8 ms·

The aviation sector is about 2%. Sounds like another premature optimization problem, as applied to climate change. “Premature optimization is the root of all

The aviation sector is about 2%. Sounds like another premature optimization problem, as applied to climate change. “Premature optimization is the root of all evil“ https://wiki.c2.com/?PrematureOptimization= https://wiki.c2.com/?PrematureOptimization= What about coal? What about coal?

insane_dreamer 4y ago
The need to eliminate coal emissions does not preclude the need to eliminate emissions from other sources.
- melling 4y ago
  I suppose if we didn’t wait decades to eliminate the big problems, we’d have more time to worry about the smaller problems. A 100 years of coal emissions is 1000 years of rice.
  - lkbm 4y ago
    Did the people working on rice hamper the work on coal? Or is the issue that they're wasting their time by doing anything but trying to get rid of coal? As best I can tell, neither you nor I are working on coal either.
    - throwaway2190 4y ago
      + while there are still people starving, this is helping to solve a big problem, it wasn't done for climate change, it's just nice that it might help there too.
  - insane_dreamer 4y ago
    So ... all agriculture scientists should stop what they're doing and become clean energy scientists?
TheRealPomax 4y ago
Why do people keep pretending that we can only focus on one industry at a time? News flash: WE CAN ADDRESS MORE THAN ONE AT A TIME. What about coal? You tell me, what part of fixing rice production interferes with shutting down coal mining? Because as far as anyone can tell, the answer is not a single part.
- melling 4y ago
  We already are seeing climate issues. We could have been off coal by now. “A 100 years of coal emissions is 1000 years of rice” By not addressing the big problems sooner, we have shortened the window to seeing significant problems. We’d have more time to solve the smaller problems, or they may take of themselves. For example, the population in China will drop significantly in this century. Unfortunately, it sounds like we are lining up our miracles so by 2050, we’ll be at net zero.
  - idopmstuff 4y ago
    Nothing you're saying here responds to the question. Everyone knows we're seeing climate issues. Why does making agricultural improvements prevent dealing with coal? > By not addressing the big problems sooner, we have shortened the window to seeing significant problems. This is true of all problems, not just the big ones. > We’d have more time to solve the smaller problems, or they may take of themselves. If we dealt with all of the smaller problems, we'd have more time to solve the larger problems, or they make take care of themselves. For example, the population in China will drop significantly this century, reducing the need for power consumption from coal plants.
  - TheRealPomax 4y ago
    You are aware that there are eight billion humans on the planet, right? If everyone helped, we'd already be done: they're not. But conversely, it's not like we have ten people and we can either put them on coal, or on rice. We have millions of people actively involved at all levels, and the folks tackling rice have zero qualifications to solve coal, and vice versa. It's like complaining that the folks making bicycles aren't making office buildings: stop being part of the problem by pretending these are mutually exclusive problems to solve and that people should stop trying to solve entire percentage values. 2% is not "a drop in the bucket", 2% is a huge number. We can have different people work on different problems at the same time. By insisting we don't do something in parallel, all you're doing is telling folks to stop solving problems they can solve at an industrial scale. Are you solving coal, right now? No? Why are you wasting time and not solving coal? Oh you're doing something else atm? Why aren't you dropping that on the spot and solving coal? This is not a constructive attitude, it's flat out being part of the problem.
mikeytown2 4y ago
Emissions reduction isn't the goal, it's a nice side effect of this. Not needing to replant every year is the reason for using this rice.
lars_francke 4y ago
This is not an either/or thing. Germany emits 2% of all CO2, not worth us doing anything then?
- quonn 4y ago
  Depends on the action. Gluing oneself to the street in order to prevent 5% of 2% of an industry that is rapidly shifting to EVs is questionable, for example.
  - lucb1e 4y ago
    Heard about someone who glued themselves to rails before a coal plant. Allegedly that prevented the equivalent of 800 years of average western european lifestyle emissions. Here I'm trying to get my own climate warming impact to be at least close to zero (and failing), and this dude has a 10x impact by doing nothing but sitting on rail for a bit. The cost is losing 9 months of their life on jail time. (Definitely an interesting proposition were it not for (1) the likely reality that some other coal/gas plant just spun harder during that time, and (2) that I'd likely get more jail time because I did it knowingly and found it worth it and as such it's not a sufficient deterrent.)
    - explaininjs 4y ago
      Is the idea that downstream consumers had an easier time retooling their processes to an entirely different power source than buying from a different coal plant? Questionable, at best.
    - hinkley 4y ago
      I'm trying to rehab a 10th of an acre of prairie that used to be temperate rainforest. That won't even offset my own impact on the rest of the world. But I'm showing up to meetings with other people, giving advice, hopefully some inspiration, as well as plants to make the process a little more accessible to other people. Best case at the end of this, I've helped dozens of people reduce their carbon footprint, and they've helped hundreds do the same, and so on. All of us will still have a positive carbon footprint, but we've called into question what the average footprint should look like. Us and a hundred other people who think about things like transportation or building standards or entertainment. The end goal is that becoming a giver instead of a taker represents sacrificing 10% of your lifestyle instead of 75%. It's very hard to peer pressure people into giving up 75% of what makes life worth living.
knodi123 4y ago
I litter frequently. Some people criticize me for it, but I rightly point out that my own litter is a tiny fraction of city-wide litter, and if I stopped, no one would even notice the difference. I'm not even the biggest contributor! Mechanized recycling trucks hoist the bins high in the air and let stuff fall into a hopper on the back, and on a windy day, every single bin they pick up produces a few pieces of litter. I don't know why I should change my lifestyle while trucks like that still exist.
- mcdonje 4y ago
  I have mixed feelings about this comment. It's good satire. But that's something I expect on reddit. Over here, it seems like we're running afoul of the forum norms, and Poe's Law.
  - knodi123 4y ago
    That's fair. I meant it to be taken as an invitation to explain why (or why not) personal responsibility should matter in a world where the problems are complex and have a thousand sources. But I didn't do a good enough job of couching it that way, and it certainly pissed off the person I was replying to. I guess the responsible thing to do at this point is bail.
- melling 4y ago
  Nice meaningless analogy. Let me fix it for you. “You litter frequently in your neighborhood, while 200 people litter in the park across town. What problem should the town address sooner?” We are at the brink of too late. Where did you go wrong? https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/20/ipcc-climate-crisis-report-delivers-final-warning-on-15c https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/20/ipcc-cli... Times up.
- baxtr 4y ago
  I don’t know where you live, but listen: “Don’t mess with Texas!” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2qIF3PL7lQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2qIF3PL7lQ
- 4y ago
pfdietz 4y ago
Are you enjoying your whataboutism?
hinkley 4y ago
I'll tell you the same thing I tell the average knob who spews "premature optimization is the root of all evil" at me as a way to get out of having to think about anything uncomfortable, or ever accept culpability for any problems: You don't balance a budget by only looking at the tallest tent pole. You have to ask yourself what proportion of the overall budget a particular concern is 'worth' and figure out how to get there. Until that total is reduced to < 100% you will always be in debt. Starbucks or no Starbucks. From there you chip away at each element as the opportunity arises, balancing opportunity against cost (both of action and inaction). If something proves to be too hard to change, you have to compromise elsewhere. And in the long run, order only matters if you go bankrupt in the middle of the process.

