10 ms·

Actions rooted in open source culture can make a big impact

46 points by protontypes 4y ago

blueflow 4y ago
Feel bad about climate change? Do this symbolic nonsense to feel better about yourself!
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- realPubkey 4y ago
  Afterwards, fly somewhere for recreation.
- protontypes 4y ago
  It's always fascinating to see how many negative emotions are triggered when you advocate openness in terms of climate change. It seems to me that you are also very concerned about this topic.
  - blueflow 4y ago
    I'm concerned about how many people lie to themselves to feel better, and then expect me to support their delusions.
    - protontypes 4y ago
      I can absolutely understand you. A lot of what is done in this area is unfortunately greenwashing and is meant to make you feel good. That's why open source is so important for "impact" measurements. Conclusions based on open satellite data and open source processing pipelines are very difficult to "greenwash". Let numbers based on empirical measurements and open models decide what is actually sustainable for the climate, rather than opaque marketing.
      - blueflow 4y ago
        Nothing you mention actually does the action of reducing carbon emissions.
        protontypes 4y ago
        Every action you take first creates emissions. Doing nothing often seems to be the safest way to reduce your own emissions. This gives you a good feeling that you are at least not part of the problem. An open source / open science strategy at least prevents greenwashing and allows to at least focus on measures that actually save emissions. However, as long as the systemic / economic problem behind climate change is not solved, someone else will simply create the emissions for you. Find more about this under the term "Climate Shadow": https://www.mic.com/impact/forget-your-carbon-footprint-lets-talk-about-your-climate-shadow https://www.mic.com/impact/forget-your-carbon-footprint-lets....
- wiz21c 4y ago
  It's not completely symbolic either, little things can help too, and open source (and most importantly) open data, brings transparency which indeed allow for people to work together and build a counter power. But then again, if you really want to do something about at your own level, just travel less (be it for work or leisure), watch less netflix and don't upgrade your machines, just replace them when they don't work anymore. That'd be start. I hate to say it 'cos I hate those punchlines, but this time, "less is more" :-)
- jgraham 4y ago
  This would be a more useful comment if you actually engaged with the article to point out which parts you don't agree with and suggest alternatives. For example I'm very skeptical that reducing the power consumption of software is very effective; although the industry has made huge advances in low-power hardware, induced demand has meant that the overall electricity consumption of the sector has continued to increase. A lot of "sustainable" tech initatives seem to be based around that and demand shifting so you're running compute jobs at times when renewables are more widely available. The latter might be worth worthwhile as a short-term hack, but it's only a meaningful part of a solution insofar as it incentivises a faster transition to more clean/renewable energy. When you just make a blanket statement that everything is "symbolic nonsense" it's easy to assume that you're not interested in helping, but just one of the many people who has pivoted directly from "climate change isn't real so we should ignore it" to "climate change is inevitable and so we should ignore it".
  - blueflow 4y ago
    I've never been in a plane. I don't go on vacation. I don't have a drivers license. I don't feel bad, because i rarely do things i should feel bad for. I see that people like the articles author do feel bad about it, and do some metrics like that to feel less bad about it. None of the things the author did does reduce emissions. If i wanted to reduce emissions, i'd probably not even have the tech to show me the emissions charts. I think this is come kind of coping mechanism. Okay if you need it, but i won't pretend its more than that.
    - jgraham 4y ago
      >I've never been in a plane. I don't go on vacation. I don't have a drivers license. I don't feel bad, because i rarely do things i should feel bad for. Sounds like "symbolic nonsense to feel better about yourself". By reducing your personal carbon emissions a North American can probably go from 22 tonnes of C02e/year to maybe 5 tonnes CO2e/year. Maybe a little less if you really try. So you can cut maybe 17 tonnes / year * 80 years = 1360 tonnes over a lifetime. That's about the CO2 emissions of a plane doing 2 return trips across the Atlantic. If you're from Europe your baseline emissions are probably lower (by almost a factor of 2 between the USA and Western Europe) and therefore so are the potential savings. Although cutting one's personal carbon footprint is a good first step, individual lifestyle changes aren't enough to make a difference. They're OK, but not more than that. Technical, cultural and political solutions are all required, and although there might be parts of the original article that are misguided at least it's trying to engage with the problem at more than an individual level.
yrcyrc 4y ago
These are important to be better equipped to tackle issues, it's no silver bullet, but in a multi-pronged approach having the right information is detrimental for a meaningful company ESG policy.
nivenkos 4y ago
Strange that it proposes buying "climate-friendly" stuff at the end - the best approach is to not buy new things at all, and focus on reducing electronics waste, planned obsolescence, etc. - where FOSS can have a critical role. The real "solution" will come from increasing sales tax to 25% like Sweden, increasing gasoline tax to $5 per gallon like the UK, energy tax, carbon emissions tax, fuel duty, etc. - people can't consume when they can't afford it. And necessity is the mother of all inventions afterall. And then we can all struggle in poverty with high taxes and interest rates, whilst a few rich Americans live in luxury with their private jets and multiple SUVs, etc.
- mavhc 4y ago
  Tax everything the amount it costs to clean up the pollution it causes, and if a country isn't signed up to this, tax all their imports the same amount, overestimate. Then use that tax money to clean up the pollution. Side effects: people will invent cheaper ways to clean up pollution
  - goodpoint 4y ago
    Also side effects: people will invent less polluting ways to produce goods and services. It's shocking how environmental impact and taxation are completely disconnected at the moment.
    - protontypes 4y ago
      The question is how to measure the environmental impact of companies and their supply chains in a global and traceable way. Here there are first exciting approaches like Geospatial ESG Geospatical Finance. Here are more links on the topic: https://www.cgfi.ac.uk/ https://www.cgfi.ac.uk/ https://www.wwf.org.uk/what-we-do/projects/nature-and-spatial-finance https://www.wwf.org.uk/what-we-do/projects/nature-and-spatia...
  - endisneigh 4y ago
    real side effect: countries stop importing, instead they start producing their own stuff inefficiently leading up to more pollution.
endisneigh 4y ago
If you’re serious about the environment you’ll do things like: Having fewer kids, having housemates, eating less food, buying fewer things, not driving a car, not inducing demand for services that require cars, etc
- protontypes 4y ago
  Every action you take first creates emissions. Doing nothing often seems to be the safest way to reduce your own emissions. This gives you a good feeling that you are at least not part of the problem. An open source / open science strategy at least prevents greenwashing and allows to at least focus on measures that actually save emissions. However, as long as the systemic / economic problem behind climate change is not solved, someone else will simply create the emissions for you. Find more about this under the term "Climate Shadow": https://www.mic.com/impact/forget-your-carbon-footprint-lets-talk-about-your-climate-shadow https://www.mic.com/impact/forget-your-carbon-footprint-lets....
- konschubert 4y ago
  If you’re serious about the environment you work to make sure we get lots of cheap clean energy and that’s it.
  - endisneigh 4y ago
    historically cheap energy has lead to - surprise - more energy being used. use less energy, period. ideally yes, the energy should be renewable and not cause harm to the environment as well.
    - erddfre3423 4y ago
      I would argue that it's easier to switch energy completely to renewables than to significantly cut global energy usage. It's also more ethical solution than forcing people to live in tiny apartments and preventing them from traveling.
      - 4y ago

