What You Can Do About Climate Change
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
There are so many things we can do, and these people are telling us that "the winner" is driving brand new fuel efficient cars, hot off the assembly line? What about biking? Walking? What about changing our habits so as not to rely as much on cars in the first place. How about not driving? There are people who don't drive at all, you could become one of them. What would it take?
How about some gardening? Plant a raspberry bush or a tree. If everyone planted a tree, do you know how many trees that would be? Billions of new trees. It wouldn't be very difficult. It would be much more affordable than buying a brand new electric vehicle.
Starting to bike doesn't solve climate change problems.
Not sure how you would plant a raspberry tree in a New York apartment.
There is very little the normal person can do about climate change without radically changing the way they live their lives and thats just not an option for most people.
And the person who needs to drive, presumably they live in a suburb or a place with a yard, and they could plant 10 raspberry bushes.
Come on! Enough with the excuses! It's getting me down!
I'm not saying that people should go and sabotage themselves. I'm saying that there are lots of different things that different people can do to upset this situation.
A big one for me is not buying new if at all possible. That goes for computers, cell phones, cars, clothes, etc.
The thing is that if you really were to change your life for it to have an effect we wouldn't do it. Just the threat to reliable food supply is enough to make most people accept things as they are.
There are two things you can do which are the only rational things to do.
1) Invent non-polluting, technical solutions that either produce, at scale, enough energy to replace existing solutions and which are easy to implement
2) Prepare for the consequence of climate change and find solutions to help that.
Thats what you can do. Shouting on FB, Twitter or HN doesn't help anyone.
I think those are the two things that you can rationally do! But not everyone is you. I think that your focus on technical and engineering solutions is actually a "one finger points three point back" kind of situation. I think that you are probably capable in those solutions, and I encourage you to take them as strengths, not as the only solutions possible.
Here's an example, one that comes to mind, of another skillset that's going to be valuable in times to come: mediation. I live in Minnesota, where it's very cold in the winter (gets down to -30 to -40 F) and very hot in the summer (gets up to 100 to 105 F of humid heat every year). I see the effects of heat. People get violent, impatient, antsy. Stuff comes out. Pots boil over. There are is quality research into these correlations (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/opinion/sunday/weather-and...), so it's not just anecdotal. When times get hot around here, what we need is conversation, patience, spiritual introspection, therapies, caring people. We are going to need people with good leadership, with soft skills, who have the ability to motivate people, to guide people out of conflict, to model what's possible. Artists, parents, teachers, even just plain old solid friends who hold people together.
Okay, I'm not arguing that these are "the solutions to climate change". What I'm arguing is that they are necessary pieces of the puzzle!
"The thing is that if you really were to change your life for it to have an effect we wouldn't do it. Just the threat to reliable food supply is enough to make most people accept things as they are."
I've seen people change so drastically over the course of one lifetime, because they had to in order to survive. I've seen my religiously conservative people close to me go from being homophobic and anti-drug to being open minded and hearted. I've seen my somebody go from seriously flailing (with chronic substance issues, suicidal thoughts, body image struggles, etc) to being one of the most kick ass moms I know in 1 year flat. Don't underestimate! "When the spirit says move, move". And people will move.
P.S. I'm planning on building a web app to help people do interactively plan companion planting and permaculture gardens. If you're interested I'll let you know when I put up the source. I'll probably post it on here either way.
Instead of lulling people into the believe that human culture on its own can change things perhaps the time was better spent on the things that actually help. You havent provided anything but an emotional argument that culture can solve this, nor is there any evidence in history which points to this.
Technological progress brought us in this situation, technological progress can get us out of it.
The problem is not the individual consumer but the whole system that supports them and that wont be going anywhere as most people dont have the luxury of spending time planting or meditating.
Anecdotes on people changing is not anything but a great story. Of course people change but your argument need them to change in exactly the same way which is exactly the wrong way to understand humans. We aren't rational agents.
Even if not driving is not an option, there's always carpooling which should approximately halve the impact of driving alone.
We can either wait for climate change to disrupt our lives, or we can disrupt climate change.
Biking definitely can solve climate change. Seems to me that people simply do not get it through their heads that climate change starts with what they expect out of life. As long as everyone wants to drive an SUV or a fucking pickup truck because it is "safe", live 25 miles from work, own a new smartphone every two years, have a perfectly manicured front and back yard etc., we are all fucked. For too many people, climate change is a "their" problem:
* Wind turbines? Sure, just not in my backyard because it spoils my fucking view.
* Nuclear reactors? Hmm, maybe, but definitely not in my state, and preferably not in my country.
