Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomglynch | Hacker News Reader

I feel like a small fish incapable of making significant difference. I have reduced my emissions, ride a bike everywhere and am trying to eat mostly plant based foods. What else can I do?

Is there anyone here on HN that can make a bigger difference - any lawmakers, anyone connected with lawmakers, any high ups in a large company, any influencers? It is your obligation to help us - we need you to be our voice.

View on HN

Big Corp and media has created this impression that you, an individual, is responsible for this and need to do all the hard work. It basically takes the focus away from those big corps like oil, gas and other industries, which are responsible for the bulk of the emission and pollution.

The solution is nothing short of a political revolution. Need to elect and support politicians who will go after these big corps because they only fear tough legislations and nothing else.

Pity big corps are in both the politician's and the media's pockets. How do we work around this?

Vote 3rd party, participating in the 2 party system is contributing to the problem. I realize there can be issues with some of the candidates but if none of the main 2 do what you want, vote for someone else. I rarely vote for one of the 2 major parties, I would guess 1 out of 10 times I may.

I've voted for the green party before but it felt like I wasn't doing anything. I think it's more effective to create caucuses/other groups within the existing large parties to try to get them to change. This is basically what happened with the Republican tea party and is happening now with the DSA. Both cases have been more successful than anything the libertarians or greens have tried to do

To make a big difference you need to be social and political.

Going vegetarian makes a tiny difference. Tirelessly badgering everyone you know until 10 of them go vegetarian makes a difference 10 times as big.

Convincing 10 or 50 people to call their senators/reps about putting a price on carbon could have an impact an order of magnitude larger.

Lawmakers listen to their constituents when there is sufficient unity of thought among the constituency. And it has to be regular people that cultivate that unity of thought, through constant discussion of the problems and solutions with everyone they know.

...Now I just need to start to practice what I'm preaching...

> Tirelessly badgering everyone you know until 10 of them go vegetarian

Aka "How to get the cold shoulder" and make all your acquaintances avoid you.

I convinced a few of my acquaintances to reduce the amount of beef they eat and vote for parties that support more ambitious climate goals.

Oh, to have more than 2 parties to choose from...

If everyone keeps eating steak and pork at the levels we do, then all the political effort won't be able to make up for it. At the end of the day, our individual actions need to happen or we won't be able to change the trajectory. Globally, meat consumption contributes more than transportation to climate change.

That's true. Political effort is to implement policy that will disincentivize meat eating, among other things. Social effort is to persuade people to stop eating meat, among other things.

You can ensure that people vote for politicians that enact environmentally friendly policies. Most of us don't have the money to convince politicians to change their minds. But convincing 100 people to show up and vote is something everyone can do, through precinct walking, writing postcards, and just nagging your friends.

Global emission limiting treaties with robust incentive mechanisms are it I think. Once there's a good majority of countries on board, cajole and pressure the rest into the treaties by using trade agreements and other foreign policy casino chips.

Don't have kids. Reduce the global population to a sustainable level where everybody has access to more resources in terms of healthcare and opportunities instead of having half the population barely survive on scraps. Put a price on carbon. Include the price of carbon emissions in every product sold in supermarkets.

It's probably too late for population reductions to save us. If we want to stay below two degrees of warming, massive change needs to happen over the next fifteen years. Not having children, or delaying children can only help a little with this. You won't see a 90% reduction of the population in that timeframe, even if nobody had kids. Keeping population levels approximately constant or falling is important in the long term, but the climate catastrophe is by now a short term problem.

The only realistic way is a huge investment in renewable energy and storage, paired with a steep price on carbon emissions.

I am very far left and I definitely deny the solution of "don't have kids". A below-replacement birth rate would destroy civilized societies. We need to figure out how to reduce emissions per person, rather than just reducing the number of persons. Otherwise we end up in a world with a declining birth rate but a still-increasing median standard of living that continues to destroy the environment

Number one and two has a dilemma. Those who inherits the future will be descended from those that deny that "solution". Earth is going to "die" anyway then.

But pricing carbon and other pollution externalities in is well and good solution, and hopefully will be achievable soon.

I hope it will be achievable soon. See my other comment in this thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20121618) to read about the carbon pricing bill that's in US Congress right now.

The masses of macho guys and Trump voters aren’t converting to bike riding and veggie eating any time soon.

That’s why Tesla creating eco cars that out-muscle most muscle cars is so brilliant. It can show people who would never back down from big powerful cars that their fuel of choice is weak sauce.

I think it will be more effective than appealing to them with carrot juice and sprouts.

So... my advice is buy/lease a Tesla and show it around. At the very least you’ll have fun.

Nope. It should be prohibitively expensive to own any other car but an electric car. Because the externalized costs of carbon should be fully reconciled in the price of fuel. With the extra tax revenue here, a government could subsidize electric vehicles.

If your fix is waiting on people ( that are wealthy enough ) to choose an electric car over a gasoline car so they feel good about themselves we aren't going to get where we need to be in time.

The economically viable thing to do, needs to be the right thing to do. This is a place for regulation, not the free fucking market.

This won't work, because it means all the people who don't have money to buy a new car are now subject to your psychotic fuel tax. Your solution winds up being much more regressive than Tesla making rich people cars.

Or they might start living denser, walking and biking more, using and supporting public transport, like the rest of the world's lower-earning people. People adapt to the circumstances in front of them.

At first glance there are free market options. 1) Used electric; 2) Cheaper electric; 3) Lease; 4) Ride hailing services. Note option 1 includes used Teslas which will become more and more plentiful in the future.

The problem is so many gas cars are going to be dumped on the market that they are going to become dirt cheap to the individual consumer, while the external costs spread to everyone will be more and more burdensome. That’s where regulation will be needed.

Tesla cars are no longer just for the wealthy. TCO over five years for a Model 3 is lower than for a Honda Accord.

Tesla is not creating eco cars. While electric cars are better than equivalent ICE cars, Teslas are still too big and too heavy and have a pretty big impact just being manufactured. It takes many, many miles before a Tesla's manufacturing emissions are recouped by the electric drive.

They are designed for a 1 million mile lifetime (and 500k mike battery lifetime currently but this may improve). So that’s not a problem.

It is a problem insofar as you trade more emissions for the next ten years at least for fewer emissions later and you cement in infrastructure for vehicles that are larger than needed. It seems better to me to encourage the use of smaller vehicles, public transport, and (electric-)cycling. For example I once owned a 1992 Renault Twingo. It needed about 5.5l/100km in the city. Why don't we slap a modern engine in a car of that weight class or build even smaller cars? It would be pretty hard to beat their lifetime emissions with an electric 3 ton SUV and they'd use less space in cities, allowing for denser neighborhoods where you need the car less.

> So... my advice is buy/lease a Tesla and show it around. At the very least you’ll have fun.

If your current cars 20+ years old and on it's last legs then yes, if it's not then you'll create more pollution from manufacturing the Tesla than you'll (potentially) save.

That article has been debunked.

That's not a bad point - you gotta beat them before you change them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com