Hacker News Reader

Comment by axod | Hacker News Reader

"CO2stats makes it possible to move towards a completely carbon neutral world."

Given the fact that there's no consensus yet as to the benefits of a carbon neutral world, don't you think this is premature? Throwing money into a pit that might change something someday... assuming it needs changing in the first place.

View on HN

Generally, a carbon neutral world would be a benefit, regardless of the effects on climate change. We'd ensure the sustainable operation of the planet - regardless of how many of us there are - because we'd be maintaining the earth's resources in their current balance. Right now, we're converting a good chuck of them from one form to another, which eventually - even if this isn't true now - will have some sort of repercussions.

That being said, being completely carbon neutral is pretty much impossible given the way our world is currently set up.

Why would this necessarily be a benefit? This same argument could have been made at any time in history. For millennia humanity has benefited from converting resources from one form to another. What has changed?

Trying to be carbon neutral would have the obvious drawback of significantly slowing economic growth. Is there a benefit to being carbon neutral that outweighs this cost?

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but

1. Rich nations see developing nations growing rapidly, relying, as the rich nations do, on oil, coal, etc etc

2. Rich nations start to demonize and do all they can to force developing nations to stop using coal, gas, etc and only use renewable energy.

3. Rich nations stay rich, poor stay poor.

That seems to be a benefit for rich nations to push such an agenda.

If the poor became richer, how would that hurt the rich?

If the poor become richer, then you become poorer relative to them :/ Surely...

How could a change in mere relative level of richness hurt one?

Let us assume that richness is freedom from need.

Well for a start, if poor nations become rich, they may not want to continue working for a pittance to satisfy the richer nations whims. Prices may go up pretty fast.

Also, if the poorer nations are using all the coal+oil, there's going to be less for the rich nations... again, making prices rise.

Nothing has changed, and yes the same argument holds true regardless of climate change. Being carbon neutral means that resources are being used at the same rate they are being created, ergo, sustainability.

Is there a benefit to being carbon neutral that outweighs this cost?

I don't honestly know.

There's certainly that argument to be had, as to whether reducing carbon emissions is a worthwhile goal at all. If it's not, CO2stats is clearly worthless.

However, many many people (including myself) believe that it's a real problem that we need to address. If that were true, you have to grant that CO2stats is a great step in the right direction.

I'd much rather concentrate on eliminating energy waste. Try to get companies to use less energy in the first place.

As a company, if you can reduce my energy bill by 20%, I'd be overjoyed. But if you're asking me to spend extra money just to say that I'm contributing to renewable energy, why is that of benefit to me (Apart from having a badge)?

Why do you tip at restaurants? Because it's the socially responsible thing to do. This allows a similar social enforcement mechanism to start improving the environment. That's a good thing, and much better than the alternative of government enforcement.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com