Hacker News Reader

Comment by lossolo | Hacker News Reader

Finding solution is not a problem, human nature is a problem.

> stop eating animal-based foods

Good luck with that. Sad true is that people don't want to change their life style. If you ask them for solution they will tell you exactly the same thing as you wrote, but most of them will not implement any of this solutions in their life. They want to eat meat, they want to consume, look at global warming, everyone know what is happening and what do they do on their own to stop that? Looking at my friends, people around me I see everyone recognize the problems, talk about solutions but no one is really doing anything.

View on HN

I would add that there is poor, and inconsequential information directed at people on how to mitigate the causes of climate change.

For instance, I've seen in my surroundings a disproportionate emphasis on recycling. Whatever happened to reducing and re-using? While recycling reduces our need to extract more resources, it still requires energy to transport to processing facilities and process.

The real issue is not cutting your shower time by 30 seconds, or turning off the tap when you brush your teeth (although both these waste resources). It's the rise of sprawl and the dependence on cars that makes our society unsustainable.

Driving a single mile releases roughly 1 pound of CO2 (assuming ~20mpg). Now multiply that by the 25.4 minute commute time [0] and the rising number of cars per household [1] to accommodate our poor suburban designs, and that equals a lot of carbon emissions.

But if the American responds to climate change by recycling, they'll be mislead that their efforts are actually helping. They are not. Recycling a Starbucks coffee cup will not cancel out the effect of driving an SUV 5 miles round-trip that you used to get there.

What we truly need is effective altruism, and a public service campaign that goes after the top 3 or so most destructive behaviors of Americans. Not whether we can design water bottles that have a "slim cap" design.

> Huge quantities of fossil fuels are burned daily just so hundreds of millions of Americans can go back and forth between two points 5 times a week. It doesn't make sense; cars can be useful for certain things, but regular and predictable commutes are best done with public transit. (http://www.treehugger.com/cars/average-commute-times-usa-int...)

[0] https://project.wnyc.org/commute-times-us/embed.html#5.00/42... [1] https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/UJuMkdu2LWC6AavNsVuY-mHHjIE...

> regular and predictable commutes are best done with public transit.

In places where public transit has dense enough coverage to make commute times reasonable, yes. But that's not most places where Americans are commuting.

He's not saying the public transit solutions are implemented yet. For that to happen, people would need to re-allocate their funds from buying expensive private cars to a new public transit system.

That's only half the problem; you also need to reallocate housing from the diffuse suburban homes suitable for car-life to the concentrated cores of housing around the local stops in your mass transit system.

Which is not to say it shouldn't be done, but bootstrapping a mass transit system is a long, slow process that involves throwing away a lot more than our existing cars & highways.

> you also need to reallocate housing from the diffuse suburban homes suitable for car-life to the concentrated cores of housing around the local stops in your mass transit system

What if a significant fraction of the population doesn't want to live in such a concentrated environment?

My commute is 12-15 minutes by car and 55 minutes to an hour and a half by bus (assuming the buses were actually on time, which is unrealistic here). Plus either time to make and pack a lunch, or the time to walk to a fast food restaurant near work for lunch. Plus a similar commute time back. It's somewhat faster (but more dangerous) to ride a bicycle. If my goal is a fast, safe commute, I don't have a realistic option besides a car.

It's not insurmountable (I'm sure that a better public transportation system could be implemented for more money), but almost everyone will make the same choice that I have until a more practical alternative comes along....but they won't want to pay for that alternative because they aren't using it.

This is where self-driving vehicles (with no human driver) provide a solution.

Point to point service with built in ride consolidation (targeted at clustering the start and end points).

Plus the self-driving vehicles will eliminate gawker blocks and all of the other idiocy resulting from fallible humans driving.

Get a moped. Safer than your pushie if your lacking the infrastructure, the only reason riding a bike is so dangerous anyway is the amount of cars on the road. Notice that basically all the cars on the road have 1 person and 4 empty seats every morning? You're burning all the fuel to basically move an empty car around, a 50cc moped is burning 36 times less fuel per power stroke than my corolla (ignoring combustion efficiency, I'm sure the car is better but you lose basically all in moving the damn thing).

