What you can do is:
* a) find someone working on climate change, and help write software for them part-time as a volunteer
* b) brainstorm an idea for a site/app, and build it yourself (and of course post it to HN)
* c) quit your job, join an organization focused on climate change, and do some work
* d) start researching more about climate change until you can make a better choice about a or b or c
If you can't commit a big chunk of time to it, then research good orgs focused on climate change, and donate money to them (or angel invest in them). That's the next best thing you can do.
Not having kid is the most effective thing anyone can do.
You can just adopt instead, raise them to be ethical. It should not be so controversial. You can be a parent without giving birth.
Also bringing a kid without their consent to this dying planet and then make them fix it (which due to their ancestor's screw ups and comfort) looks like a punishment by parents, pretty selfish. These kids already have jobs to perform before even born. I sure don't want my kids to suffer this disaster and without their consent.
Data conclusively indicates real-world climate change is tracking RCP8.5, the IPCC’s “worst case scenario”.
Clearly you don’t have children if you think having a child doesn’t change your lifestyle.
> Also bringing a kid without their consent to this dying planet and then make them fix it…looks like a punishment by parents, pretty selfish
Here’s a tip, don’t use this line on a first date.
Regarding lifestyle, I chose wrong word, not my first language. It's what and how you want your life that you don't want to compromise for climate crisis.
On the one hand, it is a very effective way to reduce your carbon footprint if you can do it. On the other hand, for many people it conflicts with one of the most basic human desires, which is life-defining for lots of the population.
As an analogy, if you asked people to be celibate you could guarantee that no new babies would come along even if birth-control-methods failed; a huge net positive! Despite that, sex is a basic human experience that many see as integral to their vision of a life, and it'd be controversial to seemingly impose that restriction on others.
tl;dr: no controversy in you doing you, sometimes controversy in you asking others to similarly do you
Yet each of these actions can be quantified in terms of CO2 no emitted or resources preserved. There is an impact, and that impact becomes apparent given sufficient scale and time.
One's choice not to have kids could very well provide exponential savings when compared to one's personal lifetime emissions/consumption when looking over generations.
I'm _very_ excited to be a tiny part in helping humanity solve one of our biggest problems.
- Just found this: https://workonclimate.org/
Individual action matters a lot. Yes corporations are those that need to carry out the ultimate change. So the thing where corporations "blame" individuals for climate/pollution is bogus. But as consumers and as employees we have a strong impact on the environment and should advocate for that.
It even rings a bit hypocritical if subsequently you say support organizations that put the onus elsewhere.
Eat meat, but only meat that is sustainably raised. Depending on the size of your lawn, you probably can raise a couple meat or egg chickens on the natural flora/fauna in your yard and table scraps. There are CSAs that raise only pastured eggs/chicken/hogs/beef without fossil-based grain inputs.
Meat is healthy, but yes, it is fossil-intensive in the modern era. But it doesn't have to be. There are zero-fossil options.
I just don't think being a vegetarian has impact... it's something you do to keep consistent with your worldview or morality, not to mitigate climate change.
An individual's actions does have an impact, albeit a small one. It is measurable (CO2 savings from not eating that meat). Discouraging individuals from participating in individual efforts will prevent the group from achieving scale.
In the past, workers formed unions and collectively bargained with governments and employers to reduce working hours down to the standard work week we know today. We could reduce this further to a 4- or a 3-day work week.
We could also use collective worker power to demand many other things, such as stricter environmental standards in the workplace, just as we bargained for stricter health standards in the past. Or better environmental standards for children in schools or for public spaces, just as we bargained for children's rights and other standards in the past. (All these modern standards were fought for, they were not handed out freely)
Unions are bad for environment. They block progress and force subsidies on old, inefficient and dirty technologies. Soviet Union had horrible environmental record.
[0] https://qz.com/690321/leonardo-dicaprio-took-an-outrageous-8...
How does a culture change? It starts with a courageous minority [1], composed of many individuals, who have "no impact as a consumer" but collectively they do have the power to influence the majority.
[1] https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
We've done it due to Covid and it mostly worked OK. Now it has to be improved and expanded.
This means that the following are going to take too long:
- "Doing your part", i.e. the regular "don't eat meat", "consume environmentally friendly things", and all those things that will only work over a horizon of 100+ years.
- Accumulating a ton of wealth and then using it to lobby. This would have worked 50 years ago but we need people to use this kind of big money NOW.
- Helping activists set up their websites and other tech things. We're past the point where activism alone will save us.
