“I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid that computation is too carbon intensive”
shkspr.mobi
shkspr.mobi
For most consumers, power is cheap enough where that level of optimization isn't really noteworthy, but for larger industrial systems where power demand is a huge expense, that could actually save you a ton of money
I am not sure if CPU tasks can make a huge difference. At least CPU tasks that are not needed now.
And if certain mixes of generation are "too carbon intensive" then the same pricing is the proper mechanism to get electricity users to take it into account; apply a subsidy or tax depending on how polluting some generation is, and then let the market forces optimize which things can wait until a "cleaner hour" and for which it is worth to pay more to not wait.
If you want regular people to care more about the environment and pollute less, than you should have the rich and powerful lead by example, not push laws that seemingly do nothing while acting as wasteful as ever.
The thing is, getting rid of the very rich and their indulgence in climate-devastating actions moves the goalposts/acceptable excuses for the lower classes ("but the rich are doing it too") as well.
Maybe I’m too pessimistic, but I feel like most human behavior we decide what we are gonna do and then find the reasons to justify it.
This can be huge population. US CO2 output per capita is pretty big even if you compare it with EU.
The main reason why plastic eating utensils are common is that it reduces the labor costs of serving food, which in turn allow fast food restaurants to charge lower price.
Reusable travel utensils and reusable drinking cups seems to also gained some traction for drivers, an otherwise large consumer of single-use utensils. A bit more work but far superior to paper and plastic in their feel and use.
(I prefer both utensils made from metal and eating meat. Eating meat with plastic utensils is just a terrible experience. Being against plastic has nothing to do with food culture or diet).
Best alternative is no straw.
If the costs (environmental, health, or money-wise) are a major factor in your choice of diet, it seems clear that beans provide more for less.
https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/resources/2020-2025-dietar...
So for example, fava beans are called high protein. 200g of fava beans has 220 calories, 15g protein, and a digestibility of 0.55. 200g of chicken breast has 220 calories, 46g of protein, and a digestibility of 1.08. You're getting about 6x as much protein in the chicken breast there. If somebody wants to maintain a relatively high protein diet, they're simply not going to be able to do that on a vegan/vegetarian diet unless they just start downing endless protein powder shakes.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digestible_Indispensable_Amino...
Tofu e.g. has DIAAS of 0.97 and ~18g protein per 100g (checked the one in my fridge). If you really need a lot of protein, you can just cook stuff with tvp, that usually has dry 50% protein, but I've seen also seen 75%. You basically hydrate it with water, add a bunch of spices cook, and eat it with whatever else you'd like.
I don't think there is a big difference for the average consumer, consider some processed stuff:
Protein/100g from the products on the rewe online store:
Vegan Nuggets: 9, 11, 3x13, 15, 17
Chicken Nuggets: 2x12, 13, 2x15, 16
Beef Burger: 17, 2x18
Vegan Burger: 10, 13, 2x14, 3x17
Salami: 3x21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26
Vegan Salami: 2x8, 29, 32, 2x33
Reguarding DIAAS, soy and pea protein seem to be the most used and have 0.89 and 0.82 DIAAS respectively.
My issue is pretty simple. A quick look around the world today, compared to how things were not that long ago, shows we're probably not only moving way too fast in terms of changing what we consume, but we also seem to be going very much in the wrong direction. So my main focus in diet is sticking with what worked in the past.
[1] - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B97818...
The only way to get a balance on a vegetable only diet involves mixing different veggies and supplements in order to try to level the ratio of amino acids and vitamins you get. It's very complicated and honestly is difficult to get right consistently even if you know what you're doing, the average person will not be able to do this right and will get sick.
If everyone is pushed onto that kind of diet most people will do it wrong, and a lot of people will get sick as is already very common in people who try veganism. I would argue you need to have significantly above average intelligence to do it right. So at the moment a healthy large population requires a lot of meat.
I didn't say "disease" i said class of diseases, there are a lot. lysine deficiency, osteoporosis, some kinds of arthritis on the amino acid end. And then there's the vitamins that beef always has, which wipes out a huge class of vitamin deficiencies... it's hard to understate how important meat is... reducing meat consumption is a very, very bad idea for public health.
It doesn’t seem to make much of difference. I understand that a healthy diet requires a wide variety of nutrients and so on but it’s interesting that allegedly even just reducing meat consumption (and really specifically beef) is so detrimental.
I am skeptical that people who consume less meat are so much worse off and would really need some recommendations on some reading to begin to understand that. I know my health hasn’t changed much but my grocery bill being cut in half by just not buying meat is pretty nice.
A shift from a meat heavy diet to a diet with a more balanced mix of foods should probably be the focus both from a health and environmental standpoint. On the other hand, full veganism probably isn't practical for most people in current American society. It would be great if we could also make it easier for people to choose a lacto ovo vegetarian diet in America.
Eat less. Eat less fat. Eat less sugars. The remaining recommendations are to eat enough vitamins/fibers, and to eat less salt.
From an environmental standpoint we should focus on bio diversity and sustainability which sadly very few of current food cultures fulfill. Increased use of shell fish and seaweed. Increase use of bio diverse farming. Reduced use of artificial fertilizers and chemical pesticides. Reduced use of fresh water. Increased hunting of invasive species. Increased use of grazing animals in nature reserves and area needing clearing (power lines and so on). Increased use of small scale farming and food waste management. Meat definitively has a role here but not in the mono-culture way that current industry meat production do it.