insane_dreamer 4y ago

The need to eliminate coal emissions does not preclude the need to eliminate emissions from other sources.

melling 4y ago
I suppose if we didn’t wait decades to eliminate the big problems, we’d have more time to worry about the smaller problems. A 100 years of coal emissions is 1000 years of rice.
- lkbm 4y ago
  Did the people working on rice hamper the work on coal? Or is the issue that they're wasting their time by doing anything but trying to get rid of coal? As best I can tell, neither you nor I are working on coal either.
  - throwaway2190 4y ago
    + while there are still people starving, this is helping to solve a big problem, it wasn't done for climate change, it's just nice that it might help there too.
- insane_dreamer 4y ago
  So ... all agriculture scientists should stop what they're doing and become clean energy scientists?

TheRealPomax 4y ago

Why do people keep pretending that we can only focus on one industry at a time? News flash: WE CAN ADDRESS MORE THAN ONE AT A TIME. What about coal? You tell me, what part of fixing rice production interferes with shutting down coal mining? Because as far as anyone can tell, the answer is not a single part.

melling 4y ago
We already are seeing climate issues. We could have been off coal by now. “A 100 years of coal emissions is 1000 years of rice” By not addressing the big problems sooner, we have shortened the window to seeing significant problems. We’d have more time to solve the smaller problems, or they may take of themselves. For example, the population in China will drop significantly in this century. Unfortunately, it sounds like we are lining up our miracles so by 2050, we’ll be at net zero.
- idopmstuff 4y ago
  Nothing you're saying here responds to the question. Everyone knows we're seeing climate issues. Why does making agricultural improvements prevent dealing with coal? > By not addressing the big problems sooner, we have shortened the window to seeing significant problems. This is true of all problems, not just the big ones. > We’d have more time to solve the smaller problems, or they may take of themselves. If we dealt with all of the smaller problems, we'd have more time to solve the larger problems, or they make take care of themselves. For example, the population in China will drop significantly this century, reducing the need for power consumption from coal plants.
- TheRealPomax 4y ago
  You are aware that there are eight billion humans on the planet, right? If everyone helped, we'd already be done: they're not. But conversely, it's not like we have ten people and we can either put them on coal, or on rice. We have millions of people actively involved at all levels, and the folks tackling rice have zero qualifications to solve coal, and vice versa. It's like complaining that the folks making bicycles aren't making office buildings: stop being part of the problem by pretending these are mutually exclusive problems to solve and that people should stop trying to solve entire percentage values. 2% is not "a drop in the bucket", 2% is a huge number. We can have different people work on different problems at the same time. By insisting we don't do something in parallel, all you're doing is telling folks to stop solving problems they can solve at an industrial scale. Are you solving coal, right now? No? Why are you wasting time and not solving coal? Oh you're doing something else atm? Why aren't you dropping that on the spot and solving coal? This is not a constructive attitude, it's flat out being part of the problem.

