
Climate Change is real and you can prevent it. Be the change - sendilkumarn
https://dev.to/sendilkumarn/let-us-re-build-a-better-world-together-1dlk
======
diafygi
For HN, there's an extremely important item missing from this list:

* Get a job in cleantech.

I got into the climate-change fighting industry 6 years ago when I became a
project engineer for a commercial solar company, then eventually I started my
own cleantech software company. By working in the industry, I have had orders
of magnitude more impact on fighting climate change than adjusting my
lifestyle to be more carbon neutral.

Luckily for the HN crowd, there's a huge need for software and other tech
skills (data science, sysadmin, etc.) needed for the energy transition. With
the deployment of so much "intermittent" generation like solar and wind, we
need tons of software and communications infrastructure to run a new
"flexible" grid.

So if you're thinking what can you to help fight climate change, the best
thing you can do is get a job in the climate change fighting industry. Start
googling around for jobs with climate change keywords ("solar", "wind", "clean
energy", etc.). Start showing up to clean energy events (if you live in the
bay area, check out my bayareaenergyevents.com). There's so many people in
this space who came from other sectors, and it's incredibly easy to move up or
start your own company doing some specific thing you think is needed for the
fight.

~~~
sendilkumarn
Lucky for you. But not everyone has that luxury or option.

~~~
diafygi
I'm curious why you think it's not an option? And what makes you think it's a
luxury? A cleantech job is just like any other job.

------
hnhg
I believe climate change poses an existential threat to us right now but I
don't see things like this list helping.

The best thing for anyone to do is to support/organise direct political action
to change our actions at a global scale. Personal initiatives can only go so
far.

We have a limited time left (I apologise for not backing this with a citation
but this is a rushed reply) to act, and personal sacrifices here and there
won't help. Our carbon emissions are still growing overall and we need to
reduce them somehow.

Also some of these points aren't entirely correct. Reusing plastic bags will
probably have a lower carbon footprint than using cotton (I owe you a citation
for this but it's out there). Also, there's a conflation between climate
change and plastic pollution throughout - let's be precise in addressing these
topics.

~~~
bryanlarsen
The excuses that people and politicians use to avoid action have been
addressed. "But China / other countries", "But jobs". William Nordhaus won a
Nobel prize in economics with this paper:

[https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-
riding/](https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding/) ;
[https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.15000001](https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.15000001)

~~~
DFHippie
Seconded.

For governments to do anything, individuals need to do at least one seemingly
ineffectual thing: vote. But voting is a poor signal. You vote in most cases
for representatives and these representatives stand for many things. To
improve the signal you need to show this is _why_ you voted, and that you will
do it again. By doing the small, seemingly ineffectual things you can do as an
individual you are signaling your preferences to people who can do more.

And more than this, by doing something, anything, you are in effect voting for
the behavior you think is acceptable in your society. You yourself are more
likely to do another small thing. Your neighbors will be a little less
enthusiastic to be seen doing nothing. People, everyone, is looking for an
excuse to pamper their present selves at the cost of other people and their
future selves, but few people are so thoughtless and selfish that they will do
this in all circumstances. By making this choice a little less comfortable for
yourself and others, you shift the ratio: how much burden you and others will
take on now versus how much you put off on others.

The truth of the matter is that if everyone would just do the little,
seemingly ineffectual things we wouldn't need the government to compel us or
engineer our incentives. The fix we find ourselves in is the cumulative result
of many individuals doing small, seemingly ineffectual things that made things
worse.

~~~
hnhg
To turn your point on its head, I'd say the trick is to come up with a
stronger political signal than just voting.

Fridays for Future and Extinction Rebellion are examples of such things - I
think there's scope for much more across various politicals affiliations and
leanings.

~~~
DFHippie
I don't think that's turning it on its head but reinforcing it.

~~~
hnhg
Yeah, perhaps I should have phrased it as "in other words"

------
shawnb576
These are great ways to live in line with your values. Kudos to anyone who
does their best to minimize their GHG footprint.

But no this will not prevent climate change and it’s best people don’t get the
idea that they are “fighting climate” change by any of these measures.

There is one thing that matters: organized political action. That’s it. If the
worlds political establishment doesn’t prioritize this, we are cooked.

Here is what you can do:

* Learn about climate change * Talk to your friends and family about it * Make it your top voting issue

Most people don’t understand the danger we are in

~~~
carno
Ofc, but what better way to make the masses conscious than making them part of
it. Also, why do you need the government to limit you before you do something?

\- Do you need the government to start issuing flight hour quotas before you
start flying less? \- Do you need the government to ban short flights before
you start using alternative transport methods more? \- Do you need the
government to impose a high meat tax before you start consuming less?