Without the thing being electric it isn't the perfect solution (also can't do highway travel), but I feel like it's something not a lot of people consider for short, city/suburban commuting.

While I love mopeds and bought a 1980 vespa grande in college, I would not advise this.

As the song goes, "mopeds are always broke, but they easy to fix".

A moped WILL break down on you and be underpowered. My grande with a 70cc kit, performance variator and multiple breakdowns tops out around 41mph.

If you are not interested in repairing bikes or paying for their repair (if even possible in your city), avoid mopeds.

I'd recommend a 125cc+ scooter though. Reliability, fuel efficiency, and a bit more power which can increase safety. They also have more storage.

Don't forget to add in the fixed cost of gear!

I'm currently trying to transition to a Honda CT110 with a 140cc conversion as my commute vehicle, it was in sorry shape when I got it and I've been slowly getting it back together, so I guess that tells you how I feel about home repairs. The only reason I recommended the 50cc (49 technically?) is because under 50 here in AUS you don't need a motorbike licence to ride one.

Can't argue with the gear part though, probably going to cost me as much as the bike did pre-repairs.

My 10yearold 50cc has never failed.

I have a 50cc Yamaha Aerox for 12 years and it never failed on me. I recommend a japanese scooter instead of some vintage italian moped.

50-60 mph on a non-enclosed vehicle violates my requirement for safety. I'm not going to use something that can't be hit by another vehicle without killing me. There's an aggressive attitude toward driving here, and it disproportionately impacts small vehicles like scooters, bikes, mopeds, motorcycles, etc.

Mopeds generally don't do 50-60 mp/h. You would need a larger bike for that, hence the highway comment.

They make a lot more sense for suburban/city commutes where there is plenty of slow moving traffic to filter through at a comfortable 40-50 km/h.

Highway speeds here are more like 65-80mph. 50-60 are the streets that I'd be driving on during my commute. Almost my entire commute is made of thoroughfares going between suburbs and commercial areas. I suppose that's why I don't see many mopeds around here.

Woah, that is crazy to me. here in AUS you get 110 km/h max on the highway, everything else is 60, 50 in unmarked suburban streets. My whole world is like half as fast as yours!

Assuming they are in the US (because of MPH), your world probably has a much lower death toll:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...

By half, according to this.

It's only 37% worse, when measured by vehicle-km (I say in an optimistic tone, trying to hide my displeasure at the number).

I lived in Germany for a few years. I was too young to drive at the time, but I remember that my parents were impressed by some of the behaviors taught there, and I've always wished that American driver education was less half-assed than it is.

Btw Germany has no speed limit on the highways

On specific, incredibly well maintained highways. I think they also have an age limit for the cars that can use them? I'm less clear on that one, that may have been lost in translation speaking to my Dutch friend.

110 is closer to what the actual highway speed limits are. Usually 105-112. But that's different than the speed of traffic on that highway, which may range between 40 and 125, depending on traffic levels, time of day, and such.

I live in southern California, which has its own particular brand of insanity, when it comes to the roads.

I have a Kawasaki KLR 650 and a Toyota Prius. My Toyota uses less fuel than my motorcycle. A lot more energy went into making the Toyota, so maybe over the lifetime of the vehicles the motorcycle is still better. On the other hand, I can carry four people in the Toyota along with quite a bit of cargo in the trunk and the fuel consumption doesn't change all that much.

I think we can all agree that comparing a Prius is not the same as comparing a non hybrid car, not to mention 650 is rather large compared to the bikes I'm suggesting but still cool to hear that out of the Prius. Just out of curiosity, how much fuel are we talking here for the Kawasaki?

The Kawasaki gets 40-45 mpg to produce a stunning 38 HP. I don't know the torque number, but it's pretty good in that department.

It's fuel economy and power production sucks in large part because the motor uses a carburetor rather than fuel injection. At first I thought that was a benefit, in practice I can understand why every other bike maker uses fuel injection.

