Hacker News Reader

Comment by specproc | Hacker News Reader

It's not at all about individual action. This scale of problem requires policy intervention and investment at national levels, and inter-governmental coordination internationally.

The big, meaningful wins come from things like stopping the use of coal, not signing-off on new oil and gas exploration, tax-incentives and disincentives, grid work, fining polluters.

We instinctively frame this as an individual problem, the cynic might say we've been encouraged to, but the reality is that whether or not you fly this summer has precisely dick-all impact globally. It's the actions of our governments that count.

View on HN

At least in theory, our governments are voted in place exactly by us. Trump voters loved his ideas and he's implementing them now, yay success. Also industrial pollution is fueled by our buying habits just as well - if nobody would order stuff brought by ship from overseas, well, we wouldn't have many of those huge(ly) polluting ships around. So I wouldn't leave out the personal responsibility here: we make decisions every day, and giving up paper straws is only the most insignificant one.

It's about taking a holistic view of the situation as well. Shipping is a big producer world wide, but stopping it entirely barely makes a dent. A lot more is industry, appliances, heating.

And those boats make a lot less of an impact than all those trucks driving everything across land.

Wise choices are needed.

did our buying habits force AI into everything?

To face this directly: I think an honest answer is probably "yes".

Our buying habits empowered the type of company that wants to put AI into everything. Whether they continue to do so or not will also depend on our buying habits going forward.

Large merchant ships are extremely efficient in terms of CO2 and other pollutants released per ton of cargo. I agree with ordering less stuff when practical but most of the emissions happen due to manufacturing and use, not transport.

> It's not at all about individual action. This scale of problem requires policy intervention and investment at national levels, and inter-governmental coordination internationally.

It is all about individual action. And then the emergence from that to what amounts to the multi-pronged solutions that are needed to address a wicked problem. Like create the "big meaningful wins" you mention. There is no mailbox where you drop off "stop the use of coal", and it happens, neither is there a magic button. A complicating factor is that we are not able to see how our small individual actions contribute to solving the wicked problems, and we are not able to coordinate them at scale.

Individual action definitely doesn't hurt, but it is not enough.

You and all your friends could install solar and batteries and drive EVs and all the energy consumption for your house, cooking, and travel could be totally green and renewable. That's great! But in the US in 2025, 63% of energy consumption is commercial+industrial [1].

National policies need to be set to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation through clean alternatives, subsidies, regulation, and probably treaties. If you can make green cheaper and/or a better product functionally, you don't have to convince people.

  [1] <https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/use-of-electricity.php>
  [2] <https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions>
  [3] <https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/deforestation-rates-by-country>

Well, COVID made sure almost nobody was flying for a couple months. Carbon emissions were slightly down if I remember right.

You can keep telling people to avoid flying and live a life of low carbon footprint, but if the issue is much more systematic, economical and technological, it will just become a distraction and make people dislike you (and the cause).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com