Our world has just started runaway heating, and Arctic methane is now being released, which is 100x worse than carbon. The ONLY thing that can save us at this point is a hail Mary shot of sequestration of greenhouse gases and at the same time, active cooling of the planet. Build this kind of tech, or join others building it. There are a few companies coming out that do this kind of thing. We need breathing room above all else, because even with tech 50 years is very little time.
Edit: Aaaand now the downvotes. I don't know why I even bother contributing here.
We are very reliant on industry/automation as an efficiency multiplier for sustinance. Really, anything that disrupts our ability to automate in the long term (power/water/comms/logistics/chip fab), disrupts our ability to farm industrially, which lowers Earth's carrying capacity. Which risks a large die-off, which risks more of the above.
Humans are really bad at anticipating cascade failures.
If you need less money, work for a nonprofit focused on environmental issues or research. Working for a politician's campaign might be a good way to apply tech, marketing, or management skills.
Don't volunteer. The vast majority of the value is for the volunteer, not for the nonprofit.
When you're a (very) part-time volunteer, you'll never get deep enough into their problems that your contributions will outweigh the cost to manage/train you.
It's better to advance your own career and donate money to full-time people who are able to devote all of their work time to the issue.
(Source: ran a nonprofit for a few years that sourced skilled volunteers for other orgs)
* Reading a lot! I recommend Bill Gates' "How to Avoid a Climate Disaster" and Paul Hawken's "Drawdown". The path to zero carbon emissions seems impossible, but the more I read, the more the solutions seem intertwined, which gives me hope.
* Writing down my ideas and the information I learn. Helps me to organize my thoughts and find the holes in my thinking. Here is a link to my blog (this is the first time I've shared it with anyone other than my wife): https://simpleclimatefixes.herokuapp.com/
* Talking to people. I have a few friends that work in sustainability and in the energy sector. I have also been calling and meeting with local solar panel installers and manufacturers. Trying to understand the challenges they face.
* Coming up with ideas and trying to build them. I'd be happy to help other businesses (probably part-time, but potentially full-time), but I think I'll be more useful if I have a better understanding of the landscape and there is no better way to be acquainted with an industry than trying to start a business in it.
I'm currently in the early stages of vetting an idea in the residential solar panel industry. I'd be happy to share it if anyone is interested. Love to hear feedback!
Interested in hearing more about the idea you are vetting.
My idea is to allow homeowners to sell their excess inventory using virtual net metering. At least in NY, energy companies buy the excess solar inventory from homeowners at the end of the year, but it is at slightly more than the wholesale price of the energy, which is less than half of the true cost on someone's energy bill.
My hope is that if a homeowner could capture 100% of the value that their solar panels generate, they would be encouraged to maximize the number of solar panels they add to their home. Otherwise, homeowners tend to limit the number of panels they add to the amount of energy they expect to use, which adds complexity since the amount of energy someone uses can vary over time.
I still need to understand a lot more on how virtual net metering works, but that's the crux of it.
1. Run a small solar array on my balcony, with recycled lithium batteries for storage. I've made ~100kW of power which I use to basically charge all my devices.
2. Growing Algae two do two things- producing biomass to convert into bio-fuel down the road, and remove carbon from the air.
Rooftop solar & going electric (and destroying your gas car so you're taking it off the road) is the easiest to do, followed by helping others do the same. Off the top of my head, if you own your house see if you can work out a group deal with your neighbors and subsidize their cost. https://ecologi.com and https://www.arcadia.com can give you a feeling of doing something (while actually doing something, even if it's very small.
None of these things really move the needle. If you want to do something, the cold reality of it is some constructive destructive actions need to be taken against the largest polluters- energy companies, major food conglomerates that consume large amounts of plastic, commercial shipping, and others. Pick your poison.
Yoooo. So here's an actual, legit idea I have. A community platform to raise money to donate roof-top solar systems to public schools. Has to be focused, where it's clear the goal and the target area. "We're raising $1,000,000 to fund a solar system in this region. Here are our candidates and our local contract partner." Once that's accomplished, you find a school and get the green light. You work with the contractor to secure an actual cost, and then fundraise for the rest. Then it's installed. Target schools and districts in areas of high coal/dirty power and fund-raise for a full roof-top system for them with some energy storage.
This does two things- allows the schools to spend money elsewhere which helps improve the quality of life in the are (and I'm sure it will be known where the money comes from, but also removes a fairly large consumer of municipal energy.
In high school, I just thought it was cool because I could have as much free algae as possible, which otherwise would be $125 each.
Lately I've been primarily growing Chlorella (gold standard of hardy algae), an endemic strain to my current location, and Haematococcus pluvialis - a strain that produces large amounts of the anti-oxidant astaxanthin[1]. h
[0] - ttps://utex.org/ [1] - https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/SSS...
