Hacker News Reader

Comment by jfoutz | Hacker News Reader

Stretch those dollars.

Put a little money in your car, if you can. Keep it running well, it'll use less gas. Making a new car makes a ton of carbon. Getting every last mile out of what you got helps everyone.

Look for stuff that will last forever. A good set of boots you oil will last a long, long time. You can get them resoled. Iron skillets are super cheap and will outlast you. The stupid handle will fall off of a cheap skillet.

The number one thing is make the most of what you got. Stuff wears out. Next time around, look for stuff that'll last longer. Look for second hand stuff that can be repaired. there's a lot of great old tools out there that'll give years of service.

(this is basically just the first two parts of reduce, reuse, and recycle. the first two have the biggest impact.)

View on HN

Okay. I already do this to the best of my ability and have been for my adult life because I perform rudimentary cost benefit analysis and research my options for every possible purchase. While there are other steps I could take I lack the time, land, capital, or skills to install hydro/geo/thermal power at my house, or upgrade my homes perfectly average weatherization to class leading options.

I don't think my efforts have made any measurable impact on the climate, but I always want to make sure I'm not missing a step.

I think it's beginning to become clear that consumers cannot suffer climate change away and change must be forced upon the worst offenders first. Not taking responsibility off of myself, but recognizing that, despite my votes against Congress members that support, the military industrial complex, is still one of the worst polluters globally.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/06/13/report...

I think there's two related but different fights there.

The "worst offenders" are rich and powerful, and will argue very effectively and brutally to congress that they should be allowed to continue to get richer and more powerful. That's the nature of power. That's a political problem and needs political solutions.

But...

Their arguments are _so_ much more powerful when they can look at the congress members and say "No one cares anyway! Look at all the voters buying SUVs instead of hybrids or electrics! Look at them all flying to Vegas and Paris and Bankok every year! Look at them not installing solar power. They! Dont! Care! The VOTERS don't care!!! (Oh, and speaking of flying to Paris, here's 4 first class tickets, enjoy...)"

So, I think you're saying a couple of things. 1) what can you personally do to make a globally detectable change. I can't really think of anything. I can't think of a single person who contributes in a meaningful way to climate change. Atlas is a myth. there is no person holding the world on their shoulders. So, like, don't sweat it.

I want to highlight durability and repairability over disposability. I wasn't super explicit about it, so let me say it now. Cheap disposable shit sucks. Costs a lot to make, but it's cheaper than something that's durable, resealable, repairable. I think that there is a huge part of the problem. As a concrete example, my grandma had the same tv for like 40 years, and the cabinet wound up turning into something else for one of my cousins. I'm looking at a big TV, and I'm not super sure I'll be able to plug it into anything in 10 years, if it even still works. I like it, I don't regret my choice, but I really didn't have the option for a full spectrum cost/benefit. They just don't make things like that that will probably work in 50 years.

2) I'm not sure what you mean about consumers suffering climate change. Here's another (perhaps silly example) I got an original iPhone. I'd still use that if it was feasible. I mean, I've got it in a drawer, I could probably figure it out, but the whole system avoids any longevity or resale value. I think it wouldn't take too much effort to shift just a little bit to longevity. I have a fancy pants phone, it's stupid. I didn't have a choice about getting a new phone cause the old one broke. The old one shouldn't have broken, it should have been a lot easier to find someone's hand me down. Right now that's like taking some rando from craigslist cash. ugh.

3) I have complicated thoughts about the military. I absolutely believe the US military is one of the worst offenders. The US military was also one of the first to integrate with respect to race, and later with respect to gender.

I think you've identified a real opportunity, that's a place that could absolutely lead the way. Finding the political will do actually do something is pretty tough. all the old arguments will come out - this endangers the safety of the nation.

-- final edit -- This is tasteless, I'll honor it. Was perhaps trying to appear committed, but it's more of an arrogant ass thing to close with. --

Tell you what though, if you think you can fix it, I'll donate $100 to your campaign, or charity. my username at gmail. ping me and I'll honor my claim.

-- terms and conditions edit -- it's gotta be you. not, of your choice. You. I might also need a link to this to remember how silly I am from time to time.

1. Would require legal changes. Until it is less profitable to make cheap junk that doesn't last and isn't repairable companies will not stop ravaging the environment in their reckless pursuit of profit. Consumers are trapped by this. In the exceptionally rare case where a company does manufacturer their products to be durable and repairable they tend to be exceptionally expensive niche items.

2. What I mean is this. Consumers cannot shop and boycott their way out of climate change. Reusable grocery bags/straws may give the consumer a hit of dopamine but these actions amount to little more than virtue signaling in terms of the effect they have on the environment. When no company offers a compromise free environmentally friendly durable and repairable alternative in any category consumers are trapped. This is the case with most products, and is why consumers cannot sacrifice (money, time, convenience) their way out of climate change.

3. Okay? Back to square one. That's the same sort of rhetoric we get about shuttering coal mines.

4. If I think of a way to solve global warming for $100 I'll definitely call on you to pay up.

Even if everyone in the world did everything that you're saying here would it be enough to have a positive measurable effect on the total co2 in the atmosphere?

If everyone in the world chose fuel efficient vehicles and carpooled or used mass transit appropriately, yes, that would have a measurable long run effect. It wouldn't be enough on its own to completely solve the problem but it would be progress.

Then the answer is no.

I will not pay more taxes indirectly for feelings

Yawn. Excusing your abdication of personal duty to future generations through hand-wavey ideology.

It’s ok for previous generations to pay for the roads that allow you to travel and sell your wares or skills but a tax on your pollution to stave off mass re-settling of people in your lifetime would violate your sensibilities.

I already paid for the "roads" three times and still paying in taxes on fuel.

The answer to what is no? I don't think anyone asked you a question.

Many of the most fuel efficient vehicles are relatively cheaper than the less fuel efficient ones. For example, luxury sedans and sports cars tend to be less efficient than economy sedans, but economy sedans are (perhaps obviously from the name) cheaper. So by doing the environmentally efficient thing, you would actually be saving money, not spending more.

You used a question mark can't you see?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24361000

I don't see any question mark, nor any question.

You are right I mean to answer to the parent poster.

(yes, I can accept I am wrong) :)

No hard feelings!

If enough people (not even everyone, just enough that the single digit percent voting majority a lot of politicians have in their electorates looks potentially like it could swing towards environmentalism), it'd send a message with a huge multiplier potential. Individual actions are important, because corporate and government change will not happen from the top down, it _has_ to be pushed from the bottom up.

Yes, the money you spend has a pretty strong correlation with your environmental impact. I remember a presentation from Jeffrey Sachs that put a sustainable level of spending at about $10,000 USD per person. There are no Teslas on a green planet.

I have the impression that average spending is about $10K per person, for the whole world. I don't have any opinion about whether that's sustainable, but I don't think there's any reason why sustainability requires equality of consumption.

Given that it was for a US audience I assumed it was adjusted for purchasing parity. After all the main point of the talk was the problem is real and caused by excess consumption.

It is an interesting point about equality given that the problem really does originate from the richer parts of the world. A subsistence farmer in Africa is going to have a carbon footprint several orders of magnitude smaller than the typical SV inhabitant.

Even now poorer countries are arguing that they should be able to increase their emissions because they haven't created the problem. At the same time politicians in the richer part of the world are terrified of falling living standards. Because of this I doubt we can fix it in time but if we did it would probably look somewhat socialistic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com