You can do both, you can start doing your part AND push for political action.
Saying "this is meaningless" is just a justification to not do anything
yourself and put the blame on someone else. An excuse for inactivity.

~~~
shawnb576
No, that's clearly not what I'm saying. I'm not arguing that people shouldn't
do these things, I'm arguing that we should be clear about what they actually
accomplish. I do all of these things, but I don't kid myself that it's making
a lick of difference, because it's not.

The individual action idea is dangerous because it:

\- Blames the victims. This problem is being caused by fossil-fuel companies
and the policies that support them. We must stop them from emitting and from
poisoning the public dialog on these issues

\- It's classist and priveledged. Only rich people have these kinds of choices
- poor people can't always make these kinds of choices in their lives.

The only solution is massive collective action that drives us towards a net-
negative world.

I'd rather have somebody drive a Yukon and vote for people who will put in a
Green New Deal than someone who eats vegan and votes for Jill Stein.

------
jacknews
I would also add to avoid many 'smart' devices, and stick to well-built,
dependable, maintainable/fixable devices and appliances.

It's been a trend for some time to build-in obsolescence (not to mention, cut
corners), but adding 'smart' to things seems to me to greatly worsen the
situation, even if the smart controls claim to save energy etc.

The smarts, particularly the UI elements, will certainly become obsolete, and
are often the most likely part to fail (often simply the tact or bubble
switches, etc). Well, after built-in batteries, perhaps.

Having some smart, and exposing a simple and standardized/open lower-level
interface would be much better, and have the UI, except the absolute basics,
like on/off, on external devices of your choice.

------
superpermutat0r
Well, if I take 1 intercontinental flight every year, then my savings on some
other stuff are pretty negligible.

Same thing if I eat water intensive crops or meat. I can keep the tap open as
long as I live and I would not waste the water spent on all those cotton
clothes, rice and burgers.

Solution to climate change can't be individual responsibility. Climate change
is driven by huge corporations, I'm pretty sure that 50% of the population
halved their CO2 footprint it would still be a drop in the bucket compared to
corporation spending.

~~~
blablabla123
But people still have influence by making informed decision when voting and
choosing products if they have the money. The first one is obvious, the second
one requires more research but it's still doable. When there's a choice
between a product from a company that usually higher CO2 footprints, it makes
sense to choose an alternative product.

Moreover the corporations are also just collections of people that might not
be able to make big decisions but make a difference with tiny decisions, if
that makes any sense :)

~~~
sendilkumarn
But the point of this article is that we can initiate the change. If we
collectively decide and eliminate plastic bags in our town / place or whatever
subdivision then for sure we can make an impact. There is nothing bigger than
people power.

~~~
nobodyandproud
I wish it were that simple.

While you’re correct that individual actions will ultimately decide our fate,
what you’re not accounting for is this: The economics are stacked against
anyone trying to do the right thing.

It’s actually cheaper, less time consuming, and more convenient to kill our
planet.

To properly recycle I would have to spend 15 to 30 minutes a day.

If wanted to recycle food (compost), add another 15 to 30 minutes.

So per week, that’s about 4 to 7 hours. Time that could be spent working or
sleeping.

With regards to plastic shopping bags: Yes, I can avoid it. But then I need to
buy plastic waste bags anyway, because I’m required to package my waste.

With regards to meat: I don’t go crazy with meat, but in terms of cost most
Western societies have masked the cost. Fresh produce is more expensive per
calorie than a slab of beef per calorie.

Or how about electronics? It’s insane that it’s generally cheaper to buy new
consumer electronics, rather than have someone fix it.

Or packaging: There is zero economic reason for businesses to minimize the
amount of plastic packaging. Plastic has the advantages of low weight and
tensile strength, so any company that tries to change would be at an immediate
disadvantage.

To fix these imbalances we need social policies (with teeth) that force a new,
market-driven optimum for both companies and individuals.

For that to happen we need leadership that have the courage to undertake a
long, hard battle against vested interests.

~~~
sendilkumarn
I know odds are against us. If you really care about nature spend that 4 to 7
hours. Talk to your company and make it a policy, might be a fraction of your
colleagues will do it.

Meat, plastic and electronics are the problems I agree completely.

We can change the packaging slightly. I already heard a lot about some vendors
in Germany are going PET-less solution, TamilNadu (a state in India) also
started banning plastics and packaging.

My core idea is social policies will not change unless people are willing to
accept it. When your locality goes zero-plastic bags, you will start seeing
the influences that it creates on your local supplier and then it expands. It
is how nature works and definitely, it takes time and effort but slowly it
will (may) change the world. But in the end, it will remain at least we tried.

~~~
nobodyandproud
Anyone who takes up this cause naively will lose out to people and
organizations that don’t care.

By lose out, I mean they will lose political and economic influence.

If people who care have a significant overhead compared to those who don’t,
guess who expands and has lobbying money and time?

At a company-level, a 1% overhead can be rather steep cost.

Really, my individual effort isn’t enough. Just look at littering. I don’t
litter, but there are too many people around me that do.

And this is with an action that has almost zero cost to individuals!

The way to ensure we don’t kill ourselves is by tilting the market to favor
sustainable approaches.

Steeper Import taxes. Removal of certain subsidies. Adding other subsidies.
Tax breaks to encourage repairs. At-purchase disposal fees. Packaging taxes.
Etc.

