7 ms·

> All we can really do is each do our best on an individual level to reduce our carbon footprint. No, that's not all we can really do. We could also choose to

> All we can really do is each do our best on an individual level to reduce our carbon footprint. No, that's not all we can really do. We could also choose to reform political and economic systems that make western-style societies so un-ecological.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> could also choose to reform political and economic systems that make western-style societies so un-ecological Yes on activism. Not sure where you're going with the second part. Self-destructive ecological devastation is as old as civilisation [1]. [1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/1754565 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1754565
- youcantcook 3y ago
  [dead]
Zambyte 3y ago
It's hard to expect systemic reform to be an individual effort.
- nsvd 3y ago
  Well, a system is just a collection of individuals.
- ryeights 3y ago
  It’s hard to expect systemic reform with no individual actions.
  - tourmalinetaco 3y ago
    It’s hard to expect systemic reform by telling the individual to change while allowing the companies to continue as they are.
    - kergonath 3y ago
      But that’s not the point that was made. Reforming political and economical systems is not “telling the individual to change while allowing the companies to continue“, it’s pretty much the opposite.
  - Sabinus 3y ago
    The systematic reform compells individual actions.
superkuh 3y ago
Or we can accept that massive geoengineering is going to be required and start setting up the engineering and legislative frameworks to minimize the risks.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > can accept that massive geoengineering is going to be required The term geoengineering may need to be dropped. It sounds scary. But that belies that we're already doing it, just unintentionally.
- Super_Jambo 3y ago
  We're pretty obviously going to do geoengineering at this point. But we're still need to decarbonise our economies.
- meristohm 3y ago
  That's a bandage on a wound, when we could be treating the cause- too many of us use too many resources. I'm writing from a friend's massive house heated to 21C/70F, and built to last what, thirty years at best? Of a lot of plastic materials, and stuffed with extra electronics and vehicles that also cost a considerable amount to make and dispose of. Most of this stuff is unnecessary junk. Geoengineering, if we opt for it, absolutely must be coupled with toothy regulations governing resource harvesting and use. Don't pick the first berry you see, and don't pick the last. We've kicked this can so far down the road that effecive reform on our habits will be worse than pulling teeth. It won't be easy, and will involve things like respecting a woman's right to govern her own body (I'm in the USA where this is increasingly a concern), respecting other animals' right to exist, treating meat as a rare luxury and maybe going so far as to stop farming meat and return to hunting, and getting our entertainment closer to the local seasonal patterns of life on Earth. Get my drift? Another example: Electric cars are not a solution; using cars less is the way to go. It won't be an easy life, lesss reliant on technology, but it will be more meaningful.
  - infecto 3y ago
    I wish you luck on the pursuit of your ideal world, it is not mine. I won't conflate woman's rights (which I don't disagree with you) with environmental regulation. I don't disagree in general, I believe we need to be more aware of our consumption but what you describe is an ideal that I believe most individuals in the world do not share. Its a world that would require massive depopulation, how are we going to get there?
trashtensor 3y ago
This post is really bringing out the classic HN mental block around changing the structures of our society
- persolb 3y ago
  Since “I’m in this photo”, I think it is mainly because she ch paths generally don’t seem effective. Changing the structure of society doesn’t happen very often, and tends to have undesired side-impacts.
  - The_Colonel 3y ago
    I don't disagree, but the current trajectory might very well mean billions of people not having inhabitable land to live on (and the resulting mass migration, wars), so my risk tolerance for side effects of structural changes goes up.
toss1 3y ago
I actually agree(disagree?) even more strongly. The entire concept of "personal carbon footprint" is a distraction. The behavior of individuals is both random and highly variable (e.g., cyclists vs coal-rollers), and even in the practically impossible situation every individual moves in the same good direction, is still dwarfed by the institutional and industrial scale It is not only "also" reform political and economic systems, it actually the only path to a real solution. (Of course, do what you can to incidentally optimize footprint when it's an A/B choice. But if it's two hours of extra work to avoid some personal carbon output/use, it's better to spend that two hours on some political or economic action)
giantg2 3y ago
Technically involvement in political issues is part of doing one's best.
DyslexicAtheist 3y ago
will that be enough? what is the carbon footprint of an army in conflict? this seems much bigger even than the carbon and pollution produced by an economy at peace. it might sound defeatist but humanity will not be able to change its programming for the purpose of reducing our carbon footprint.
kurthr 3y ago
Have you seen the air in "easter-style societies"? I'm thinking of India and China as the two largest non-western populations in the world totaling a bit less than half. To take a Socratic turn: Do you think that air pollution comes from solar or renewable use? How has the increase in low cost labor and manufacturing affected consumption? Was this driven by governments or individuals and what is "non-western" about them or is everything western society now? I'm all for making democracy better, but arguing for authoritarian solutions seems a path to war, destruction, and far greater ecological toll than all but the most extreme (lets bring on the end times) parties in western politics.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- mplewis 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - zenonu 3y ago
    And yet here you are.
- xethos 3y ago
  This is, at best, a weak reading of the comment. Of all the damaging and un-ecological features of Western society, in a comment about climate change, the personal automobile and the effects thereof should top everybody's list. You've taken this as a chance to farm karma and dunk on China and authoritarianism, but reading GP's comment in good faith, per the HN guidelines, suggests we need better transit, more walkable cities, and the ability to move people and their purchases without taking 3 tons of steel along for the ride. Think smaller vehicles like South-East Asia (Thailand, Veitnam), available and reliable transit (Hong Kong), and the ability to get someplace without dying, on foot (Japan) East vs West doesn't need to always boil down to "China and Chinese allies bad". Sometimes it can be a chance for reflection, and to see where we could do better.
  - bamboozled 3y ago
copx 3y ago
I think China - the world's biggest polluter - will take offense at being called a "western-style society".. In fact Western societies are the only ones seeing the need for radical climate change prevention measures. The Asians, Indians, Latinos, Muslims, and Africans all happily fire up one coal power plant after the other.
- latchkey 3y ago
  > I think China - the world's biggest polluter - will take offense at being called a "western-style society".. Tianducheng disagrees with you.
- seoulmetro 3y ago
  They might, but that doesn't change the fact that Western-style societies basically exist in the East now. Cars, sky scrapers, western medicine, suits. The 1800s and 1900s basically converted us all to a Western colonies.
- kergonath 3y ago
  Talking about absolute emissions when comparing countries with massive population differences is disingenuous. China is bad, but Europe and the US are worse. Shutting down discussions on what we should do here by saying that it’s bad over there is also disingenuous.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> could also choose to reform political and economic systems that make western-style societies so un-ecological Yes on activism. Not sure where you're going with the second part. Self-destructive ecological devastation is as old as civilisation [1]. [1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/1754565 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1754565