You make your own biofuel?
I would suggest focusing on work that motivates and scales, just as people do in the for-profit sector. Activism that puts political and economic pressure on the large corporations who are the worst polluters provide the biggest bang for the buck. As just one example, there is a movement to divest from fossil fuel companies. Better software might help activists reach more people and mobilize them to pressure the boards of the universities they work for, etc.
Another issue we currently have in the country is that corporate interests collect huge amounts of data to sway elections, while activists without those same deep pockets are outmatched and outgunned. So any software that helps support voter turnout, voter equity, etc., would also indirectly help address climate change and other injustices.
Lots of people have this idea, including me in the past.
It doesn't work. Nonprofit professionals aren't stupid. They know volunteers disappear as soon as something else comes up (paid work, kids, just wanting to relax, etc.) Most of them won't waste their time with "skilled volunteers."
If you want to help a cause, you have to get into the mud. It needs to be your focus. These are complex problems with lots of stakeholders that are highly tuned to whether you actually give a shit or whether you're a tourist trying to make yourself feel better about working for a big corporation.
If you're not totally set on doing direct work for climate change, you could consider a similar strategy. In my case, I think it's probably more impactful than I could be if I tried to pivot into a climate-related career.
This, or starting/joining a worker's union that can similarly exert political power through the labor force. We need radical change right now and that will need radical tactics.
Ironically enough, even though Chinese is the biggest contributor of greenhouse gases right now, they're likely going to be the least in a few decades, considering how much engineering they're putting into nuclear reactor research and experimentation.
Basically he had the same question, talks about the themes in the posters, empower - engage - cultivate - electrify. When asked what the average person can do, his answer was basically 'donate money to elect democrats' and honestly I agree. You can spend thousands of dollars or thousands of hours of volunteering, but its the politicians that are deciding how to spend trillions. Outside of that, I can recommend the book "Climate - a new story" by Charles Eisenstein, it argues against focusing on a single metric of CO2 ppm (and includes an aside on the war-analogy we default to when we decide to fight something ;). Basically it suggests we focus more on creating a healthy biosphere, explains the connections between weather, chemistry, and life. It's got me convinced that planting trees is the right approach, but not just to sequester carbon, but to increase the amount and variety of life on earth.
But it's the individual consumer that's ultimately responsible for all of the emissions? Corporations aren't emitting carbon for their own enjoyment.
> Just 100 of all the hundreds of thousands of companies in the world have been responsible for 71% of the global GHG emissions that cause global warming since 1998, according to The Carbon Majors Database, a report recently published by the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP)...
I can see changing subsidies around to make meat more expensive as a matter of public policy being more effective at changing individual behavior than trying to convince them on moral grounds.
It won't happen by buying different stuff, but by spending our time working on projects with others that are not supporting the current system but are building a different one that is not as destructive for the climate.
But working for "the next Tesla" would be the most potential positive impact, given that Tesla has already achieved its goal of forcing the car industry towards EVs.
You could make a list of the most harmful industries and work at a company trying to force them into change, like Tesla is doing with the auto industry.
Lobby your company to create eco scholarships to fund ecological degrees.
Work on 3d modeling and help design devices which can change how we build homes and lower energy costs through passive designs.
Find ecology centric open-source projects and donate your skills.
We are trained to build a carbon intensive world. Our tools, our philosophy and our expectation require ssomehow more clusters hidden on a fancy new cloud architecture. Our optimization will be not compensated by the rebound effect.
Personally, I am totally a part of it. My neural networks require 64 V100 GPUs to be trained. And that's the optimized version!
I think we should seriously reset our way of life and create a new fun life that is sustainable and inspiring.
I believe that the agriculture is the area with the highest leverage effect. So my plan for the next 3 years is to sell all the shits I invested in, buy a farm, grow vegetables without chemical fertilizers, and invite my friends in joining this journey. What not adding some visual based monoriting tools or, some small robots, to automatize and scale this permaculture approach. That's fun and I am not so bad at it.
I mean, we think of PCs, internet, tech, as the start of a new revolution of efficiency, which sounds like a good thing. But this just makes consumerism so much easier: products are there when you want them to be, you can make hundreds of impulse purchases a day without leaving your home, etc., which is the demand source of all these problems.
I looked into the vegan vs locavore tussle and it seems to me they fought to a standstill. So I still eat meat(I'm low carb for health reasons). I buy from the farmers market and I'm lucky to have access to a local bison farm(carbon negative - look it up).
