4 ms·

> What we would benefit from is an understanding of absolute necessities and things with immense benefit to our quality of life, and then work back from there.

> What we would benefit from is an understanding of absolute necessities and things with immense benefit to our quality of life, and then work back from there. Probably tax usage appropriately. Then we can judge how far from the mark "x" is and maybe consider if it's worth polluting or whatever for. It's probably easier to go the other way: identify the largest problems, and try to tackle those. No point trying to fight hundreds of entrenched behaviours and industries to prevent only a fraction of a percent of emissions. Better to make a dent in the big boys (electricity generation, transportation, land use, etc.) > Starlink, very cool tech, is it really required? I'd say no. It's certainly debatable. A handful of geostationary satellites can provide basic connectivity; starlink's only purpose is speed. > Another one is driving the kids to soccer practice in an ICE powered SUV, absolute lunacy given where we are with the climate crisis and a great way to contribute to a shit future for your children. Right: this is higher-up the list of things that can make a difference. It's only lunacy from a distance: it's often a local optimum, due to problems like car-dependency, suburban sprawl, low fossil fuel prices, gameable emission standards, oil subsidies, under-funded mass transit, vehicle-size arms race, etc. Improving those will change the cost landscape, and give local optima that are less pathological (e.g. kids transporting themselves to soccer practice).

palata 3y ago
> It's probably easier to go the other way: identify the largest problems, and try to tackle those. No point trying to fight hundreds of entrenched behaviours and industries to prevent only a fraction of a percent of emissions. Unfortunately, I think we're passed that point. We need all of it. We need to change our society in a much more fundamental way than most are willing to accept. It's not "just" getting rid of aviation and meat, it's much more. We need to rethink society, and we need to do it now.
- chriswarbo 3y ago
  You've put "just" in quotes, but I don't see anyone making that claim. I agree we need radical changes to our behaviour, societies, economies, etc. The most effective way to do that is to tackle the biggest problems first; that's the best use of time, political capital, activist enthusiasm, news attention, etc. (I say this as a vegetarian with no kids, who doesn't know how to drive and has spent the last few years working in the public transport sector; knowing none of these small actions will offset even a tiny fraction of the destruction being inflicted by oil companies, their paid-for politicians, etc.)
  - palata 3y ago
    Sure. My point is that there are not only a couple of biggest problems that can be solved independently. There is one big problem: we rely too much on energy. Which means there is one solution: we need to reduce drastically our dependence on energy. Everywhere. It's not a simple optimization problem where you can "profile" and solve the biggest problems in order. The only way this works is if we start fundamentally changing society.

palata 3y ago

> It's probably easier to go the other way: identify the largest problems, and try to tackle those. No point trying to fight hundreds of entrenched behaviours and industries to prevent only a fraction of a percent of emissions. Unfortunately, I think we're passed that point. We need all of it. We need to change our society in a much more fundamental way than most are willing to accept. It's not "just" getting rid of aviation and meat, it's much more. We need to rethink society, and we need to do it now.

chriswarbo 3y ago
You've put "just" in quotes, but I don't see anyone making that claim. I agree we need radical changes to our behaviour, societies, economies, etc. The most effective way to do that is to tackle the biggest problems first; that's the best use of time, political capital, activist enthusiasm, news attention, etc. (I say this as a vegetarian with no kids, who doesn't know how to drive and has spent the last few years working in the public transport sector; knowing none of these small actions will offset even a tiny fraction of the destruction being inflicted by oil companies, their paid-for politicians, etc.)
- palata 3y ago
  Sure. My point is that there are not only a couple of biggest problems that can be solved independently. There is one big problem: we rely too much on energy. Which means there is one solution: we need to reduce drastically our dependence on energy. Everywhere. It's not a simple optimization problem where you can "profile" and solve the biggest problems in order. The only way this works is if we start fundamentally changing society.