6 ms·

You can do something about this. I got involved in climate advocacy in 2021. Since then I’ve successfully lobbied my local government to start an energy resour

You can do something about this. I got involved in climate advocacy in 2021. Since then I’ve successfully lobbied my local government to start an energy resources study, which will look at ways for my community to quickly transition to renewables. A small thing. But if we all do small things, it will add up! Still though. My state, Arizona has really terrible people writing awful laws. This legislative session they’re proposing a 12.5% tax on purchasing solar if you’re not a utility, and a bunch of other regressive, anti-free market, pro-fossil fuel legislation [1]. We’re going to vote these people out of office this November and remove barriers to using our states abundant solar resources. And since HN is a startup and technology forum, we need cheap utility scale energy storage as soon as we can get it. It exists, but solar+storage is just a bit too expensive for most regions of the country. If it does become cheaper than methane, that makes the move away from fossil fuels much easier. If you want to work on this, do it. But also, citizens engagement is crucial. If you live in a regressive state like mine. It’s super important to get involved. If you live in a place that is going in the right direction, engage on the implementation details, there are so many ways good climate policy can get derailed in bureaucracies. There are a ton of groups that you can work with on this [2] [3] [4]. [1] https://legiscan.com/AZ/bill/HB2281/2024 https://legiscan.com/AZ/bill/HB2281/2024 [2] https://citizensclimatelobby.org/ https://citizensclimatelobby.org/ [3] https://www.sierraclub.org/ https://www.sierraclub.org/ [4] https://www.environmentalvoter.org/ https://www.environmentalvoter.org/

kylebenzle 3y ago
I disagree, strongly. I think the next phase will be people like me, not climate change deniers but climate change doomers. The US could go carbon neutral tomorrow and it wouldnt make a dent because of China, India and Russia. 3 Billion people pumping pollution into the the air like their is no tomorrow vs. a couple hundred million reducing their footprint isn't going to make a lick of difference. I think people have always had a hard time understanding things at scale, especially a global scale. The ONLY answer, live your life like there's no tomorrow because chances are is there isn't going to be.
- ianai 3y ago
  That's assuming the situation follows your specified path. In reality, an economy transitioned to tech beyond fossil fuels probably enjoys much greater production dynamics. For instance, the US could build out nuclear power to satisfy base board power and then grow that base by which ever rate it decided per year. At some point, mass desalination of sea water becomes affordable because electricity drives down the price. There, too, sea water is a huge resource for literally every mineral we could need (lithium, gold, uranium, you name it). Further, any co2 removed from the ocean will then be scrubbed from the atmosphere-provided the removed water eventually finds its way back, and it would. With more water and more electricity, more of the land is usable for things like habitation, commercial/industrial, and agriculture purposes. (The US and globe has a ton of unproductive land which can be productive with some combination of water+fertilizer.) There's a relationship between the growth of power produced by an economy and its yearly growth of gdp. The above will also take place with solar. Eventually we will have the tech to power things off whatever sun they get through the paint/coating on their surface. At some point, the other national players will see those benefits going to other nations and change accordingly. Or they will be left in the past.
  - trimethylpurine 3y ago
    You'll still mine oil for tires and roads, and you'll have gasoline as a byproduct. You'll use the gasoline to mine lithium and to transport used batteries. And you'll bury the batteries somewhere out of sight. Just like we're doing with nuclear. None of these solutions actually help preserve live. Life can thrive in a carbon rich atmosphere. It has before. But many years from now when the lithium batteries decay and the nuclear stores erode, life on Earth will actually cease.
    - ianai 3y ago
      We just fundamentally disagree on the criticality of hydrocarbons. In your version of the future, we’re all dead. In mine, the future might include a better life for all.
      - deleted 3y ago
CalRobert 3y ago
Arizona is also the unlikely home of culdesac.com, one of the first purpose-built car-free neighborhoods in the US.
- bicx 3y ago
  There’s a lot of dead space in Arizona. I’m sitting in the middle of the Arizona desert right now.
spaceheater 3y ago
Didn't like the whole world stop during covid? It should be equivalent to 50-100 years of climate activism, and what? didn't even make a dent?
- gjadi 3y ago
  From what I've read (can't find the source, sorry), it did have an effect, but it needs to repeat every year on top of the previous one to have the effect to stay below the 2.0 celsius avg.
- brlewis 3y ago
  A significant fraction of commuting by information workers stopped during COVID. Nothing like the whole world stopping, but yes, it would make a difference if the reduction in commuting could continue.
garfieldnate 3y ago
Quick google search of the AZ law says it will tax solar energy exported to other states and divide the proceeds among the local residents, which sounds a bit more nuanced than your summary. Not saying it's positive, but it's not clear to me that it's negative without more details; some form of this could incentivize more of the land to be used for solar, for example. I actually thought that this sort of law would be disallowed by the fed, since they reserve the right to govern interstate commerce.
- brlewis 3y ago
  >I actually thought that this sort of law would be disallowed by the fed, since they reserve the right to govern interstate commerce Yes, the US Constitution gives regulation of interstate commerce to the federal government, but this has been worked around. Lots of states have "use tax" which is an obvious[1] tax on interstate commerce, but they skirt the Constitution by saying they're taxing "use" of the goods purchased within their own state, not the interstate commerce involved. It's possible the AZ law could be written in a way that claims to tax something that happens within the state, while still being for all intents and purposes a tax on interstate commerce. And probably nobody would do anything about it. [1] The tax is computed 100% based on the money exchanged in interstate commerce, and 0% based on usage.
  - pas 3y ago
    ... hm, and what would current SCOTUS say about this? the DoJ or other states don't want to push it because probably they would lose? (or states would just again and again come up with silly new taxes, so enforcement would be hard in general?)

