11 ms·
I really agree with your sentiment, although maybe not the details. All those efforts are gargantuan YC-scale world-changing efforts that can compensate… a smal
by bertil 3y ago
I really agree with your sentiment, although maybe not the details. All those efforts are gargantuan YC-scale world-changing efforts that can compensate… a small fraction of people not driving 50 miles to work daily. Or, at least, drive an EV. Or even, have people eat pasta rather than beef once a week. It’s very sad that it’s so hard to ask people to make such a small effort.
I suspect that if we electrify transport, there will be more electricity, and we could have more travel overall with night trains, etc. So I’m not sure it has to be less consumption overall. Eating like a pig (which I wouldn’t recommend), but vegan food has less carbon footprint, for example. So “less electricity, less meat, less travel and fewer people” makes sense, but I’m hoping it won’t be necessary.
That and much more will be soon if we don’t change many things fast, but so many of those things are as simple as teaching people to cook dahl (it’s so simple, even I can do it).
Those are miracles that good advertisers pull off every week, but so far, they are focused on getting more giant trucks on the road and pretending hybrid engines are good enough. They are fighting for milk and beef and airlines, while alternatives use amateurs who keep making blatant mistakes.
- downrightmike 3y agoAs we saw in 2020, just killing the cruise lines saves more carbon from entering the atmosphere than all cars in the USA produce. We should take these low hanging fruits. Do what's easy. Manufacturing from China is moving to Mexico because of the FTA, we should fully support that. Less transport == less fossil fuels