Hacker News Reader

Comment by blondie9x | Hacker News Reader

There are two ways to solve climate change. Lower the population or lower consumption. Efficiency gains such as these are a way to lower consumption and we should be continue to focus on regulations that drive towards lower consumption. Population control is still largely taboo so lowering consumption is the only way out of climate change at this point.

View on HN

Seems like it would make a lot more sense to focus on things that really use lots of energy. Focusing on sleeping computers is like a certain wise man said a couple thousand years ago: straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

All venues need to be examined. Some with more intensity than others. But you must still look into solutions.

The hand that prioritizes the execution order of that search seems to be taking the scenic route to effectual change to the point it makes one suspect whether they are optimizing to get anything done at all, or maximizing odds of holding on to the reins of power.

You missed an option: more renewable electricity generation.

That is just shifting consumption but there are tradeoffs to that as well. Make sure you are mindful of the curves. Exponential year over year rise in greenhouse gas emissions in CO2 CH4 SF6 N20. Renewables help. But not enough. Lowering consumption is the main way to stop climate change.

This doesn't make any sense at all to me. Aren't renewable energy sources like solar and wind zero-emission? How am I contributing to climate change even slightly if I'm using power entirely from these sources?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com