Next I’d say decarbonize your life! Most people emit everyday carbon from a small number of big things: transport, home heating and cooling, etc. Luckily, all the fossil fuel powered machines that do these things have electric replacements that actually save money in the long run! Electric cars already have the lowest cost of ownership of any car and heat pump space and water heaters are waaay more efficient than burning gas or oil. So replace you car with an electric the next time you need a car, replace your furnace with a heat pump, replace your gas stove with an induction stove, etc. Pretty much everyone in America needs to do this ASSP if we have any chance of hitting 2 degrees and your example would influence those around you.
You can also donate to Rewiring America which is the only organization I’ve found with an actual concrete engineering-based plan to meet climate goals: https://rewiringamerica.org
Real problem and solutions:
- energy -> Need hydro or nuclear. Everything else is just marketing bullshit. Windmills aren't reliable, you still need a way to store the energy and have a backup. If you factor in the cost of that backup and other solutions, you soon realize that hydro (or nuclear if hydro isn't possible) is way more cost efficient.
- transportation -> Living in a suburb should have a penalty cost. Just compare the environmental impact between an apartment in a city and a mansion in a suburb with 5 cars. One is killing the planet much faster, there should be a penalty for it. I'm not saying forbid living in a suburb, I'm saying there should be an additional cost to living in a suburb because of the environmental impact.
- greenhouse gases -> penalty cost in proportion to the damage caused (for instance, buying meat from livestock should be WAY more expensive.)
It seems like we'll need to wait until the Earth is almost doomed before implementing these policies, but then it might be too late. Maybe another way is to have a "bad guy climate change" that all political party would need to take into account as part of their mandate, so the votes would be about who can best solve these issues rather than whether they should be tackled.
Furthermore, mixing solar, wind, hydro, geo thermal etc provides an additional level of reliability and scale. These are all very reliable when combined together and need fewer storage options.
And yes, some storage makes sense. Not a lot, but the value here is the fast response time for peaks/lows in consumption.
Notice I'm not against nuclear which is a valid option. But right now the financials don't back nuclear as much as it did 5 years ago. Building a nuclear plant is expensive and slow. The costs didn't drop since you need a completely different level of security/reliability. The cost of renewables dropped like a stone. You can build them almost instantly since objections are low by comparison. So you'd end up solving things much faster with renewables than you would with nuclear, no PC involved.
Agree in general, yet from what i've read most of the worlds hydro (read: river) resources are already being tapped extensively. Although hydro makes up a healthy chunk today, can it expand and grow along with our increasing energy demands when we've already tapped the largest rivers? I am curious if you have sources that show hydro can grow.
I recall reading this counter to hydro in a Smil book (Growth I believe) although I will have to double check which one.
If you don't want to do politics, it seems like something related to modeling and/or controlling machinery is probably relevant. Solar concentrators for high-temperature manufacturing (particularly cement/aluminium), ultra-high-temperature electrolysis of steel, and better heat pumps to replace gas heaters, all come to mind as important carbon-reducing technologies that might require a software component, although I can't say exactly how.
We won't make it with individual contributions of consuming a bit less. Of course it makes sense to do it at some degree.
Go to every climate strike out there. Including 24.09.2021 is the next global climate strike. Make sure to be there and take your family, friends and colleagues with you.
2. Have less kids or no kids.
3. Drive an EV or don't own a car at all (if possible).
4. Avoid air travel.
5. Eat less meat or no meat.
6. Work for companies who are growing rapidly in the EV, renewable energy/energy storage, carbon sequestration, and lab grown ag space. Push out fossil fuel usage for electricity and transportation.
(in that order)
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-...
Lets start with the assumption that it is possible to make a meaningful impact on climate change by significantly reducing our consumption, this requires significant sacrifices to an individuals lifestyle.
I'm talking big pictured stuff like not eating meat, no more international travel, no personal vehicles, less spend on medicine reducing life expectancy, limits on number of children.
Lets say we have credible evidence that if these things are done the situation will improve.
Now whether you take the perspective of being an individual, member of a community or even a country, why would you make those sacrifices if you have no guarantee that everyone else will. It's a big price to pay to 'set an example'.
If that doesn't work we're fucked.
Geo-engineering, co2 capture and other tech are the only solution.
The strange part is that even on HN people seem to think technological solutions are immoral. As if humans need to be punished for their ‘climate sins’ by lowering their living standard and comfort instead of just fixing the problem with our brains.
If you look at the raw numbers here: https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-pe...
