Hacker News Reader

Comment by mariushn | Hacker News Reader

Most comments say we must cut down our emissions, but will YOU do anything different after this article? I'm honestly asking how can I help?

* I'm already a minimalist. Small apartment, no useless crap around (decorations, lots of clothes, printed books...), which require energy to produce & transport

* Can't convince friends to do the same

* Work from home

* No car, using public transport & Uber when needed

* Voting has no effect

So, what exactly can we do this week, besides just saying "Yep", and just go on until it breaks? Genuine question.

View on HN

You can stop saying, "Voting has no effect". It has a large effect. You can attribute a large chunk of global warming in the past two decades to ~500 votes in Florida. There are huge, quantitative differences between the two main parties in the worlds largest CO2 polluter per capita/2nd largest overall.

I've been searching for this information as well. I'd love to find, a definitive, bullet list of things that I or anyone else could do to cut down emissions - obvious or not. I'd also like to see if there is anything available to remove carbon dioxide (and other gasses) from the atmosphere. Small and distributed devices to be sure - instead of three or four monster devices, how about thousands of smaller devices to obtain similar results? My searches have come up rather empty. I agree - I would love to be part of the solution. What is a/the solution? Bottom line this nonsense for me and everyone else.

I don't think anyone can help individually. Cutting back your consumption is isomorphic to unilateral disarmament, and simply increases the incentives for others to consume the fossil fuels you didn't. What we need is a globally enforced agreement that prices in the effects of emissions so that the incentives are aligned, and cutbacks aren't simply gobbled up by defectors.

(The same logic applies to [most] attempts at technological solutions. The benefit of efficiency technology is not that it solve the problem by itself, but that it makes the actual political solutions cost less utility.)

Alternatively, we could research large scale optimal efficiency carbon sinking, since that could be faster and cheaper than replacing the globe's infrastructure and enforcing a universal, tenuous agreement.

Not to be controversial but honestly maybe add mindful consumption of food. Start doing the actual math on the entire supply chain from growth to harvest/picking/slaughter, shipping, manufacturing, distribution. Am I suggesting we apply what we know about distributed systems to food? Hell yes. Why do we not have neighborhood hydroponic gardens we all invest in together? The thing is these are start up ideas or political things we need to wait to vote on. We can start today.

To those feeling powerless about this, http://worrydream.com/#!/ClimateChange is one of the most well-researched, well-written, and inspiring pieces written on this exact problem--"what can a technologist do about climate change?".

Thanks Oisin!

When will 'have fewer children' become a socially acceptable answer to this question?

...not suggesting this, but since you seem dissatisfied with the other options: direct action? If you're really concerned about uh, serving on the front of the liberation of earth.

You can join an advocacy group such as Citizens' Climate Lobby and build political will for a livable world. CCL has been incredibly successful by, for example, creating the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus, which counts among its membership 30 Republican members of Congress. CCL is effective and is volunteer driven, so the chapter in your area needs you.

https://citizensclimatelobby.org/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=9oyguP4nLv0

> & Uber when needed

Wait, why not just buy a used stick-shift? That's way more 'friendly' than having a new-ish Uber drive all over town.

Easy, alongside taxing added value (VAT), we need a way to reliably tax emissions. Distort the market until we have a chance to survive.

> Voting has no effect

Voting has an enormous effect. Are you saying you think vote counts of elections in your country are faked?

Which party has made environment a priority, with a realistic 4-year plan (not 10-years) that won't upset the masses? eg heavy taxing all pollutants, including factories, gas/diesel and existing cars, with subsidies for clean energy products.

The masses might need to be upset as a cost of ensuring the survival of our species. And climate change will not be resolved in 4 years.

What party has made a platform of denying climate change and enacting policies that will hasten its impact? And which party has taken paltry steps to address it despite massive resistance from their opposition?

Not in your list is reducing/stopping the consumption of animal products. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/09/climate/drawd...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com