kylebenzle 3y ago

I disagree, strongly. I think the next phase will be people like me, not climate change deniers but climate change doomers. The US could go carbon neutral tomorrow and it wouldnt make a dent because of China, India and Russia. 3 Billion people pumping pollution into the the air like their is no tomorrow vs. a couple hundred million reducing their footprint isn't going to make a lick of difference. I think people have always had a hard time understanding things at scale, especially a global scale. The ONLY answer, live your life like there's no tomorrow because chances are is there isn't going to be.

ianai 3y ago
That's assuming the situation follows your specified path. In reality, an economy transitioned to tech beyond fossil fuels probably enjoys much greater production dynamics. For instance, the US could build out nuclear power to satisfy base board power and then grow that base by which ever rate it decided per year. At some point, mass desalination of sea water becomes affordable because electricity drives down the price. There, too, sea water is a huge resource for literally every mineral we could need (lithium, gold, uranium, you name it). Further, any co2 removed from the ocean will then be scrubbed from the atmosphere-provided the removed water eventually finds its way back, and it would. With more water and more electricity, more of the land is usable for things like habitation, commercial/industrial, and agriculture purposes. (The US and globe has a ton of unproductive land which can be productive with some combination of water+fertilizer.) There's a relationship between the growth of power produced by an economy and its yearly growth of gdp. The above will also take place with solar. Eventually we will have the tech to power things off whatever sun they get through the paint/coating on their surface. At some point, the other national players will see those benefits going to other nations and change accordingly. Or they will be left in the past.
- trimethylpurine 3y ago
  You'll still mine oil for tires and roads, and you'll have gasoline as a byproduct. You'll use the gasoline to mine lithium and to transport used batteries. And you'll bury the batteries somewhere out of sight. Just like we're doing with nuclear. None of these solutions actually help preserve live. Life can thrive in a carbon rich atmosphere. It has before. But many years from now when the lithium batteries decay and the nuclear stores erode, life on Earth will actually cease.
  - ianai 3y ago
    We just fundamentally disagree on the criticality of hydrocarbons. In your version of the future, we’re all dead. In mine, the future might include a better life for all.
    - deleted 3y ago

CalRobert 3y ago

Arizona is also the unlikely home of culdesac.com, one of the first purpose-built car-free neighborhoods in the US.

bicx 3y ago
There’s a lot of dead space in Arizona. I’m sitting in the middle of the Arizona desert right now.

spaceheater 3y ago

Didn't like the whole world stop during covid? It should be equivalent to 50-100 years of climate activism, and what? didn't even make a dent?

gjadi 3y ago
From what I've read (can't find the source, sorry), it did have an effect, but it needs to repeat every year on top of the previous one to have the effect to stay below the 2.0 celsius avg.
brlewis 3y ago
A significant fraction of commuting by information workers stopped during COVID. Nothing like the whole world stopping, but yes, it would make a difference if the reduction in commuting could continue.

garfieldnate 3y ago

Quick google search of the AZ law says it will tax solar energy exported to other states and divide the proceeds among the local residents, which sounds a bit more nuanced than your summary. Not saying it's positive, but it's not clear to me that it's negative without more details; some form of this could incentivize more of the land to be used for solar, for example. I actually thought that this sort of law would be disallowed by the fed, since they reserve the right to govern interstate commerce.

brlewis 3y ago
>I actually thought that this sort of law would be disallowed by the fed, since they reserve the right to govern interstate commerce Yes, the US Constitution gives regulation of interstate commerce to the federal government, but this has been worked around. Lots of states have "use tax" which is an obvious[1] tax on interstate commerce, but they skirt the Constitution by saying they're taxing "use" of the goods purchased within their own state, not the interstate commerce involved. It's possible the AZ law could be written in a way that claims to tax something that happens within the state, while still being for all intents and purposes a tax on interstate commerce. And probably nobody would do anything about it. [1] The tax is computed 100% based on the money exchanged in interstate commerce, and 0% based on usage.
- pas 3y ago
  ... hm, and what would current SCOTUS say about this? the DoJ or other states don't want to push it because probably they would lose? (or states would just again and again come up with silly new taxes, so enforcement would be hard in general?)