Even if we get the whole world down to India per capita averages, at 2 tons per capita, that's a global reduction of 60%. And it's maybe just barely enough? But I don't see a future where the world volunteers to go down to India living standards. And it's definitely not going to happen by a few people going vegetarian.
I think you're right. Fixing it in a way that doesn't require much lifestyle change is the only way out. Though finding anyone willing to pay for the fix is still a problem.
(That said, I'd happily encourage lifestyle changes too).
Nor a future where developing countries choose to stop growing to save the planet.
I also think most people would rather pay a bit more taxes to pay for climate tech than change their whole lifestyle. We’re betting on the wrong horse.
I wish it were easier. I don't believe it is.
Happy to relax restrictions for you to access data if you'd like to poke around and interested in understanding how climate has changed in various locations around the world.
Join Airminers! Carbon capture is really the only solution at this point. https://airminers.org/
Preventing carbon release is a political problem, and OP could work to support pro-environment politicians.
did a great video on this earlier today
Hell of a lot more effective than punishing yourself to reduce global meat consumption by .00000001% .
Or just come to terms with the fact that for good or bad you just don't matter and try to live your life without doing unnecessary excessive harm.
Yes it is not effective if you're the only one in the world doing it, but it has always been about convincing others to drastically reduce or stop completely, whether through word of mouth or policy change.
Producing animal products is unsustainable and come with enormous environmental impacts [1][2]. We need both top-down and bottom-up approaches. So it's worthwhile what individuals and companies/governments choose to do. It's not one or the other.
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food [2] https://ourworldindata.org/land-use
But you aren't going to convince me that it's fixing any problem.
I'll continue to be honest.
At that scale it really doesn't matter at all. It's a percentage of a percentage. The reverse of orders of magnitudes.
I guess when you are running a G20 country let me know and then at that point I would still say you're in for a struggle. I won't hold my breath.
So yeah. Your and my individual actions don't mean the slightest thing for climate change regardless of how you frame it. I'm sorry if that narrative doesn't make you feel good.
Looks like you do agree that at real scale it would have an impact. But whether you're an individual or a G20 leader, none of what we do matters?
I do agree we're locked into a web of incentives that discourages us from making sustainable choices. It's not any single person's fault. A few individuals giving up meat won't slow down climate change. At the same time, consuming more and more meat like we do now certainly helps accelerate it. Not to mention what we eat is only a small part of the equation. Now we're looking at changing our behaviours in many other areas too.
It's a predicament indeed. What can people actually do? They can continue business as usual, or worse, double down and consume even more, or they can change their behaviour. Each action is a vote. Just like in elections, one vote doesn't matter, a lot of votes do.
Yes it may not matter. Yes they might be hypocrites and just doing it to make their egos feel good. Or maybe they just want to be more compassionate and do what they can to contribute no matter how small. And in a violent world like ours, if there are people wanting to make compassionate choices, we should encourage them.
Of course we don't need eat meat every day but stop eating meat completely sounds like hypocrisy for me and could be dangerous for health, especially for kids.
[1] https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/red-meat-and-...
Less humans will surely make more effect than any of other things you do. You can just adopt instead and raise them.
I would also accept "pay people to not have kids", similar to how some countries pay people to have kids [1] [2] [3] [4]. Not having kids has value, and hence those who choose not to should be compensated appropriately.
EDIT: @EForEndeavour: People who have children receive tax credits and benefits simply for having them (US centric) and their future impacts are externalities.
[1] https://qz.com/200728/what-countries-around-the-world-give-t...
[2] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carte_famille_nombreuse
[3] https://www.france24.com/en/20130611-why-french-women-make-m...
1. Think about how many kids you want to have and then have at least one less than that number (assuming your number was greater than zero to begin with).
2. Give these two answers whenever you are asked this question in the future.
But additionally I'd say it's something that conservatives and liberals can agree on. We'll disagree on what to cut, but I think lots of people see the national debt as a problem. To make any dent in this whole thing we'll need support from both sides. It's no help to communicate in an echo chamber.
This is stupid. Choosing to not have a kid will have absolutely no effect on climate change and would make life less fulfilling.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/does-having-children-make-people-...
You can fill in the blanks with anything and still have a fulfilled life.
I want to be a billion, but I won't because I'm poor.
I want to travel to 100 countries, but I won't because climate change and lack of time.
I want to eat steak every night, but I won't because climate change and impact to my health.
These compromises don't make me unable to have a fulfilling life.
Look up "effective altruism" and find some recommended charities to donate to.
Surely that'll help even more, since it includes everything at once - no meat consumption, no travel, no cars, etc.
Edit: This guy eats meat without any greenhouse emissions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TO-LFVHpA4s