I think it's important to keep in mind that calorie requirements vary dramatically based on lifestyle and goals; however, too many calories definitely seems to be the most common problem in the developed world.
As such, it's all very well to give a nod to our animal nature, but why stick to easy? Particularly as far as nutrition is concerned, humans could be doing so much better than we are.
I blame capitalism ;) or at least the exploit of it that involves being able to sell sugar water to animals until they choke and die. This is where we start to run into the failure of natural consumption to produce good outcomes, and have to jump up a level and start asking what a good outcome would represent.
Absolutely no reason to avoid doing this with meat consumption. I thrive on stir-fried chicken and rice and an egg in the morning and gummy vites and too much coffee, but there's no reason I couldn't do something else. I mean, I already supplement…
Essentially it amounts to "we shouldn't do anything about climate change because someone somewhere is worse than I am"
I did not read it that way.
I read it as: The entrenched political/upper classes who push policies like banning plastic straws are content to push feel-good policies when they affect the "regular" people but are unwilling to be inconvenienced themselves. Taylor Swift's 30-minute private jet ride is just a recent high-profile example.
We're all supposed to make sacrifices, right? I'm not an expert but it seems to me that in a world where things are so bad that we've needed to ban the use of plastic straws it's fair game to point out that the entrenched political/upper classes has a habit of spewing more carbon into the atmosphere in a single day than most people will their entire lifetimes, for the sake of _convenience_ (private jets). It's not like Swift was hand delivering heart and kidneys to someone who needed a transplant or anything.
If the only way for [insert person] to get to [insert event] is to hop on a private jet then maybe that person should take long look at whether or not they could attend remotely or watch the event on TV. We're all in this together, right?
But Taylor Swift is not a lawmaker and is not herself banning plastic straws. If this was about policy, the point would be better made by pointing out actual politicians who support plastic straw bans flying in private jets. And people do point these out, with the yearly "LOL Private Jets To Davos" memes.
I don't blame her (or others in her position) for enjoying their success, but I do think that people who are in a position like that have a responsibility to practice what they preach (or support politically).
substitute Swift for Musk or Kerry or whoever - the argument is the same.
It's unfair because I don't prescribe to a world view where plastic straws are a sin.
I hate that the people that hold these views are making business decisions that impact the quality of life for people who don't hold these as virtues. At least make it a choice!
I'm mildly OCD about dish cleanliness, and paper straws are an assault on hydration, to phrase it charitably.
> we shouldn't do anything about climate change
To what degree do straws actually impact climate?
They don't. The concern was ocean plastic, where the majority of it comes from Asian rivers or boats. So it's yet another of example of politicians pushing a meaningless policy to look like they're addressing a problem.
0: https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-emit-much-...
It’s plausible that very little should be asked of the bottom half, who contribute under ten per cent of emissions if we follow Oxfam’s methodology.⁰ That would exclude nearly everybody in the West, though. And I take it that people on HN do not mean the global middle class when they say ‘middle class’.
0: https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10...
You know. For your protection...
It is wrapped in a plastic bag, but the peel is actually edible.
https://www.newsweek.com/you-eat-these-newly-engineered-bana...
https://univibes.org/blog/over-packaging-problem-in-japan/
I actually came across this tidbit while watching a vlog on youtube where the vlogger mentioned that Japan uses too much plastic for everything.
I don't think that is neccessary, but there is a lot of applications that could reduce / slow their workflow to less demanding times. This coud be priced into cloud costs per hour.
And then there are some things that should stop existing: bitcoin.
I've started to cut way back on just randomly noodling with image prompts once I read that each image generated might produce the same amount of carbon as driving four miles. That really adds up.
I can safely assure you that this is bullshit. Any electric car will use well over 1 Kwh to travel that distance. You can run two high-end GPUs for an hour with that amount of electricity. You're not spending two hours of GPU-time to generate your images.
Measurement, pricing and reducing pollution externalities is a major challenge, but I don't think that's as unknown of a problem as the article seems to suggest.
No. Go to China to protest against their impact on the planet instead.
Because the CO2 emission does not happen in your backyard does not mean that it does not happen for your own comfort.
It does make sense, as with the exception of aircraft carriers all of the US military naval assets run on fossil fuels, and so does all other hardware (trucks, tanks, planes, construction equipment, power generators, ...). And almost all of that is exempt from emissions regulations, a lot of it is so old that it predates modern regulations anyway.
[1] https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2022/10/pentagon-cli...
And then to be able to burn any, you first need to take them out of the ground. If we count those indirect emissions, obviously Saudi Aramco causes orders of magnitudes more emissions than the Pentagon. Sure, this comparison may be "cheating", but put it this way; it's much worse for global emissions to have Aramco improve their barrels/day rate by 10% than the Pentagon's budget increase by 10%.
China has orders of magnitude less logistics to accomplish. They only run three small overseas military sites, in contrast to the (at least) 1.000 sites the US operates.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_oversea...
The Pentagon has never passed an audit, so it's not known for it's transparency either.
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/19/997961646/the-pentagon-has-ne...
https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2023/11/16/pentagon-fai...
Trillions of funds unaccounted for & much of what is accounted for is "top secret". Not transparent.
> Sure, this comparison may be "cheating", but put it this way; it's much worse for global emissions to have Aramco improve their barrels/day rate by 10% than the Pentagon's budget increase by 10%.
Much of the violence, weapon production, & violations of sovereignty in the world is centered around the desire to control this resource. I'll take emissions that make make life better/useful things vs emissions that destroy lives/things.