But hey, you can usually buy a brand new one for $5500. That's one benefit of them selling pretty much the same bike since 1987. Plus there's a huge aftermarket parts market.

The Prius gives me a pretty reliable 45 mpg (I drive the same road every day). If I really baby it, I can get closer to 50.

My mate is looking at getting one of these, interesting bike. It's a single huge cylinder which is probably part of the problem as well as the carby, at least until you hit the highway. The carby is just a relic I think, these things stay in production a long time, the CT110 for instance only had it's first major redesign a couple years ago which moved to fuel injection, before that it was pretty much unchanged since 1980 (and even then it's pretty much identical to the old C90's that preceded it).

Sorry for the rambling, I've been really getting in to bikes since starting this project, hahah. I'll abstain from asking any more questions about the bike or Prius, thanks for taking the time to reply!

In a modern world there should be no commute

Definitely not once there is VR tech

Even with the best VR set-up that would be feasible at home, I'd need somewhere to go where my 2 year old isn't screaming, and somewhere better than my bed to sit and work all day. And to go in to the office when any of the machines lose connectivity.

I'd still have to go somewhere besides my home every day (hoping for a remote VR work office in walking distance), and some days I'd need to commute anyhow.

Just doing some simple estimates on those number, just driving for ~5m will produce more CO2 than those eating a rich-meat diet vs vegetarian diet. 25m commuting vegetarian is several houses worth of meat eaters that take the bike to work.

If we were to list what changes one can do in order to save the planet: 1) work at home, 2) bike everywhere that is human possible, 3) take the train in all other situation where possible, 4) eating/recycling/short shower/other minor aspects.

People want to live a comfortable life and they'll give up with natural meat if they'll be given good artifical alternative (especially, with genetically identical alternative). Green energy, effective water recycling, disposable packing materials and automatic sorting and processing of garbage are the things that, given the adequate technology, can make the sustainable life style smooth and easy. We don't need to change ourselves and consume less - we need to be innovative enough, so that our consumer life style will not harm the nature.

The effort to make existing life sustainable could be spent making life more comfortable, slapping an excuse for caring the environment on the way. Meat can be improved by giving them more land and organic food sources, car transportation can be improved by a better designed electric cars, and that's what we are getting, instead of research into artificial meats(which do exist in an inferior state) or improvements to public transportation (public transport in many cities is neglected).

One could always go back to a life of eating meat once a week, riding bicycle to and from work, living in a developing country with broadband internet, electricity and clean water and thereby remove almost completely their carbon footprint, but who is in the mood for that, let's make life more innovative and even more comfortable than before, while telling ourselves these innovations are for the environment also! We eat organic and drive electric and pay $1000 a month for health insurance! Go us!

Sad that tech types seem to take dystopian sci-fi as a blueprint not a warning.

I have actually seen a surprising trend to the contrary among my friends. These are people with very different backgrounds (anything from the hardly-ever-employed working class to researchers), but over the past year I can count at least five people who have started eating vegetarian most days of the week. Just like tattoos and beards, these things can become trendy, and then peer pressure takes care of the rest.

The individuals one chooses to involve in one's own life are, without question, a misleading barometer for understanding much of greater humanity. We surround ourselves with the qualities that we seek within, and it is often tempting to overlook that in pursuit of broader conclusions.

You are right, but in this case my friends are a pretty good sample of the over-all population. I live in Sweden, where 10% of the population is vegetarian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country. This seems to be a growing trend as well, also elsewhere: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/food-and-drink/news/number-of-veg....

Sweden is not the whole world.

Your point being?

appropriate financial incentives along with scarcity could do wonders.

Not that I'm advocating this as viable but you could just ban the raising of livestock, and have a DEA type agency that infiltrates illegal animal farming operations

So your solution is to encourage rebellions?

I consider the pursuit of nutritional sufficiency to be an inalienable human right. Attacking my ability to produce my own food, in whatever form I find desirable or convenient, is a sure way to undermine my consent to be governed.

Said I'm not advocating it. Just stating it as thought experiment.

What are you doing?

We're basically able to literally grow meat anyway.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com