Hacker News Reader

Comment by lwansbrough | Hacker News Reader

The truth is that until you, dear reader, are willing to give up your usage of your car and probably your AC, you are part of the problem.

And nobody is ready to hear that. But it's the truth. All this talk about "well so and so is a bigger problem" is generally not only wrong, but it's just useless finger pointing.

I no longer have a car, and I don't have AC. And I live my life accordingly. And sometimes it sucks. You should too.

View on HN

I used to feel this way (I bike commute and only turn on our AC maybe 3-4 times a year), but I've come to believe that this idea of personal responsibility is a major fossil fuel industry talking point.

The fact is, governments around the world provide massive subsidy to all sorts of industry's that tends to support GHG production. We're never going to get this under control until we demand our representatives change the policy and incentive structures for a large majority of industry out there. It's not just cooling and cars/trucks. It's agriculture, heating, almost all of transportation/shipping, a majority of power consumption, etc.

But the entrenched powers at be want you to think that this is a personal responsibility issue, because lots of people stand to lose lots of money once we realize that the only thing that can fix this issue is a massive restructuring of worldwide government policy and incentives.

Yes and no. You are correct that it needs government and regulatory action to get the problem under any sort of control. However, it needs a critical mass of individuals that take it upon themselves to live by example. Otherwise, the administrations will always default to “look, we would really like to change something, but the majority of our constituents just can’t handle the drastic change”.

We need to show that it is possible to live a better life AND we need the government to force everyone to the same standard who is dragging their feet.

The government forms policy around popular opinion. If people don’t believe their impact is important than their government won’t affect policy that makes a difference to peoples’ personal impact.

The fossil fuel industry is a response to the people DEMANDING its service.

> But the entrenched powers at be want you to think that this is a personal responsibility issue, because lots of people stand to lose lots of money

Nothing will get done if people think this way. Just take your personal responsibility and inform others to do the same.

The government forms policy around capital [0]. Only when popular opinion “aligns” with capital does it succeed. This is the same everywhere, just to varying degrees. Either way, civilization as we know it is wholly reliant on fossil fuels so the majority will never agree to the degree of sacrifices required to prevent disaster.

We’re ultimately doomed to “bandaid the broken arm” until ecosystems collapse and we have no choice; forcing everyone still alive to suffer significantly worse consequences as a result.

[0]: https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig

> I don't have an AC

This sort of degrowth stuff doesn't work. In the tropics, day time temperatures will be above what humans can _survive_ in, and air conditioning is the only way to keep billions of people alive in places like India.

We already have the technical solutions to have enough energy for everybody to have an AC while emitting minimal carbon (and perhaps generating enough electricity to actively take out carbon) - solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear.

The actual fixes western countries need to do is to actually make it easier to _build_ new things instead of trying to become poorer. Interconnect transmission lines (so we can carry power long distances), permitting for nuclear and geothermal (for various reasons requiring a much higher burden of proof and safety regulations than fossil fuel extraction and burning that kills way more people), _BUILDING MORE FUCKING HOUSING_ so people don't need to drive farther and farther, and they can walk and bike to get groceries and meet friends. These are all things that require policy decisions from people who are trapped in a bad incentive structure of both NIMBY local voters, and an attention oriented media that rewards both polarization and extreme cover-your-ass behavior that makes building expensive. Trying to put (and take) personal responsibility and giving up random things that don't move the needle isn't the way to do it.

I don’t believe in degrowth. The rest of your comment is precipitated on the idea that I do so I don’t think I need to respond to it.

Americans use an absurd amount of AC, and are completely dependent on cars because of the way they design their “cities”.

India needing AC, etc, fine, whatever. I don’t need it and people who live around me don’t need it (but have it.)

We can’t conserve our way out of this. We have to electrify everything we can, and completely decarbonize our electric grid. To do that, we need to make clean electricity cheaper than fossil electricity, and just as reliable. Spending our focus on trying to convince people to stop consuming energy is a bit counterproductive. Your carbon footprint is almost certainly massive even if you personally use zero electricity, because the supply chain that keeps you alive is extremely carbon intensive. If you run your numbers, I think you’ll find that cars and AC are relatively minor contributors. Heating is much larger for most than either of those, as an example.

It’s all relative. Relative to your average American suburbanite, my carbon footprint is probably 1/10th or less.

I live in the city and walk or bike everywhere. That’s how we get out of this. Not electric cars. Diesel busses and light rail.

It’s unlikely, since angriculture alone is >1/10, water heating, home heating, manufactured goods, logistics/shipping, steel, and concrete are all major sources. Pretty sure the average family’s direct energy consumption is less than half of their footprint. Passenger cars get a lot of attention, but they’re actually not a large fraction. Concrete alone is a larger source.

But yeah, the suburban development plan is obviously terrible.

its all our individual responsibility to combat climate change, no systemic change necessary at all. It seems to me the actual issue is depoliticization, you have no hope to ever affect the rules based international order in any way, so the only thing left to you as a neoliberal is to advocate for meaningless individual change.

Do you drive a car?

This isn't going to be solved by individuals voluntarily putting the climate above their own comfort. It's going to take strong bold policy. It's good to make good decisions and it's not great that some people don't care, but if your strategy to save society and the biosphere is based on individual choices the. We've already lost.

"you must do this" really is not the way to start the conversation, it is a trigger.

solid systems analysis work has been done, and changes are in play. "blame the consumer" is so, so not a starter even if it is true

source- more than a year talking about this actual subject with marketing cohorts in graduate school

This isn’t really the forum for applied marketing strategy. What I’m suggesting, and what others have suggested in the replies, is indeed what needs to happen. I guess you marketing guys can figure out how to sell it - good luck.

Biggest way you can personally make an impact is by eating a plant based diet, but yes.

Don't fly.

Cycle.

Look into smarter ways of heating/cooling your house.

Support groups like XR and Just Stop Oil.

Did all of that for more than 30 years now (ok, there weren’t any groups back then). Didn‘t help much I think. Ok for me - i did what i wanted to do - but perhaps government should start to do something too?

For every guy like you there’s 10 guys driving an F150 who think that’s cool. So when you go to the polls, who do you think gets voted in? The guy who’s going to force people out of their trucks?

I don't own a car and don't have AC. Still, my emissions and resource consumption are far too great.

To long term stabilize climate we need to be poor, compared with today. Tough sell in a democratic society.

I don’t think so. Carbon emissions per capita in NYC are lower than poor counties in the US (though I recognize even those are wildly rich by global standards.)

Cities are really efficient, just not the way America builds them. But it could start building better cities tomorrow.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com