Hacker News Reader

Comment by potbelly83 | Hacker News Reader

How about first tackling the low hanging fruit like a) private jet flights b) cruise ships c) methane production by agriculture rather than again putting all the responsibility on the working/middle classes?

View on HN

Those don't at all feel like low-hanging fruit.

International regulation requires global coordination. And there's always going to be some country that uses non-compliance as a way to make money. This makes A and B very difficult and expensive to tackle.

And C will never happen because big-agra is incredibly powerful.

By contrast, the EPA is a single entity that's powerful enough to enact and enforce changes across the entire USA.

I feel like people don't realize just how effective EPA initiatives are in this space. Energy Star regulations have drastically increased the efficiency of appliances all across the world. And have done so in only 30 years.

That will adversely impact the lives of the rich which push for the common man to take the blunt of the economic pain, which is a non starter.

In general I agree with you. Pretty much any regulation meant to target the rich ends up coming back to bite the middle class somehow. That being said, after thinking about it for awhile, I have really struggled to come up with a scenario where there is negative consequences for common folks caused by more regulation of private jets. Worst thing I can think of is the disruption of aerospace jobs that it would cause.

While I agree with your sentiment. Whataboutism can always find a better target. What about tackling coal plants first? What about China reducing their emissions first? That line of reasoning will only achieve keeping the status quo in place.

I hope we can make the transition as fair as possible but with the limited time we have left, we have to push on all fronts at the same time.

Making sure you factor in the opportunity cost of a particular course of action when alternative actions exist is not the same as whataboutism.

There is a limit (for better or worse) to the throughput of political actions (at least in a representative government). Care must be taken when deciding which priority to pursue.

> private jet flights

Why not all flights? It shouldn't be so cheap to fly for pleasure OR business given the climate externalities caused by _every_ flight.

Many middle class European families travel to exotic far-away destinations by flight. It would be political suicide in Europe to make flying more expensive than it already is.

Many people love to travel to exotic far-away destinations in the US too. Many of these people look down their nose at people in the suburbs who drive large SUVs as being wasteful. People always want others to do the sacrificing.

How about moving the working/middle class from single family homes to apartment complexes and starting using public transportation instead of cars? That would certainly be more energy efficient than cancelling a few private jet flights.

So the lower class folks have to uproot their lives so that the rich can continue theirs?

How about letting people live like they want?

As long as they pay full cost that includes offsetting emissions, why not? How about offering them an affordable alternative to what’s considered luxury in many parts of the world?

There is the instinct that must be contended against with all our might: Removing choice.

"Make" everyone live in an apartment, because they shouldn't have the choice. "Make" everyone give up their personal transportation (mobility). "Make" everyone switch to solar or geothermal.

Substitute "make" with "force" and you'll have the correct understanding of what kind of government mechanisms we'd be empowering to achieve these ends. Removing choice is the wrong instinct.

Working to price external costs in, so they get factored in to choices, can sway the choices, but you're not forcing people, or making a way for one group of people to force some other group of people to certain actions.

Who’s removing choice? Do you have a lot of livable cities with a great public transportation system, where people don’t want to live in? Or you have a zoned suburbia with NIMBY lobby and gated communities, where people barely can afford to live in? When was the last time you took a bus or travelled by train?

Banning gas furnaces for new construction is removing choice.

> How about moving the working/middle class from single family homes to apartment complexes and starting using public transportation instead of cars? That would certainly be more energy efficient than cancelling a few private jet flights.

How about we move healthtech CTOs into dungeons deep underground, where no climate control is neccessary; and provide them a single terminal to continue working and a diet of 2000 kcal/day of the cheapest, most climate friendly vegan food? No spices -- too many food miles.

[The parent poster describes themselves as a "Healthtech CTO, entrepreneur, writing code since 1991, living in Berlin, Germany" (https://web.archive.org/web/20220906213159/https://news.ycom...)]

You are certainly overreacting to a proposal to live the same comfortable, affordable and energy-efficient lifestyle as the author. Why are you so triggered by that?

> ...a proposal to live the same comfortable, affordable and energy-efficient lifestyle as the author.

I figured I'd get a response like that.

> Why are you so triggered by that?

I'm not triggered. You were suggesting to coercively force major lifestyle choices (that just happen to be yours) onto other people (which "how about moving the the working/middle class..." clearly communicates). If you think that's fine, then you should give your empathy some exercise, and think about being treated similarly yourself.

So you do not understand the difference between oppression and regulation, do you? One thing is to lock up people in Auschwitz, another one is to require them to separate trash or to stop smoking in public places. Building livable cities where people could afford renting or buying a flat for less than $1000 is certainly not oppression. Yes, you cannot put a fancy big grill on a balcony to keep up with Joneses, sorry. But being able to pay the bills and contribute less to a climate change, would be worth it, right?

> Building livable cities where people could afford renting or buying a flat for less than $1000 is certainly not oppression.

You're shifting the goalposts: that's not what you said in your original comment. If that's what you meant, you communicated it very poorly.

> Yes, you cannot put a fancy big grill on a balcony to keep up with Joneses, sorry.

What's that even supposed to mean? I kind of get the feeling you're reacting to caricatures without understanding that they're distorted.

Oh, come on. What else would that be? Some crazy stuff like Soviet style forced relocation as a hyperbole for „don’t touch my private jet“? Einfamilienhaussiedlungsverbot?

How about we just move everybody into dormitories, feed them in institutional cafeterias, and hot-bunk the beds three shifts a day?

There's such a thing as "quality of life", and no one put you in charge of making those decisions for other people.

I bet you haven’t read other comments in thus thread and have never lived in a modern city with decent public transportation and welfare. Quality of life in Berlin or some random small town in Germany is certainly better for people with low income than in American suburbia, yet the working class does not have this choice The elites have already decided on what American lifestyle should look like, with all those highways cutting off cities in halves, zoning rules etc. So, go on, tell me more about the “choice”.

I bet you're wrong on both claims.

Not everyone enjoys living in a human zoo, dude. Really.

There are people who actually enjoy (e.g.) having a yard for the kids to play in that's not full of dog (or human) feces and used hypodermic needles.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com