mikeytown2 4y ago

Emissions reduction isn't the goal, it's a nice side effect of this. Not needing to replant every year is the reason for using this rice.

lars_francke 4y ago

This is not an either/or thing. Germany emits 2% of all CO2, not worth us doing anything then?

quonn 4y ago
Depends on the action. Gluing oneself to the street in order to prevent 5% of 2% of an industry that is rapidly shifting to EVs is questionable, for example.
- lucb1e 4y ago
  Heard about someone who glued themselves to rails before a coal plant. Allegedly that prevented the equivalent of 800 years of average western european lifestyle emissions. Here I'm trying to get my own climate warming impact to be at least close to zero (and failing), and this dude has a 10x impact by doing nothing but sitting on rail for a bit. The cost is losing 9 months of their life on jail time. (Definitely an interesting proposition were it not for (1) the likely reality that some other coal/gas plant just spun harder during that time, and (2) that I'd likely get more jail time because I did it knowingly and found it worth it and as such it's not a sufficient deterrent.)
  - explaininjs 4y ago
    Is the idea that downstream consumers had an easier time retooling their processes to an entirely different power source than buying from a different coal plant? Questionable, at best.
  - hinkley 4y ago
    I'm trying to rehab a 10th of an acre of prairie that used to be temperate rainforest. That won't even offset my own impact on the rest of the world. But I'm showing up to meetings with other people, giving advice, hopefully some inspiration, as well as plants to make the process a little more accessible to other people. Best case at the end of this, I've helped dozens of people reduce their carbon footprint, and they've helped hundreds do the same, and so on. All of us will still have a positive carbon footprint, but we've called into question what the average footprint should look like. Us and a hundred other people who think about things like transportation or building standards or entertainment. The end goal is that becoming a giver instead of a taker represents sacrificing 10% of your lifestyle instead of 75%. It's very hard to peer pressure people into giving up 75% of what makes life worth living.

knodi123 4y ago

I litter frequently. Some people criticize me for it, but I rightly point out that my own litter is a tiny fraction of city-wide litter, and if I stopped, no one would even notice the difference. I'm not even the biggest contributor! Mechanized recycling trucks hoist the bins high in the air and let stuff fall into a hopper on the back, and on a windy day, every single bin they pick up produces a few pieces of litter. I don't know why I should change my lifestyle while trucks like that still exist.

mcdonje 4y ago
I have mixed feelings about this comment. It's good satire. But that's something I expect on reddit. Over here, it seems like we're running afoul of the forum norms, and Poe's Law.
- knodi123 4y ago
  That's fair. I meant it to be taken as an invitation to explain why (or why not) personal responsibility should matter in a world where the problems are complex and have a thousand sources. But I didn't do a good enough job of couching it that way, and it certainly pissed off the person I was replying to. I guess the responsible thing to do at this point is bail.
melling 4y ago
Nice meaningless analogy. Let me fix it for you. “You litter frequently in your neighborhood, while 200 people litter in the park across town. What problem should the town address sooner?” We are at the brink of too late. Where did you go wrong? https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/20/ipcc-climate-crisis-report-delivers-final-warning-on-15c https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/20/ipcc-cli... Times up.
baxtr 4y ago
I don’t know where you live, but listen: “Don’t mess with Texas!” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2qIF3PL7lQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2qIF3PL7lQ
4y ago

pfdietz 4y ago

Are you enjoying your whataboutism?

hinkley 4y ago

I'll tell you the same thing I tell the average knob who spews "premature optimization is the root of all evil" at me as a way to get out of having to think about anything uncomfortable, or ever accept culpability for any problems: You don't balance a budget by only looking at the tallest tent pole. You have to ask yourself what proportion of the overall budget a particular concern is 'worth' and figure out how to get there. Until that total is reduced to < 100% you will always be in debt. Starbucks or no Starbucks. From there you chip away at each element as the opportunity arises, balancing opportunity against cost (both of action and inaction). If something proves to be too hard to change, you have to compromise elsewhere. And in the long run, order only matters if you go bankrupt in the middle of the process.