youcantcook 3y ago
[dead]

Zambyte 3y ago

It's hard to expect systemic reform to be an individual effort.

nsvd 3y ago
Well, a system is just a collection of individuals.
ryeights 3y ago
It’s hard to expect systemic reform with no individual actions.
- tourmalinetaco 3y ago
  It’s hard to expect systemic reform by telling the individual to change while allowing the companies to continue as they are.
  - kergonath 3y ago
    But that’s not the point that was made. Reforming political and economical systems is not “telling the individual to change while allowing the companies to continue“, it’s pretty much the opposite.
- Sabinus 3y ago
  The systematic reform compells individual actions.

superkuh 3y ago

Or we can accept that massive geoengineering is going to be required and start setting up the engineering and legislative frameworks to minimize the risks.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> can accept that massive geoengineering is going to be required The term geoengineering may need to be dropped. It sounds scary. But that belies that we're already doing it, just unintentionally.
Super_Jambo 3y ago
We're pretty obviously going to do geoengineering at this point. But we're still need to decarbonise our economies.
meristohm 3y ago
That's a bandage on a wound, when we could be treating the cause- too many of us use too many resources. I'm writing from a friend's massive house heated to 21C/70F, and built to last what, thirty years at best? Of a lot of plastic materials, and stuffed with extra electronics and vehicles that also cost a considerable amount to make and dispose of. Most of this stuff is unnecessary junk. Geoengineering, if we opt for it, absolutely must be coupled with toothy regulations governing resource harvesting and use. Don't pick the first berry you see, and don't pick the last. We've kicked this can so far down the road that effecive reform on our habits will be worse than pulling teeth. It won't be easy, and will involve things like respecting a woman's right to govern her own body (I'm in the USA where this is increasingly a concern), respecting other animals' right to exist, treating meat as a rare luxury and maybe going so far as to stop farming meat and return to hunting, and getting our entertainment closer to the local seasonal patterns of life on Earth. Get my drift? Another example: Electric cars are not a solution; using cars less is the way to go. It won't be an easy life, lesss reliant on technology, but it will be more meaningful.
- infecto 3y ago
  I wish you luck on the pursuit of your ideal world, it is not mine. I won't conflate woman's rights (which I don't disagree with you) with environmental regulation. I don't disagree in general, I believe we need to be more aware of our consumption but what you describe is an ideal that I believe most individuals in the world do not share. Its a world that would require massive depopulation, how are we going to get there?

