> All we can really do is each do our best on an individual level to reduce our carbon footprint.
No, that's not all we can really do. We could also choose to reform political and economic systems that make western-style societies so un-ecological.
No, that's not all we can really do. We could also choose to reform political and economic systems that make western-style societies so un-ecological.
I'm all for making democracy better, but arguing for authoritarian solutions seems a path to war, destruction, and far greater ecological toll than all but the most extreme (lets bring on the end times) parties in western politics.
You've taken this as a chance to farm karma and dunk on China and authoritarianism, but reading GP's comment in good faith, per the HN guidelines, suggests we need better transit, more walkable cities, and the ability to move people and their purchases without taking 3 tons of steel along for the ride. Think smaller vehicles like South-East Asia (Thailand, Veitnam), available and reliable transit (Hong Kong), and the ability to get someplace without dying, on foot (Japan)
East vs West doesn't need to always boil down to "China and Chinese allies bad". Sometimes it can be a chance for reflection, and to see where we could do better.
Generally, Google Maps works in LA even if the distances are long and infrastructure lacking. The same cannot be said for the Shanghai Pudong Airport (PDX) and getting PuXi (anywhere in the main city west of the HangPu river). I mean, I like the maglev, but it's really the only "public transport" and since it was never completed, it doesn't go anywhere convenient. Everyone takes taxis everywhere.
In the end I just got a Lyft down to Santa Monica for some lunch between flights (I had a 6 hour lay over). I was hoping to get on a fast train or something.
Your statement, "reading GP's comment in good faith, per the HN guidelines, suggests we need better transit, more walkable cities, and the ability to move people and their purchases without taking 3 tons of steel along for the ride", is to be found nowhere in the one sentence comment I responded to.
I find the commentary on my reading of the comment and karma farming odd, the conflation of China with India strange, and the acceptance (glorification?) of authoritarianism bizarre. How are cars western when the people who build and drive them not? Why is that not also a personal decision? Why shouldn't authoritarianism be criticized? Please justify why only democracies should "reform" themselves with something greater than personal decisions/votes. Why do people in all parts of the world not have both responsibility and agency? Why is self aware analysis of commentary for me (and the author of the original post) and not for thee. We can do better.
We includes everyone in this conversation. Please reflect on that. Try going somewhere in HK new territories (outside the city), in Japan outside Tokyo, or in Shanghai from the Pudong airport. I have and without cars and maybe busses they are miserable. LAX sucks, and it's better.
Then, surely you agree with the OP, who wrote for reference “We could also choose to reform political and economic systems that make western-style societies so un-ecological”.
There was no comparison with anything other than what western society could be, no need to get the Chinese bogeyman.
I am European. I have no clue about how to fix India, for example, because I don’t know the country enough. I don’t really want to live there, or in China, because I think that for all their flaws, life in European democracies is rather good. I am still advocating for “reform[ing] political and economic systems that make western-style societies so un-ecological”. What is the problem in that?
Why assume nastiness when reading other people’s posts?
In fact Western societies are the only ones seeing the need for radical climate change prevention measures. The Asians, Indians, Latinos, Muslims, and Africans all happily fire up one coal power plant after the other.
Tianducheng disagrees with you.
Shutting down discussions on what we should do here by saying that it’s bad over there is also disingenuous.
The entire concept of "personal carbon footprint" is a distraction. The behavior of individuals is both random and highly variable (e.g., cyclists vs coal-rollers), and even in the practically impossible situation every individual moves in the same good direction, is still dwarfed by the institutional and industrial scale
It is not only "also" reform political and economic systems, it actually the only path to a real solution.
(Of course, do what you can to incidentally optimize footprint when it's an A/B choice. But if it's two hours of extra work to avoid some personal carbon output/use, it's better to spend that two hours on some political or economic action)
Yes on activism. Not sure where you're going with the second part.
Self-destructive ecological devastation is as old as civilisation [1].
The term geoengineering may need to be dropped. It sounds scary. But that belies that we're already doing it, just unintentionally.
I'm writing from a friend's massive house heated to 21C/70F, and built to last what, thirty years at best? Of a lot of plastic materials, and stuffed with extra electronics and vehicles that also cost a considerable amount to make and dispose of. Most of this stuff is unnecessary junk.
Geoengineering, if we opt for it, absolutely must be coupled with toothy regulations governing resource harvesting and use. Don't pick the first berry you see, and don't pick the last.
We've kicked this can so far down the road that effecive reform on our habits will be worse than pulling teeth. It won't be easy, and will involve things like respecting a woman's right to govern her own body (I'm in the USA where this is increasingly a concern), respecting other animals' right to exist, treating meat as a rare luxury and maybe going so far as to stop farming meat and return to hunting, and getting our entertainment closer to the local seasonal patterns of life on Earth. Get my drift?
Another example: Electric cars are not a solution; using cars less is the way to go. It won't be an easy life, lesss reliant on technology, but it will be more meaningful.
I don't disagree in general, I believe we need to be more aware of our consumption but what you describe is an ideal that I believe most individuals in the world do not share. Its a world that would require massive depopulation, how are we going to get there?
I think India's just dropped below replacement rate?
Without conflating them, you have to have noticed that the same people tend to be on the wrong side on both issues. Which is a shame, because there is nothing more conservative than safeguarding one’s environment and way of life, but it is what it is.
The consequences are here already, we cannot wait for something that might be working or not eventually, in a century. We cannot depend on hypothetical future technology that will save us all. And none of the possible solutions he have now can scale to the extent needed, by multiple orders of magnitude. None of the flashy carbon capture demonstrations hold up to scrutiny because fundamentally the problem is to extract ppm out of humongous volumes.
By all means, let’s keep researching and developing solutions (that’s what’s paying my bills for now, so I am not going to complain). But don’t assume that there will be a magical “solve it” button. There won’t.
it might sound defeatist but humanity will not be able to change its programming for the purpose of reducing our carbon footprint.