
What You Can Do About Climate Change - WheelsAtLarge
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/25/opinion/sunday/what-you-can-do-about-climate-change.html
======
macawfish
Reading this article makes me feel very angry, especially as I look at the
authors' background.

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_.

~~~
ThomPete
Not driving is not an option in many cases.

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.

~~~
exergy
Forgive me for the forthcoming rant, this is not a slight at you, but I really
dislike the kind of attitude that you are projecting here. Al Gore famously
said in his documentary that a lot of people go from Denial to Despair without
pausing at the middle step of Doing Something about it.

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.

~~~
ThomPete
thats ok i can take it but what you dont seem to get is that we are humans not
systems and thus wont be making the changes any other way than through
technology.

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.

~~~
exergy
Yeah, you're right of course. Any solution requiring humans to change at large
scales through raw appeals to emotion is itself Dead on Arrival.

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-...](http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/03/07/frugality-the-new-
fanciness/)

~~~
ThomPete
i think you are a victim of a little wishful thinking here. with around a
billion people getting into the middle class you are going to see one thing
only and that is an increase in resource usage. the normal populations usage
is not the problem but the industry that support their consumption.

you arent seeing humans change, you are seeing technology allowing for other
types of living but any actual effect on climate they wont have.

------
awjr
1) If you have to buy an electric vehicle.

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/](https://www.freecycle.org/)

~~~
ohbecause
5) Move to an urban environment

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?

~~~
baddox
I would be quite surprised if growing your own food at small scale is more
environmentally friendly than living in an urban area and consuming food that
was produced and transported at massive scale.

~~~
macawfish
Depends on what kind of growing your doing. There are a lot of agriculture
styles that use very little resources and are economically affordable. If
you're doing row-style monoculture, then you really can't compete with those
economies of scale (and subsidies). But permaculture has huge yields for the
amount of input it requires. Cultivating fruit trees and perennials in a plant
"guild" can produce resilient, long term food sources with little upkeep. You
could easily grow enough food for yourself on an acre.

------
nawitus
I thought the best single thing was going vegan.

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.

~~~
nkurz
_I thought the best single thing was going vegan._

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.)

~~~
soVeryTired
Is that one flight annually or one flight in a lifetime?

~~~
nkurz
Good point. I believe it's comparing annual to annual, so that each year of
diet change equates to one cross-country flight.

------
verg
Since many people on HN live in California. The single greatest thing you can
do if you live in be an advocate for building more housing in California,
especially in locations with public transportation. California has low heating
and cooling costs, and existing public transportation networks that can be
extended.

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_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions)

~~~
maxerickson
I wonder how much the difference in residential heating/cooling really
matters.

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/...](https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.php?incfile=/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/fuel_use_ng.html&sid=US)

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.

------
r-s
I have chosen to not have children. Environment concerns was not the only
factor, but a significant one. I suspect that this choice is far better for
the environment then anything listed in that article.

~~~
RangerScience
Someday, all the people that are left will be the descendants of the people
who had kids.

Adopt, so that you're not contributing to population, but are contributing
what makes you a responsible human to that future population.

~~~
cromulent
_Everyday_ , not someday, surely :)

------
Fej
We are beyond the point where individual action can make a difference.
Legislation is necessary to stop the worst of catastrophes.

~~~
badosu
I understand where you're coming from, however you must take into
consideration that _your_ individual actions are perceptible by your peers.

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.

~~~
Fej
I do see it as ethics, but you are right.

------
nkurz
While not insignificant, I think it's worth asking what effect a 10% reduction
in US passenger vehicle emissions would have in the long term. To put it in
perspective, there's (what appears to be) an excellent new paper in Science
that proposes a roadmap for reducing global emissions to a level that is
estimated to have a 2/3 chance of keeping warming below 2C until 2100.

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](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.

------
Ensorceled
I didn't think the answer would be to reduce your greenhouse gas emissions
from driving by 10%.

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 ...

------
mrgriscom
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox)

~~~
toomuchtodo
Short comment, but entirely true.

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...](http://www.nationalgeographic.com/people-and-
culture/food/the-plate/2016/11/seaweed-may-be-the-solution-for-burping-cows/)

[2]
[https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/models/nonrdmdl/c-marine/r00002.pd...](https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/models/nonrdmdl/c-marine/r00002.pdf)

[3] [http://www.iata.org/policy/environment/Pages/climate-
change....](http://www.iata.org/policy/environment/Pages/climate-change.aspx)

