Hacker News Reader

Comment by bryanlarsen | Hacker News Reader

"Lack of action" is just plain wrong.

If we would have done nothing, we'd be looking at about 6 degrees C of rise. If we stop at what we've done already, we're aiming for 4 degrees C. If our governments follow through on all our concrete commitments, we'd stop at about 2.5 degrees C. (Concrete commitments are specific, not nebulous like "net 0 by 2050").

2.5 degrees is still too much, but it's not nothing, far from it.

Saying "we've done nothing" is counter-productive IMO, it just encourages defeatism. IMO it's easier to do more when you acknowledge that what we have done has been effective.

View on HN

The problem I have is that the action is designed to cause no inconvenience whatsoever to anybody. 2.5C is going to cause megadeaths, and we in the west aren't interested in giving up our cars for it, or raising prices in our datacentres, producing less e-waste, and generally consuming less so we end up with less embodied energy in our lives, etc.

I mean, have YOU given up your car, moved entirely to renewables and stopped flying?

This attitude is exactly the problem. You twist it around to pin the blame on green activists somehow not doing enough in their personal lives, and no matter what they do, it's never enough. If he had given up his car, you'd ask when he'll give up meat. If he'd given up meat you'd ask when he'll put solar panels on his house, or whatever other excuse you can come up with to feel superior and justify doing nothing.

These things only work if everyone does them. If we want people to give up their cars we need massive investment in electrified public transit. Without that it is impossible for most people to survive without cars. A few people who have the freedom and the will to suffer under public transit choosing to give up their cars will do nothing to stop climate change.

> These things only work if everyone does them.

> You twist it around to pin the blame on green activists somehow not doing enough in their personal lives

Do we all have to do them.or not? That seems pretty simple. Yes, if you want everyone in the world to give up eg cake, then you need to start first. Otherwise you are virtue signaling - indicating group membership by taking no cost actions like wearing a pin, changing your facebook icon or commenting asserting others are not doing enough.

I too can tell other people to not drive or not eat meat. I don't because I still drive and I still eat meat.

> If we want people to give up their cars we need..

Now you are changing the problem.

I have never had a car. I'm 31 and I don't plan on having one. It is definitely a privilege to have planned my life around transport options that are more environmentally friendly, but I'm actually pretty committed to it.

As for renewables, I've bought shares in green energy in my pension and some in this scheme which allows people to co-own wind turbines:

https://rippleenergy.com/

When I buy my own home, I'll be installing an air source heat pump and solar panels.

As for flying, I've done it a few times but less than half a dozen flights in total in my life. My plan is to interrail one day.

So yes, actually I have more or less done what you suggested. It takes time and commitment, and the centre of my argument is that making the choices I have made should be easier than making the choices that contribute to climate change. Down vote all you like.

But we have done nothing. This is easy to demonstrate.

You're claiming that we've made some progress regarding climate action, and that counterfactually it could have been worse.

There is, essentially, one source of human CO2 emissions: fossil fuels.

If what you claim is true then we should have a set of fossil fuels that we know about, can easily exploit, but refuse to because we won't be using them. This is the only way we can make progress on reducing emissions.

So far the only limiting factor I know of for limiting fossil fuel extraction is the economic difficulty in extraction.

A war is happening right now in order to control more oil and natural gas production, if we already have more oil in gas known about than we need, why are we fighting this war?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com