* Not travelling to exotic locations every holiday, and instead going on local hikes a bit more? No way!
* Give up owning a new smartphone every two years? Dead on Arrival.
* Wearing a sweater indoors in the winter instead of constant 25 deg C temperature indoors and 20 minute hot showers? Go fuck yourself. No, but look! I installed a Nest thermostat, so the do-gooder halo around my head is glowing bright!
* Biking to work? I can't! Live too far from home this and sweaty at work that.
Nothing but excuses. And wait! Is this uber-consumeristic lifestyle making me happier? No?! How is that possible?
Climate change is NOT a problem that more technology can solve. It is a sociological problem. A problem of what people expect out of life. As long as people keep thinking it's the politicians at fault and they don't owe anyone a damn thing, well, we'll keep on keeping on with business as usual. And you know what business as usual is? We haven't even started decreasing the rate of CO2 increase, what to talk of a zero emission civilization.
Sorry this is incoherent and comes across as a jab at you. It's not. It's just me expressing my frustration as an engineer. I hate that the layperson is convinced that it is engineering that will solve climate change, and That Technology to cure us of all ails is just around the corner. It's not. We need to stop fucking raiding this planet.
you are basically asking humans not to be human which i believe is a common engineering blind spot :)
dont hate the players hate the game.
Edit: why the down vote? care to qualify rather than going trough all my comments you dont like and downvote them whoever you are?
The fact is we need regulations and incentives to do the right thing.
just becuase its luck and we dont lime that doesn't mean regulation will work, thats simply the wrong way to think about this.
This is where I'm really happy that the cult of mustachianism[1] is spreading as virally as it is. More people than anyone could ever have imagined, up and down the economic spectrum and up and down the Cost Of Living spectrum, are banding together to save money, and by extension, reducing their carbon footprint.
It's getting big enough that I get the feeling that the new status signifier is (slowly/glacially) becoming being able to live without excess. This is great because it will slowly shift the goalposts of what people aspire to.
[1]: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/03/07/frugality-the-new-...
you arent seeing humans change, you are seeing technology allowing for other types of living but any actual effect on climate they wont have.
I also disagree that they are insignificant drops in the bucket. The point I'm trying to make is that "culture" is infuriatingly hand-wavy and difficult to quantify, but it matters. As an example, I live in Geneva. Here, all shops close at 7 PM. This means that there less commercial activity past those hours, fewer people mindlessly roaming around in malls etc. Now, surely there are regulations guiding this too, but any government official wanting to undo this because "muh freedom", will be laughed out of the room because there is a culture here that treats this as deeply important.
[1]: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2014/04/06/frugal_living_in_m...
Okay, now I've eaten dinner and had some coffee. So what was my gripe with your comment?
1) It makes a strong, absolute claim with no evidence. Have you studied nonlinear systems? Even informally? We're dealing with hugely non-linear systems. Little things can compound into tumultuous waves. Look at the way viral memes spread. Culture changes in tumultuous waves. One generation might be hopelessly lost, while the next one comes in with unbelievable clarity, saying "that's just obvious."
2) It's implicitly discouraging of other peoples' perspectives and wisdoms. Imagine some great singer had let their irritable aunt or uncle's mean comments get to them when they were little and couldn't quite keep a pitch. We are learning, and there are without a doubt many, many ways to approach and tackle this. If anything, tackling something so ominously looming is going to take some serious imagination, vision and hope. You might not be hateful, but one doesn't need to be hateful or malicious to be discouraging or to play the part of hater.
3) Culture has, can, does, and will affect industry. Maybe not overnight, but they are inevitably interdependent. We have the power to engage with norms and at the very least set examples. We have the power to abstain, to moderate, to make demands, to dream, to actualize, on short and long term scales. In another comment, you pointed out that people are not systems, they are human beings. To me, that's actually a strength. It makes this struggle messier, but to me it's also an asset. It means that we have the ability to undergo rebirth in imagination and culture, which in the long haul makes us resilient and adaptable.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/realestate/sure-build-it-...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/19/upshot/forty-...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/10/upshot/popping-the-housin...
Not sure how you would plant a raspberry tree in a New York apartment.
I wouldn't be terribly surprised if all the driving around people do on Arbor Day makes the direct effect negative.
2) Go vegetarian. (Avoid beef if you can't and eat meat less).
3) Stop buying stuff.
4) Repair not replace.
5) Move to an urban environment.
6) Consider going car free. (Walk, Bike, Public Transport, Car clubs).
7) Stop flying.