46 points by protontypes 4y ago

blueflow 4y ago

Feel bad about climate change? Do this symbolic nonsense to feel better about yourself!

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
realPubkey 4y ago
Afterwards, fly somewhere for recreation.
protontypes 4y ago
It's always fascinating to see how many negative emotions are triggered when you advocate openness in terms of climate change. It seems to me that you are also very concerned about this topic.
- blueflow 4y ago
  I'm concerned about how many people lie to themselves to feel better, and then expect me to support their delusions.
  - protontypes 4y ago
    I can absolutely understand you. A lot of what is done in this area is unfortunately greenwashing and is meant to make you feel good. That's why open source is so important for "impact" measurements. Conclusions based on open satellite data and open source processing pipelines are very difficult to "greenwash". Let numbers based on empirical measurements and open models decide what is actually sustainable for the climate, rather than opaque marketing.
    - blueflow 4y ago
      Nothing you mention actually does the action of reducing carbon emissions.
      - protontypes 4y ago
        Every action you take first creates emissions. Doing nothing often seems to be the safest way to reduce your own emissions. This gives you a good feeling that you are at least not part of the problem. An open source / open science strategy at least prevents greenwashing and allows to at least focus on measures that actually save emissions. However, as long as the systemic / economic problem behind climate change is not solved, someone else will simply create the emissions for you. Find more about this under the term "Climate Shadow": https://www.mic.com/impact/forget-your-carbon-footprint-lets-talk-about-your-climate-shadow https://www.mic.com/impact/forget-your-carbon-footprint-lets....
wiz21c 4y ago
It's not completely symbolic either, little things can help too, and open source (and most importantly) open data, brings transparency which indeed allow for people to work together and build a counter power. But then again, if you really want to do something about at your own level, just travel less (be it for work or leisure), watch less netflix and don't upgrade your machines, just replace them when they don't work anymore. That'd be start. I hate to say it 'cos I hate those punchlines, but this time, "less is more" :-)
jgraham 4y ago
This would be a more useful comment if you actually engaged with the article to point out which parts you don't agree with and suggest alternatives. For example I'm very skeptical that reducing the power consumption of software is very effective; although the industry has made huge advances in low-power hardware, induced demand has meant that the overall electricity consumption of the sector has continued to increase. A lot of "sustainable" tech initatives seem to be based around that and demand shifting so you're running compute jobs at times when renewables are more widely available. The latter might be worth worthwhile as a short-term hack, but it's only a meaningful part of a solution insofar as it incentivises a faster transition to more clean/renewable energy. When you just make a blanket statement that everything is "symbolic nonsense" it's easy to assume that you're not interested in helping, but just one of the many people who has pivoted directly from "climate change isn't real so we should ignore it" to "climate change is inevitable and so we should ignore it".
- blueflow 4y ago
  I've never been in a plane. I don't go on vacation. I don't have a drivers license. I don't feel bad, because i rarely do things i should feel bad for. I see that people like the articles author do feel bad about it, and do some metrics like that to feel less bad about it. None of the things the author did does reduce emissions. If i wanted to reduce emissions, i'd probably not even have the tech to show me the emissions charts. I think this is come kind of coping mechanism. Okay if you need it, but i won't pretend its more than that.
  - jgraham 4y ago
    >I've never been in a plane. I don't go on vacation. I don't have a drivers license. I don't feel bad, because i rarely do things i should feel bad for. Sounds like "symbolic nonsense to feel better about yourself". By reducing your personal carbon emissions a North American can probably go from 22 tonnes of C02e/year to maybe 5 tonnes CO2e/year. Maybe a little less if you really try. So you can cut maybe 17 tonnes / year * 80 years = 1360 tonnes over a lifetime. That's about the CO2 emissions of a plane doing 2 return trips across the Atlantic. If you're from Europe your baseline emissions are probably lower (by almost a factor of 2 between the USA and Western Europe) and therefore so are the potential savings. Although cutting one's personal carbon footprint is a good first step, individual lifestyle changes aren't enough to make a difference. They're OK, but not more than that. Technical, cultural and political solutions are all required, and although there might be parts of the original article that are misguided at least it's trying to engage with the problem at more than an individual level.