~~~
ThomPete
storage haven't been solved and a large part of the entire economy is based on
debt in the fossile fuel industry. renewables are not destroying the deman for
nuclear as the worlds energy demand will continue to rise quite substantially
as 1 billion people enter the middle class over the next decades.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Nuclear is ~6-8 cents/kWh, which wind and solar already beat, regardless of
capacity factor.

~~~
ThomPete
But wind and solat cant deliver enough and its not storable yet, solve that
and you have my support until then i am going to stick to supporting any
effort to build nuclear over wind. Solar is different.

------
mnm1
Considering that most of the pollution that causes climate change is caused by
industry no single person can control, and that the solution proposed in this
article will _only_ work for a small percentage of upper class people at best,
the only almost-universal (in the US) thing one can do to fight climate change
is vote or participate in the political process. Sure, it's not very
effective, but neither is this ploy to blame citizens for pollution when most
pollution is caused by commercial and government entities. What's the point of
getting a Prius if the government is going to allow industry to do whatever it
wants as regards to pollution? Until this society and the government that
allegedly represents it gets its shit together and starts regulating
commercial industries and caring about climate change, why should I even care?
It simply won't make a difference.

------
NickM
"What can I do to reduce my emissions" is the wrong question to ask, because
_most people don 't care that much_ about reducing their impact. Even if
everyone who cares could somehow cut out 100% of their emissions, it would
only make a small dent in the problem. Trying to get everyone to make
sacrifices and take personal responsibility is just not going to cut it.

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.

------
credit_guy
I very rarely see anyone talking about iron fertilization [1]. The
oceanographer John Martin said "give me a half tanker of iron, and I will give
you an ice age" [2]. Why are scientists not looking into this? Wikipedia
states that the last experiments were done in 2012. It's been five years, and
besides the precautionary principle (which in the case of the global warming
should work in reverse), I don't really see any reasons to not perform further
experiments.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization#Precautiona...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization#Precautionary_principle)
[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Martin_(oceanographer)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Martin_\(oceanographer\))

------
bitwize
Since ships are much bigger polluters than cars, a better thing to do would be
to buy local exclusively. Governments could impose huge tariffs on imported
goods (something Trump would certainly not mind). While we're at it we should
probably ban mass production, too, tear down our cities and replace them with
farming communes wherein everything people consume or use is produced
sustainably from the local environment.

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.

~~~
moxious
While I agree society needs to change, this vision of how it should change --
fewer globalized goods, no mass production, and so on -- well if that's my
only option I'll take the climate change thanks. It's going to be dangerous
for people, but so is what you suggest, seeing as how modern people owe a lot
of their health and life enjoyment to the things you'd ban.

~~~
dagss
It is easy to play russian roulette when the gun is pointed at somebody else's
head isn't it?

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.

~~~
moxious
Granted it will be felt unevenly by why do you seem so gleeful to put all of
this on the rich? Mass production and globalize trade makes medicines for poor
people and makes all goods more affordable for low incomes. Also, what's with
assuming everyone on HN is rich? Everyone loses without those things. You
propose a guaranteed terrible thing for everyone. Are you trying to improve
the situation or just try to talk rich people into self-flagellating?

~~~
dagss
Why I put it all on the rich? Here:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita)

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.

------
medymed
Strong arguments for buying a new car from a group with industry ties in
Michigan. Or you can buy a submarine.

~~~
soniman
True environmentalists drive used cars. Or buy used SUV and not drive it much.

------
kolbe
that was a really long and unusual way of saying 'nothing'

------
partycoder
Some ways to make the situation better:

\- 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.

------
diafygi
Howdy! I work in cleantech, and I guess it's that time again for a what-are-
we-going-to-do-about-it post :)

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]
    

Also, if you're in the SF bay area, I'd recommend subscribing to my Bay Area
Energy Events Calendar[11]. Just start showing up to events and you'll
probably find a job really quickly.

[1]: [https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/22/energy-is-the-new-new-
inte...](https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/22/energy-is-the-new-new-internet/)

[2]: [http://www.esnaexpo.com/](http://www.esnaexpo.com/)

[3]: [https://www.greentechmedia.com/events/live/u.s.-energy-
stora...](https://www.greentechmedia.com/events/live/u.s.-energy-storage-
summit-2016)

[4]: [https://www.intersolar.us/](https://www.intersolar.us/)

[5]:
[http://www.solarpowerinternational.com/](http://www.solarpowerinternational.com/)

[6]: [http://www.windpowerexpo.org/](http://www.windpowerexpo.org/)

[7]: [https://www.nei.org/Conferences](https://www.nei.org/Conferences)

[8]:
[http://www.distributech.com/index.html](http://www.distributech.com/index.html)

[9]: [https://www.greentechmedia.com/events/live/grid-edge-
world-f...](https://www.greentechmedia.com/events/live/grid-edge-world-
forum-2016)

[10]: [http://tec.ieee.org/](http://tec.ieee.org/)

[11]: [https://bayareaenergyevents.com/](https://bayareaenergyevents.com/)

------
daxfohl
Wasn't there just an article here about how the 15 largest cargo ships pollute
as much as all the cars in the world? So I don't think the answer to solve
climate change is to buy two tons of product that has been transported on
those ships.

I'd love to know what the real answer is, but it seems not much an individual
can do about it.

~~~
dagss
"Pollution" is unfortunately an overloaded term. The article you are referring
was about other kind of emissions than CO2; and so the 15 largest container
ships do NOT contribute as much to global warming as all the cars.

------
intrasight
Launch a rocket. Capture an asteroid. Weave a big flat disk. Place at L1.

Well, not me personally. I'll need some help.

------
cleetus
Stop flying

------
bradlys
I definitely have trouble balancing enjoyment of something with the
environmental effects it has. This article hits a nerve for me.

I bought a sporty car that barely manages 15mpg. I've managed to put the worry
about environmental effects at bay for a moment.

