←back to thread

Climate Change Tracker

(climatechangetracker.org)
447 points Brajeshwar | 5 comments | 03 Sep 23 14:53 UTC | HN request time: 0.881s | source
Show context
alexchamberlain ◴[03 Sep 23 17:11 UTC] No.37372056[source]▶
I'm starting to wonder whether the conventional wisdom of reducing carbon emissions in favour of more electricalisation is really solving the actual problem. As is often pointed out on HN, electrical cars are substantially heavier than their fossil fueled alternatives, and generate other pollution along the way. Furthermore, we're digging our lithium brines from the environment, without really understanding what all this lithium will do once it's leached out into the environment or what impact the mines themselves will have.

With the recent advances of turning CO2 into other substances, such as propane, should we be focusing more on closing the carbon cycle and simply be producing fossil fuels from the waste products of yesteryear?

Naively, it feels like we understand C, O and H, better than we understand some of the rare metals we're now introducing in the name of climate change.

replies(23): >>37372234 #>>37372279 #>>37372323 #>>37372344 #>>37372367 #>>37372392 #>>37372424 #>>37372432 #>>37372470 #>>37372510 #>>37372513 #>>37372556 #>>37372583 #>>37372634 #>>37372660 #>>37372760 #>>37372813 #>>37372854 #>>37373016 #>>37373143 #>>37374057 #>>37375338 #>>37382221 #
picture ◴[03 Sep 23 17:30 UTC] No.37372234[source]▶
Well the real answer is to reduce consumption. It can and should be done without sacrificing comfort. This is a very uphill battle against systems that are interested in distracting you by turning your attention towards fads (recycling, electrification, carbon capture) when in reality we need degrowth and permaculture. (Please read this thread a bit more, including my replies, before you tell me what I think degrowth means. I'm only using it to mean "less [economic] growth")

In a bit more detail:

How about less cars? More effective public transit is good for people and the climate.

Let's do away with golf lawns and pools for every house... Perhaps architecture can be adapted to suit the specific location instead of stamping the same stock photo "American house with garage that can fit 4 cars." Look at passive cooling and stuff. [Again, I'm talking about redefining comfort. Is a personal pool and large car and trimmed lawn really, honestly, what makes you comfortable? Or is it more a product of culture and advertising? You're absolutely free to believe either way, and I don't want anyone to force you to do anything.]

And honestly, we need to consoom less. Devices should not have a lifecycle of one year. You and I don't really need all these gadgets and trinkets, either. Let's stop buying random things

If you think this is a distraction or that it won't work because we can't get everyone to agree: Degrowth and permaculture requires honestly no critical mass. You can choose to buy things that last longer, and use them a bit more. Learn to fix things, etc. These are all nothing but straight benefits to you (more money in your pocket, skills that can make you more valuable in the current system, more time available now that you aren't swiping short form videos all day).

replies(11): >>37372286 #>>37372327 #>>37372358 #>>37372545 #>>37372577 #>>37372586 #>>37372687 #>>37372722 #>>37373262 #>>37373321 #>>37374351 #
trts ◴[03 Sep 23 18:00 UTC] No.37372586[source]▶
There is no way this world exists without an authoritarian global government.

Have you analyzed the impact of the total elimination of 4 car garages, golf courses, "trinkets", and enforced 5-year upgrades on devices? do those rank among the highest-impact against climate change, or do you just not like them very much?

Do you expect that the people who would have the authority to make and enforce these decisions agree with you about which things are important or not, and have also done the cost-benefit analyses correctly and in good faith?

And they're resistant to buy-off by the industries that have the most to lose under a degrowth paradigm?

replies(5): >>37372698 #>>37372781 #>>37372878 #>>37373248 #>>37375133 #
1. picture ◴[03 Sep 23 18:10 UTC] No.37372698[source]▶
I never said anything about forcing this idea on other people. I believe that degrowth and permaculture are about yourself, not other people. I believe that this change needs to start from the local level, in an organic way, instead of being signed into law and all dissenters be crushed. By engaging locally, logistics and politics problems that you speak of are pretty much solved.

I believe that I can change people's opinion by talking about this possible world, and they are completely free to act how they wish. I also think that doing these things are straight selfish benefits for you (more money in your pocket, skills that can make you more valuable in the current system, more time available now that you aren't swiping short form videos all day)

replies(2): >>37372876 #>>37373940 #
2. epgui ◴[03 Sep 23 18:25 UTC] No.37372876[source]▶
That’s very optimistic!
replies(1): >>37372931 #
3. picture ◴[03 Sep 23 18:30 UTC] No.37372931[source]▶
Sure is! Optimism is our best bet. But also, reading and learning changed my opinion, so I'm confident words can change other's opinions too
replies(1): >>37374734 #
4. gnramires ◴[03 Sep 23 20:05 UTC] No.37373940[source]▶
Signed, this is what I believe as well; I also think there are technological solutions, but technology alone won't save us this time, because of the scale of the issue. How much carbon we need to remove from the atmosphere even optimistically (it's already planned that we need to remove an astronomical amount! even for the less good projections) is frankly nuts, astronomical. Removing carbon is much, much more difficult than burning buried carbon.

I also echo the sentiment that we should both create a culture of questioning excesses, enjoying a simplified lifestyle of essentials: good health (address pollution, agriculture filled with toxic compounds, etc.), peace, arts and culture, instead of often self-destructive excesses; and that we should look at effective interventions: feeling good about it is not enough, we need actual effective change!

Some of the most effective changes you can do individually[1] is (1) reducing meat consumption significantly;[2] (2) Less air travel (3) Use alternative forms of transportation (bike, walk, public transit, live near work?).

(Of course, if you have a huge house with tons of appliances... I'm sure that's highly significant!)

I'm doing all those things personally. And as honest as I can: I think my health and wellbeing genuinely improved (I've lost weight due to better mostly-plant diet, am much more fit due to walking and public transit; I guess there's a psychological factor from knowing I'm helping too!). Public transit is the most inconvenient sometimes (other times it's far more convenient), but then I'm not absolute and take a ride faring app every now and then. Living this way isn't only possible, it's genuinely good.

Discovering places nearby to travel and connecting with local history and culture is something I also think we could do a lot more.

And by all means, be politically active on this issue! (I can't change things like energy matrix with individual habits, but I can vote well)

I'm with you dude :) Hack the planet!

[1] This seems to be a pretty good source: https://theconversation.com/here-are-the-most-effective-thin... I'm sure there are others similar as well

[2] That's good for animals too :)

5. DangitBobby ◴[03 Sep 23 21:20 UTC] No.37374734{3}[source]▶
I beg to differ. Unwavering optimism that things will be fine is exactly how we got where we are today; decades of knowing global warming is on the horizon with nowhere near enough response.