8) Avoid plastic packaging, or at least any product in packaging that cannot be locally recycled. (Here in the UK I have no idea why we allow food to be supplied in black plastic which most councils do not recycle).
9) If you have to have children, just have one. Choose schools they can walk/bike to.
10) Insulate (cheap) and solar (expensive) your home.
11) Buy local goods.
12) Join recycling groups https://www.freecycle.org/
The thing many people here don't realize is that they can make real money fighting climate change. See my other comment in this thread for links to the major conferences with lists of cleantech companies that are hiring.
Are you serious? If I go and buy an acre of land (or many acres, more likely) and grow my own food, keep a few animals, and trade with my neighbours, how the hell does "move to an urban environment" make me suddenly more efficient? So I can rely on the supply chain to get all the goods that I could get by walking down the street to another farm?
Also, because someone living in a major city produces dramatically less carbon due to economies of scale, and your idea would result in an incredibly low density, offsetting any gains to food shipping cost.
Instead, they drive a lot, because everything (stores, work) is far away, and the infrastructure created for them is relatively inefficient. Very few people and regions are supplied locally, and not by large-scale, large-distance supply chains, rural or urban.
It's pretty well-demonstrated that the moralistic approach to climate change, where you harangue people into recycling or biking or whatever, doesn't work. It's just trimming around the edges, leaving the core 95% of the problem untouched. People won't give up their lifestyles, and in the case of poor third-worlders it's hard to ask them to do that anyway.
If climate change is stopped, it'll be by technological solutions.
There's <10% of the world population who will be endowed with the genetic gifts to participate in this process of technical solution-making. Your kids will be among them. Make some kids.
Can you back up these claims? I don't think either is obviously true. IQ tests themselves have dubious value.
> A study (1999) by Capron and Duyme of French children adopted between the ages of four and six examined the influence of socioeconomic status (SES). The children's IQs initially averaged 77, putting them near retardation. Most were abused or neglected as infants, then shunted from one foster home or institution to the next. Nine years later after adoption, when they were on average 14 years old, they retook the IQ tests, and all of them did better. The amount they improved was directly related to the adopting family's socioeconomic status. "Children adopted by farmers and laborers had average IQ scores of 85.5; those placed with middle-class families had average scores of 92. The average IQ scores of youngsters placed in well-to-do homes climbed more than 20 points, to 98."
This demonstrates quite clearly that high socioeconomic status causes high IQ scores, not the other way around.
Your other source is the Pumpkin Person who's blog is titled "The psychology of horror" and writes about horror movies. Does not appear credible.
Which is pretty obvious. There is always an amount of abuse that will destroy someone's IQ. Bringing them back to a decent middle-class upbringing will restore them to their baseline.
But once that baseline is achieved, evidence is that it can't generally be improved. One can learn skills and knowledge but IQ is stable. Above lower-middle class American abuse-free households, increases in SES don't affect IQ.
E.g. People have inherent talent at sprinting. Malnutrition or abuse can destroy this talent. But once people have decent upbringing, and try hard, and have support, what determines the champion is genetics. Which is why pretty much all champion sprinters have west African ancestry (since they have inherited traits that make them good sprinters).
EDIT: Here's a source for you on IQ heritability: American Psychological Association’s Task Force on Intelligence report.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.134...
“If one simply combines all available correlations in a single analysis, the heritability (h2) works out to about .50 and the between-family variance (c2) to about .25.” And “By late adolescence h2 is around .75 and c2 is quite low (zero in some studies).” (p. 85).
Now, I can not prove that to be the case but it is far from settled that better genes = better IQ = better socioeconomic status. That reasoning implies that people in third world countries are poor because they are stupid which I just don't believe, partly because I've actually been to some of those countries.
Anyway, I sometimes think it's quite funny how my own lifestyle is so much more green than the average "green" person. I don't have children, I don't own or drive a car, I only use public transporation, 99% of which runs on electricity. I'm vegan, I haven't been on an airplane for like maybe 4 or 5 years. I live in a modern, energy efficient and small apartment. I buy "100% renewable electricity" in a new, energy efficient "smart city neighbourhood". And of course I recycle.
Yet I haven't really tried to be more green, these circumstances have just happened naturally.
I tried to research this a while ago, and I think the numbers work out to say that going from a "standard" American omnivorous diet to a "standard" American vegetarian diet corresponds to a CO2 emissions reduction equivalent a one-way NY-SF flight or drive. Going from that to the a vegan diet is about equivalent to avoiding the return flight or drive.