trashtensor 3y ago

This post is really bringing out the classic HN mental block around changing the structures of our society

persolb 3y ago
Since “I’m in this photo”, I think it is mainly because she ch paths generally don’t seem effective. Changing the structure of society doesn’t happen very often, and tends to have undesired side-impacts.
- The_Colonel 3y ago
  I don't disagree, but the current trajectory might very well mean billions of people not having inhabitable land to live on (and the resulting mass migration, wars), so my risk tolerance for side effects of structural changes goes up.

toss1 3y ago

I actually agree(disagree?) even more strongly. The entire concept of "personal carbon footprint" is a distraction. The behavior of individuals is both random and highly variable (e.g., cyclists vs coal-rollers), and even in the practically impossible situation every individual moves in the same good direction, is still dwarfed by the institutional and industrial scale It is not only "also" reform political and economic systems, it actually the only path to a real solution. (Of course, do what you can to incidentally optimize footprint when it's an A/B choice. But if it's two hours of extra work to avoid some personal carbon output/use, it's better to spend that two hours on some political or economic action)

giantg2 3y ago

Technically involvement in political issues is part of doing one's best.

DyslexicAtheist 3y ago

will that be enough? what is the carbon footprint of an army in conflict? this seems much bigger even than the carbon and pollution produced by an economy at peace. it might sound defeatist but humanity will not be able to change its programming for the purpose of reducing our carbon footprint.

kurthr 3y ago

Have you seen the air in "easter-style societies"? I'm thinking of India and China as the two largest non-western populations in the world totaling a bit less than half. To take a Socratic turn: Do you think that air pollution comes from solar or renewable use? How has the increase in low cost labor and manufacturing affected consumption? Was this driven by governments or individuals and what is "non-western" about them or is everything western society now? I'm all for making democracy better, but arguing for authoritarian solutions seems a path to war, destruction, and far greater ecological toll than all but the most extreme (lets bring on the end times) parties in western politics.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mplewis 3y ago
[flagged]
- zenonu 3y ago
  And yet here you are.
xethos 3y ago
This is, at best, a weak reading of the comment. Of all the damaging and un-ecological features of Western society, in a comment about climate change, the personal automobile and the effects thereof should top everybody's list. You've taken this as a chance to farm karma and dunk on China and authoritarianism, but reading GP's comment in good faith, per the HN guidelines, suggests we need better transit, more walkable cities, and the ability to move people and their purchases without taking 3 tons of steel along for the ride. Think smaller vehicles like South-East Asia (Thailand, Veitnam), available and reliable transit (Hong Kong), and the ability to get someplace without dying, on foot (Japan) East vs West doesn't need to always boil down to "China and Chinese allies bad". Sometimes it can be a chance for reflection, and to see where we could do better.
- bamboozled 3y ago

copx 3y ago

I think China - the world's biggest polluter - will take offense at being called a "western-style society".. In fact Western societies are the only ones seeing the need for radical climate change prevention measures. The Asians, Indians, Latinos, Muslims, and Africans all happily fire up one coal power plant after the other.

latchkey 3y ago
> I think China - the world's biggest polluter - will take offense at being called a "western-style society".. Tianducheng disagrees with you.
seoulmetro 3y ago
They might, but that doesn't change the fact that Western-style societies basically exist in the East now. Cars, sky scrapers, western medicine, suits. The 1800s and 1900s basically converted us all to a Western colonies.
kergonath 3y ago
Talking about absolute emissions when comparing countries with massive population differences is disingenuous. China is bad, but Europe and the US are worse. Shutting down discussions on what we should do here by saying that it’s bad over there is also disingenuous.