Hacker News Reader

Comment by valw | Hacker News Reader

Climate change requires a call to arms for everyone.

Many scientific experts don't believe that enhanced technology can be the main solution. True, technology can be a part of the solution, but changing our values and life habits are much more important. That's why top recommended environmental measure is carbon taxes, not subsidizing energy efficiency.

We've already made dramatic technological progress on our energy efficiency since the industrial era. This has never prevented our emissions from increasing - it's usually only made pollution more affordable and therefore more widespread; fuel efficiency in car engines is a good example of that.

Spreading the belief that technology will eventually save the day is not helpful, because it gives people an excuse to postpone changing their lifestyle, and we cannot afford that.

EDIT: forgot to post, Bret Victor is with you: http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/

View on HN

To be clear, I never said technology was the only solution. We have to parallel-path this entire enterprise. We need a change of culture and values just as much as technology. I'm not counting on only technology, but I really do believe we'll need both approaches here. As engineers, our part in this may be to create technological solutions. I hope culture thought leaders do their part and espouse a different way of living that replaces material consumption and status symbols with real human community.

Yeah, I was saying this to add to what you said, not to disagree with you - sorry if I didn't make that very clear. I on the same quest as you are.

> Many scientific experts don't believe that enhanced technology can be the main solution. True, technology can be a part of the solution, but changing our values and life habits are much more important.

Are you sure these are scientists? Because this sounds a lot like an ideological belief, not a scientific one. I definitely know a lot of activists who believe this.

Yes I'm sure - unfortunately most of my references are French, so I don't think it's useful to share them here.

I do agree with the sad statement that we're generally lacking a scientifically rigorous and pragmatic leadership in climate activism.

Should we really take a gamble that engineers will come up with enhanced technology ?

If the future is uncertain, we should rather do too much than too little. That is how insurance works.

Insisting on hardcore changing values as the main instrument of climate action is likely to backfire, however. Imagine if we had responded to ozone depletion by insisting people not use refrigerators and air conditioning versus just developing non-depleting refrigerants?

Great example.

It is career suicide for scientists to pursue technology-based approaches to climate change (geoengineering)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com