So if you've already avoided having children, and already avoid flying and driving, then going vegan is probably one of the best things you can personally do to reduce your CO2 emissions. But if you haven't yet done those things, changing your diet, while a step in the right direction, may not be enough to effect a major reduction in your emissions.
(Sorry for lack of references --- I'll add them up if I can find them again. They were surprisingly hard to find the first time. Corrections appreciated if I've misremembered the figures.)
For instance having a couple of hens in your backyard may be exploitative in your book, but it provides a rich, free source of food (several hundred eggs every year), while consuming all of your food remains, vegetables peels, rotten fruits etc. in the most efficient way imaginable. And the hens would be perfectly happy and not harmed in any way, as long as they have reasonable space with some grass and a bush to peck around.
I'd simply say that I think that we need to reorganize our world at a simpler scale, build smaller communities, sharing more local resources (like backyards and chickens and potato plots), step back on globalisation, reduce our consumption and environmental footprint, reduce division of labour, share work more, ...
Save the world by eating bacon!
Look at the difference in per capita carbon emissions between California and say, Texas, a place where many Californian's are moving to because of high housing costs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_carbon_...
For example, I looked at natural gas consumption, in Texas industrial use is off the charts, residential is reasonably in line with California (on a per capita basis).
https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.php?incfile=/state/seds/...
Of course that is only enough to say that it is necessary to take a closer look, by the time everything is added up it could well be that living in California is substantially better.
Adopt, so that you're not contributing to population, but are contributing what makes you a responsible human to that future population.
A difference in culture has much more potential effect than what may be perceptible.
You may not control Congress, but you can control your actions and influence your peers. Tiny influences can impact in an emergent change in the future.
Of course, this is highly subjective and probably more in the field of Ethics than anything else.
In some ways, remember how lucky we are! We still have time and energy to prepare! We could be living in a world where the forces of intentional ignorance had done much more damage than they've managed. Yet we have excellent scientists.
Look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companion_plants
It's an amazing resource! Don't forget about our amazing collective resources! Now is not the time to neglect them!
The paper is "A roadmap for rapid decarbonization" by Rockström1, Gaffney, Rogelj, Meinshausen, Nakicenovic, and Schellnhuber. While a valuable and probably required step, doubling US passenger vehicle efficiency is just one of many things that would need to be done, and done quickly. I think it's worth reading the paper closely to understand the steps that would be required according to our current understanding of the science: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6331/1269
The full article is unfortunately behind a paywall, but since I think a reasonable argument can be made that breaking the logjam on the global warming debate is more urgent than following the nuances of US copyright law, I'll mention that plugging DOI:10.1126/science.aah3443 into sci-hub.bz will let you read the full paper.
If everybody does this, it results in a reduction of 5% for the US which isn't even in the ballpark of the 80% required from industrialized countries.
And I'm not sure this article is taking into account what the environmental impact of a few hundred million Americans all buying new cars and throwing out their old ones ...
The cost decline curve of solar and wind has been stupid: Wind is below 2 cents/kwh unsubsidized, solar still around 6-8 cents/kwh unsubsidized; natural gas is destroying the demand for coal, and renewables are destroying demand for nuclear. As renewable deployments accelerate, they will push out natural gas generation (along with cheaper battery storage).
Electric vehicles are here! Go get one. If not a Tesla, a Bolt, a Leaf, or perhaps a Volt if you still can't commit entirely to a battery electric vehicle alone. There's a federal tax credit in it for you.
Need your roof replaced? Order some Tesla solar tiles; orders are being taken as of next month, with delivery near the end of the year. A 30% federal tax credit to have your roof replaced is a pretty swank deal, along with the roof producing power (most likely) for the remaining life of the home. (I disregard state incentives for the purposes of this comment, but do check if your state has them, many do)
Regardless of technologic advancement, people still need to make the right choices in aggregate; get your LEDs in them fixtures, insulate your home, buy energy efficiency appliances (your utility probably pays a rebate for doing so).
We'll still need to work on bovine methane emissions [1], marine [2], and air fossil fuel consumption, but there's still a lot of low hanging fruit for us to capture.
[1] http://www.nationalgeographic.com/people-and-culture/food/th...
[2] https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/models/nonrdmdl/c-marine/r00002.pd...
[3] http://www.iata.org/policy/environment/Pages/climate-change....
But this doesn't mean the situation is hopeless! Renewables are quickly becoming cheaper than fossil fuels. Battery prices are falling rapidly, enabling cheaper electric cars, as well as cost-effective stationary storage facilities. There are startups that are trying to make plant-based meat substitutes that taste better than real meat and cost less. These are all scalable solutions; even someone who cares nothing for the planet would rather have lower energy costs, or a sexier car, or a cheaper, tastier burger. if we want long-term sustainability, we have to build and promote these kinds of alternatives.
