s-military-emits-more-co2-than-many-industrialized-nations-infographic/?sh=6ae70c584372 https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/06/13/report...

yongjik 5y ago

Bezos and his phallic rocket is just a distraction: considering how much money he can burn, it's to him what a trip to Maui is to plebs like me. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter. I think we just have to keep pushing the society (and each other) in the right direction. Hang on, I believe it will eventually get better, though it will get a lot worse before it starts to get better.

trentnix 5y ago

I've given up hope that this will be solved. The buried lede is that, if the prophets of climate doom are correct, you need to substantially reduce your standard of living. And all those third-worlders that are trying to improve their standard of living? They need to stop doing so, yesterday, and learn to accept their impoverished standard of living. But do it cleaner! But they won't want to do that, predictably. And to get them to do so will require enforcement. And enforcement will require coercive power - so violence. And that will result in war that has the potential to be more destructive than the doom being predicted. If the problem is as significant as alarmists predict, the only palatable solution is technological. So if you feel so motivated, concentrate your effort there. Because the data says everything else you can do is inconsequential and is mostly virtue signaling. I'm not making any claim about the legitimacy or seriousness of global climate change. Just pointing out that the medicine we choose can destroy as much or more than the disease.

jmcgough 5y ago
The problem would be solved if we had cleaner sources of energy. Get rid of coal and you're most of the way there. None of that requires us to change our way of living, it just makes certain rich people less wealthy. No scientist is arguing that we need to live in poverty, please keep the straw man arguments out of this.
betterunix2 5y ago
You do not need to reduce your standard of living, you need to alter your lifestyle to achieve the same standard of living in a more energy-efficient way. Many American cities are set up to encourage car use; we can change that. Many Americans live in detached homes that require more energy to heat or cool; we can change that, and in fact we would likely reduce the need to drive a car everywhere in the process, while also reducing the amount of coal being burned to power all those ACs. Really though, "alarmists?" You might have been able to accuse scientists of being alarmist 30 years ago, but they predicted increasingly frequent extreme weather events, and for the past decade we have watched the trend do exactly what was predicted. Now instead of talking about how we can avoid this outcome we are sitting here talking about how to not make things worse while we learn to live with floods, hurricanes, heat domes, and polar vortexes.

908B64B197 5y ago

> I look at what I can do about this. I can turn up the temp in my room, and the house. Meager difference. I can use less water - I already am, with getting showers every other day on average. Depending where you live, it might not even make a difference. I'd say the biggest contribution one can make is to aggressively vote for parties that support green power generation. Project like these [0] are stalled by lobbyist but offer a real chance to curb emissions. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_%E2%80%93_New_England_Transmission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_%E2%80%93_New_England_T...

WorkLobster 5y ago

> I can eat less meat It's something I keep quiet about in day-to-day life since it seems to invite reprisal, but if we're soul-searching for what we as individuals can do, I beg you to try eating no meat at all. There seems to be an increasing awareness that animal farming as currently practised is an environmental catastrophe on many levels, including emissions[1]—I dimly recall the IPCC report being quite clear that it's incompatible with a world that isn't ever-worsening, and suspect the obvious conclusion of "stop entirely" has been watered down to "try to eat less" because they fear people will just assume the former is too onerous and not bother. I have found it to be the opposite—simple steps, fun, healthy—and sort of want to launch into a full tale, but it has been a long week and I was just heading to bed. Still, I'm more than happy later to suggest recommendations and recipes and/or generally chat if you (or anyone) would like. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/food-emissions-supply-chain https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/food-emissions-supply-cha...

r00fus 5y ago
Absolutism ("eat no meat") really does turn people off (because they can't envision a lifestyle without meat). I have cut down my meat intake by about 90% and it's great. I still eat a burger every quarter or so. I think 90% is better than 0%.

elihu 5y ago

Transportation and energy production make up a majority of CO2 emissions in the U.S. and probably most industrialized countries. As an individual person, you can get rid of gas-burning cars (perhaps replace with an EV if you need a car) and put solar panels on your roof if that's an option. At the state and national level, though, a lot more could be done. Ground transportation could be fully electrified. (I think the quickest way to get there is not to wait for battery technology to get better but rather just electrify the major freeways so that cars and trucks can charge while they're moving, and people won't need huge, heavy, expensive batteries to get anywhere.) We could also expand solar and wind investments. To even out power production and consumption, we could finance the construction of intercontinental high-voltage DC lines, so we can buy solar power from the Sahara in the middle of the night and sell to Europe or wherever in the daytime. We could invest in battery manufacturing. Most U.S. made electric vehicles are basically luxury supercars that use expensive batteries that require large amounts of nickel and cobalt. What we need to get away from burning gas is mass-production of lithium iron phosphate cells (or whatever technology that replaces it) which have somewhat lower energy density but use cheaper, more readily available raw materials and are much safer and much more durable. This is the kind of technology we need to make cheap cars for ordinary middle-class people with low environmental footprint. For that matter, it would be great if EV tax credits applied to conversions as well as new vehicles. Hardly anyone converts vehicles now because it's expensive and high-effort, but if there was a simple kit to convert, say, a semi-recent Honda Civic to electric that can be installed easily by a mechanic and doesn't require any custom fabrication, maybe we'd have a lot more people going that route. Especially if it was subsidized to the point where the out-of-pocket expense is low. More nuclear plants might be a good thing too, but it's not absolutely essential.

sourdeau 5y ago

Like most problems in the world today, your money can do more good that your individual actions. The Effective Altruism movement has found some charities that either have proven advocacy records or offer legitimate carbon offsets, and which have a need for more funding. The Clean Air Task Force seems widely approved of by a variety of EA researcher organizations, with one estimating that they prevent a ton of emissions for less than a dollar. The offset programs are probably less effective in EV, but more certain. $10 per ton, I believe? Still highly affordable. https://www.givinggreen.earth https://www.givinggreen.earth

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]