Bering Sea loses half its sea ice over two weeks | Hacker News Reader

Bering Sea loses half its sea ice over two weeks

pri.org

The meaningful question is what you, the person reading these words, will do about it.

Most will think something like "I want to help, but if I act and no one else does it won't make a difference" or "they should pass laws to stop people from doing what causes this and after they do I'll act." To act against your values to follow others is the opposite of leadership.

Some will realize that their actions can make a difference, that they are responsible for the results of their actions -- flying, overheating or overcooling their homes, dietary choices, etc -- and they will choose to hurt others less.

One of my biggest discoveries is that making those choices improved my life. I thought they would feel like sacrifice, and they did in the short term, but in the long term they improved my life. My diet is more delicious for avoiding packaged food and eating from local farms. My life has more adventure and cultural exchange for not flying.

It's not what you stop doing, but what you replace it with.

In other words, there is no dichotomy between polluting less and improving your life.

Yes, personal choices are important. I believe that many people around with world will need to make significant changes to their lifestyles, whether by choice to lessen their carbon footprint or by necessity to adapt to new realities in the coming decades. I'm wary of that common strain of techno-utopianism that takes the stance that we can maintain our current lifestyles if only we switch to electric cars, renewable energy, and compostable shopping bags.

But we also need to think about what choices are available to people and what we can do on a larger scale to confront carbon pollution and global warming. Let's think critically about personal choices as they relate to climate change:

- Does my family have access to quality, local food?

- Do I have enough information about my the way my produce, grains, etc. were grown to make a purchase decision based on its climate impact?

- What is the transportation infrastructure like where I live?

- How does my local, state, or national government incentivize car or home ownership?

...and so on.

EDIT: Formatting.

> But we also need to think about what choices are available to people

As long as people act on what they can and not bog themselves down in analysis.

The main reason is that the more people act, the more they find more opportunities to act more, whereas the more they analyze, the less they act. In an entrepreneurial community like HN, it's like realizing that acting on your venture is the best way to progress. Of course, that doesn't mean to act thoughtlessly, but you don't have to think much for most low hanging fruit.

I would rephrase all your questions from passive analysis to active. For example, instead of

> Does my family have access to quality, local food?

I suggest

"What can I do to increase my family's access to quality, local food?"

Instead of

> Do I have enough information about my the way my produce, grains, etc. were grown to make a purchase decision based on its climate impact?

I suggest

"What can I do to improve how food is produced around me..."

We're not passive recipients of what systems created based on no-longer-credible beliefs about the Earth. We are active participants and can influence these systems.

My immediate family and I have also made a lot of changes, and I agree that there's a lot you can do with no real sacrifice. I fully support people making these choices themselves. Every little bit helps!

That said, there still needs to be a sea change (did I just write that?). Not just in choices of individuals within the populace but also in industry, etc. Individual behavior and choice is a starting point, but it's not enough.

Or, is it just alarmism?

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/02/21/noa...

It's really disappointing to see that this article has been upvoted. No, not because I have theories to share, I'm not an armchair scientist on any side of the debate. But because these kinds of politically and socially charged (if one thinks anything on climate change isn't at this point - wow) articles were the primary reason I stopped visiting Slashdot.

With so much quality content flowing through this site, the last thing we need is more like this article being upvoted.

Research about climate change may certainly be politically and socially charged, but we're not going to make progress in addressing it by burying articles that share recent findings. It's not the science that we need to debate -- at least not the general trends and forecasts -- but rather the political and social causes and implications of climate change.

Personally, I am always happy to see articles such as this posted here, because it at least means a community of smart, critical thinkers are aware of climate issues.

Heh. Post a dissenting opinion, watch the karma disappear. Surely I can't be the only one that thinks we see enough of this from all angles on a daily basis.

There's nothing inherently political about the this article or the science in general here.

There is, however, a very concerted effort to convince people that the science of climate change 'is political' in order to give those who find the issue uncomfortable license to question the legitimacy of the entire field of study. That's as dangerous as it is absurd, and it's important that it's challenged whenever it's encountered.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com