If you want to make a difference, don't worry about what your immediate, personal impact to the environment is: one person's impact is negligible. Worry about what sorts of technological development you're funding.
Or worry about what sort of politicians you're supporting. If all the people who bought a Prius in the last ten years had bought a cheaper non-hybrid, and instead spent that extra money lobbying for better emissions standards, I bet you that would have made a way bigger difference in the end.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization#Precautiona... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Martin_(oceanographer)
We're past the point where we can fool ourselves that virtue signalling will make a difference. If you want to make an impact on the climate, Western society has to fundamentally change into something quite different. It's a political problem with necessarily political solutions.
You say you would rather risk climate change than let go of your current comforts. How awfully convenient for you that the main effects will not be felt by yourself.
Rich people (most HN posters included) both benefit most from globalized goods AND are able to shelter themselves from the effects of climate change anyway. You probably won't have your home and rice fields permanently flooded or crops more and more years of drought, you probably won't need to find a new home. A lot of poor people will. And judging by politics today, when that happens, the rich countries who have benefited the most from burning fossil fuels will shut the refugees out rather than welcome them in.
Climate change is a terrible thing, but the effects will be felt very unevenly.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_...
Basically, correlate that with a map of GDP per capita.
But to be completely honest I just got fired up as I found (and still find) your comment in bad taste. If you are a rice farmer on the coast of Bangladesh or similar then I apologize. One can argue back and forth about economy, but altering the sea level without compensation to those who loose their land is not fair.
As for what I really believe I think a lot of mass production can be kept, and also noone is proposing to scrap ships or global trade overnight. Proposals for fixing global warming abound and is generally to gradually tax for emissions caused (ie put price tag on externality). This will then drive the economy towards less polluting alternatives where it is easiest.
That is not a "proposed terrible thing for everyone" in the same way that when OPEC doubles the oil price the economy does move on and adapt.
E.g. in my country of Norway some fish gets sent to China for packaging and then it gets shipped back where it came from. Eliminating that indirectly through increased shipping costs means some increased price in frozen fish to the consumer, but also more local jobs.
In the end "end of global trade and mass production" is extremely simplistic. It is all about how well the world economy will do with or without.
And there are studies on that, so that either of us don't have to rely on our gut. And they show the effects of climate change on the global economy to be devastating when it finally hits. It is not the lesser evil at all.
- Find a job closer to where you live or move closer to where you work.
- Get a smaller car.
- Get solar installed in your home.
- Decrease usage of disposable products. Use a shopping bag, a water bottle, your own mug, your own utensils, etc.
- Stop buying objects you don't strictly need. Prefer products that do not suffer from planned obsolescence. Prefer reusable/recyclable packaging.
- Decrease or stop consumption of meat.
- Wear more clothes instead of turning up the heater and get better thermal isolation (e.g: thicker windows).
Now, electric cars do not contaminate your immediate surroundings, but the process of manufacturing them can have a higher carbon footprint than the lifetime emissions of the vehicle.
To start, here's my favorite climate change joke: "They say we won't act until it's too late... Luckily, it's too late!"
==So what can you do about it?==
The biggest thing this article doesn't say that is most relevant to the HN audience is that you can work at a new energy technology company! Our industries are out of the R&D stage and are currently focused on scale and growth[1], and we need as many smart people as we can get. There are lots of companies hiring software engineers.
==How do I find a job fighting climate change?==
I'd recommend browsing the exhibitor and speaker lists from the most recent conference in each sector (linked below). Check out the companies that interest you and see if they are hiring.
* Energy Storage[2][3]
* Solar[4][5]
* Wind[6]
* Nuclear[7]
* Electric Utilities[8][9]
* Electric vehicles[10]
[1]: https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/22/energy-is-the-new-new-inte...
[3]: https://www.greentechmedia.com/events/live/u.s.-energy-stora...
[4]: https://www.intersolar.us/
[5]: http://www.solarpowerinternational.com/
[6]: http://www.windpowerexpo.org/
[7]: https://www.nei.org/Conferences
[8]: http://www.distributech.com/index.html
[9]: https://www.greentechmedia.com/events/live/grid-edge-world-f...
[10]: http://tec.ieee.org/
I'd love to know what the real answer is, but it seems not much an individual can do about it.
Well, not me personally. I'll need some help.
I bought a sporty car that barely manages 15mpg. I've managed to put the worry about environmental effects at bay for a moment.