Climate change, simple things and hypocrisy | Hacker News Reader

Climate change, simple things and hypocrisy

1 pointanother_why10 comments

When it comes to climate change everyone here knows how to fix it: stop eating cows, use solar batteries, build you own windmill, grow your own food, jog... and other "simple" things "everyone can do". But I rarely see(if ever) that for achieving those things at once, lets say 10 years, taxes of developed countries will have to be channeled from social security to this noble cause. Therefore, elders in developed countries will lose several years of their life while people in the third world countries, the ones who will pay for the bigger part of this banquet, will have to eat less. But that's just a nuance.

Everyone is waiting until "stupid and corrupted politicians" will realize how important this threat is, but they won't. Their job is not evaluating environmental threats, it's evaluating of how much corporations can take at the moment without people going too angry and being reelected, so they could continue that next year. There is only one way for politicians to understand how important this is - you should stop being calm. No researches, graphs and posts on forums can make them do something about it

Many of you have relatively high salaries which cover all your basic needs:time, good food, shelter, clothes, personal transport, even kids(now THAT is a real luxury). So where do you spend the rest of your resources? I understand that reducing your carbon footprint, designing and building a house on a renewable energy(with a windmill) makes you feel like you did something useful, but it's no different than growing a beautiful tree in your garden while looking how a whole forest is burning to the ground nearby. "I made a difference! Everyone should do like me!" But they wont, they dont have access to the same resources as you do - education, money and time. If you are THAT uninterested in doing something for the thing which you consider important, then, instead of pretending, you would've better donated all that for a medical research. You know, save a couple of lives for real

With the set of skills and resources people have here a real thing can be done, main thing, when it comes to influencing people:activism and propaganda. But you waste them on sorting trash.

“ When it comes to climate change everyone here knows how to fix it: stop eating cows, use solar batteries, build you own windmill, grow your own food, jog... and other simple things.”

I couldn’t disagree more. This is one of the biggest failures of the modern environmental movement. The individualization of environmental guilt. See https://medium.com/@mitpress/individualization-plant-a-tree-...

We need systemic change. Not pressing the eco button on your solar powered dishwasher.

That was a sarcasm. Updated to make it clear

It's still not very clear.

Fundamental attribution error. I got used to people around me considering these measures a joke(which they are if we take into account the size of the problem ).

The problem, I think, is that it's a mix of things that are obviously silly (your own windmill) with things that aren't bad ideas (reducing meat consumption) and stuff that's just irrelevant (jogging). That makes it unclear what kind of sarcasm you're going for.

Even if your friends all know that these are pointless, the whole reason you're posting is that other people do believe them. So you know that there are people reading it who won't agree, especially since some are sillier than others. It's confusing.

Not that I disagree with your argument; see my longer response below. Just giving the usual lecture about sarcasm on the interwebz.

> The problem, I think, is that it's a mix of things that are obviously silly (your own windmill) with things that aren't bad ideas (reducing meat consumption) and stuff that's just irrelevant (jogging). That makes it unclear what kind of sarcasm you're going for.

Yeah, i guess you're right. I don't talk to people everyday and that's my excuse :) Though, individual reduction of meat consumption, while being a good idea for your health, can influence the problem at hand only if everyone suddenly will stop eating it. And i don't think that this will happen - the majority's lifestyle and resources are too different from the resources available for the majority of people who already care about climate change. It's good for your health, but as tool to influence climate change? - nah, to me it sounds like sorting trash while knowing that the countries which produce a thousand times more trash just throw it into the ocean.

> activism and propaganda

The problem with both of those is that they create a backlash. Just because you're very convinced doesn't mean you can easily convince others, your attempt might even be hijacked by populists that are more than keen to capitalise on people's fear of change.

You'd also have a problem with numbers. Not everyone wants to be an activist, and you have billions of others to convince. https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by... Maybe you can convince USA to clean up, what about China, India, and Russia?

Anyway, I'm not here to argue, just trying to offer some counterpoints.

>Just because you're very convinced doesn't mean you can easily convince others, your attempt might even be hijacked by populists that are more than keen to capitalise on people's fear of change.

It's a fight for what is important. There's no other way.

> Not everyone wants to be an activist, and you have billions of others to convince.

You don't need to strike in front of the white house anymore. There are different ways to participate - like creating a video blog with a big team behind each video: infographics, analysis, video editing, motion graphics, news about climate disasters, explaining why all those researches are important and what those numbers mean, translate and voice in different languages. Tiktok, Youtube, Reddit, Twitter, HackeRank.

But, as it was said in another comment, it's easier to "press the eco button on your solar powered dishwasher".

> Maybe you can convince USA to clean up, what about China, India, and Russia?

Corporations are influenced by money and money only. You increase the taxes in developed countries on "bad products"(or stop the import completely on nonessential things) - you get the result. All the buyers of China, India and Russia are in developed countries, one way or another. But there is a price to pay - poor people in developed countries will become even more poor, although, this effect also can be downplayed by fighting for the rights of workers.

>Anyway, I'm not here to argue, just trying to offer some counterpoints.

And thank you for that, I appreciate it.

There is activism and propaganda. There is also counter-activism and counter-propaganda, and they're pretty effective. Tons of people don't accept that climate change is real (or even if real, not our responsibility), and they have allies who may accept that it's a problem but far from their top priority.

The result is enough votes in enough places to stop any political solution. Even if there's a majority, the rules are designed to prevent action unless the majority is overwhelming.

People and up doing something, even though they suspect it's not very effective. It at least diminishes the accusation of hypocrisy, that they're not taking it seriously -- not that it matters, since the counter-propaganda will leap on any instance of hypocrisy as proof that the entire movement is wrong. Check any HN argument on climate change, and wait to see how long it take for Al Gore's jet to come up.

It's a poor argument, but it's sufficient to keep the US from overcoming its designed-in bias for inaction.

> There is activism and propaganda.

My point is that it have to be targeted towards people below the median wage and especially kids.

> The result is enough votes in enough places to stop any political solution. Even if there's a majority, the rules are designed to prevent action unless the majority is overwhelming.

Sure, that's what i meant. Kids who are 13 now will be able to vote in 5 years and they can be convinced much easier. But I didn't manage to find anything popular in the form which will be comprehensible and interesting for them while keeping arguments and information, not just "CO2 is bad. Bad-bad-bad".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com