yrcyrc 4y ago

These are important to be better equipped to tackle issues, it's no silver bullet, but in a multi-pronged approach having the right information is detrimental for a meaningful company ESG policy.

nivenkos 4y ago

Strange that it proposes buying "climate-friendly" stuff at the end - the best approach is to not buy new things at all, and focus on reducing electronics waste, planned obsolescence, etc. - where FOSS can have a critical role. The real "solution" will come from increasing sales tax to 25% like Sweden, increasing gasoline tax to $5 per gallon like the UK, energy tax, carbon emissions tax, fuel duty, etc. - people can't consume when they can't afford it. And necessity is the mother of all inventions afterall. And then we can all struggle in poverty with high taxes and interest rates, whilst a few rich Americans live in luxury with their private jets and multiple SUVs, etc.

mavhc 4y ago
Tax everything the amount it costs to clean up the pollution it causes, and if a country isn't signed up to this, tax all their imports the same amount, overestimate. Then use that tax money to clean up the pollution. Side effects: people will invent cheaper ways to clean up pollution
- goodpoint 4y ago
  Also side effects: people will invent less polluting ways to produce goods and services. It's shocking how environmental impact and taxation are completely disconnected at the moment.
  - protontypes 4y ago
    The question is how to measure the environmental impact of companies and their supply chains in a global and traceable way. Here there are first exciting approaches like Geospatial ESG Geospatical Finance. Here are more links on the topic: https://www.cgfi.ac.uk/ https://www.cgfi.ac.uk/ https://www.wwf.org.uk/what-we-do/projects/nature-and-spatial-finance https://www.wwf.org.uk/what-we-do/projects/nature-and-spatia...
- endisneigh 4y ago
  real side effect: countries stop importing, instead they start producing their own stuff inefficiently leading up to more pollution.

endisneigh 4y ago

If you’re serious about the environment you’ll do things like: Having fewer kids, having housemates, eating less food, buying fewer things, not driving a car, not inducing demand for services that require cars, etc

protontypes 4y ago
Every action you take first creates emissions. Doing nothing often seems to be the safest way to reduce your own emissions. This gives you a good feeling that you are at least not part of the problem. An open source / open science strategy at least prevents greenwashing and allows to at least focus on measures that actually save emissions. However, as long as the systemic / economic problem behind climate change is not solved, someone else will simply create the emissions for you. Find more about this under the term "Climate Shadow": https://www.mic.com/impact/forget-your-carbon-footprint-lets-talk-about-your-climate-shadow https://www.mic.com/impact/forget-your-carbon-footprint-lets....
konschubert 4y ago
If you’re serious about the environment you work to make sure we get lots of cheap clean energy and that’s it.
- endisneigh 4y ago
  historically cheap energy has lead to - surprise - more energy being used. use less energy, period. ideally yes, the energy should be renewable and not cause harm to the environment as well.
  - erddfre3423 4y ago
    I would argue that it's easier to switch energy completely to renewables than to significantly cut global energy usage. It's also more ethical solution than forcing people to live in tiny apartments and preventing them from traveling.
    - 4y ago