The scale of the problem involves billions of individuals.

The scale of the solution must match, and must not favor cheaters or
don’t-care organizations. Or it will fail.

------
MattBearman
This is a pretty good list, although my understating is that dishwashers are
generally more energy efficient than washing up by hand -
[https://www.comparethemarket.com/energy/information/how-
much...](https://www.comparethemarket.com/energy/information/how-much-does-a-
dishwasher-use)

~~~
toper-centage
They are for sure more water efficient. But I wonder how long do you need to
use a dish washer to compensate the energy expenditure of producing the
machine.

~~~
sendilkumarn
Dishwashers get old and they have their own problems. There are machines that
use less water. But manually people are capable of reducing the amount of
water that we use to clean the dishes.

I can clean my dishes in 10litres of water. On the other hand dishwashers on
an average requires 12-20 litres of water. The tip is do not use running tap
water.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _I can clean my dishes in 10litres of water. On the other hand dishwashers
> on an average requires 12-20 litres of water. The tip is do not use running
> tap water._

What's the correct technique to ensure the dishes end up being clean, and not
just thoroughly immersed in a bacterial growth medium that's made of water and
dissolved food? Or am I being too paranoid about sanitation here?

~~~
aoeusnth1
Wash them quickly. Bacteria growth is not significant on the order of minutes.

~~~
TeMPOraL
It's not the growth during washing I'm worried about, but that not rinsing
them will leave them covered in a growth medium that will significantly
accelerate their growth over the next hours or days.

~~~
sendilkumarn
I am pretty sure that the amount of bacteria will be lesser than what we
carry.

But yeah at times I have the same thing running on my head.

I was able to reduce my water bills by almost 30% just by manually cleaning
the utensils and reducing the washing machine usage.

------
gberger
This article/list portrays a good sentiment, but it misses the most important
point: VOTE for politicians that support green policies.

It is naive to assume that people everywhere will read articles like this and
educate themselves and the problem will disappear. Only the government can
force corporations to behave in a way that is sustainable.

~~~
sendilkumarn
I am not saying the problem will disappear. But we can extend the timeline.
Maybe (stressing on maybe) nature will evolve.

------
Slimbo
I'd like a bigger emphasis on efficiency. Space heating/cooling in particular,
your first big win is to increase efficiency before you even start to think
about renewable. If you spend money to cool, increase ventilation, shade, find
ways to reduce heat buildup in the first place. If you spend money to heat,
insulate, wear more clothes, use public spaces more (share heat), shut doors.
For both, use good thermostats or smart systems to manage heating and cooling.

In general you see a lot of advise for dealing with symptoms of our over
consumption, not the cause. Buy less (toys, food, clothes, cars, travel,
whatever). What you own, use it for longer, fix it, do without.

------
MildlySerious
The problem is very real, and I am happy that it's reaching more people than
ever.

This is a well meant post with some solid advice that I wish more people would
follow, but some points are just conflicting, confusing and possibly wrong.

Recommending to replace paperback books with an electronic device that is made
up of plastic, while telling the reader to use less electricity and not to use
plastic bags and avoid plastic packaging just doesn't add up without providing
some extra context.

~~~
sendilkumarn
More and more forests are deforested for books. Electricity can be green (it
is not at the moment) but eventually we will be there. I think it makes sense
to use an electronic device rather than using a paperback book.

Plastics are cruel, but at the very least we can ask the manufacturers to use
something else and those devices mostly don't end up in the trash day 1. We
definitely need to find a way but papers are even more cruel.

But again that is subjective.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _More and more forests are deforested for books._

[citation needed]

More and more forests are deforested _for agriculture_ \- for both growing
plants and pastures for animals. Paper production is a combination of forest-
sourced trees, but also recycled paper, wood waste from other industries, and
trees planted specifically for paper manufacturing. I get conflicting
breakdowns of the proportions, but a random source[0] I'm looking at says
something like this:

"However, 39 percent of the fiber used for papermaking comes from recycled
paper. Most of the remaining wood is obtained either through forest thinning
(removing slow-growing or defective trees) or from lumber milling residues –
materials that otherwise would go unused. Only 36 percent of timber harvested
in the United States is used directly to make paper and paperboard."

That's not to say we shouldn't reduce our paper use, but I wouldn't sweat it
too much when it comes to buying that book (especially if it's print-on-
demand), or printing that article or code listing. Paper is a ridiculously
powerful cognitive and productivity multiplier, still unmatched by digital
solutions. I'd argue that paper use might be essential for humanity figuring
their way out of this crisis.

If you want to cut down on wasteful paper use, fight _advertising_. The
subsection of the industry dealing with physical advertisements is literally
one giant machine for moving cellulose from trees into landfills.

\--

[0] - [https://theconversation.com/is-the-paper-industry-getting-
gr...](https://theconversation.com/is-the-paper-industry-getting-
greener-5-questions-answered-76274)

------
krageon
This list is the sort of corporation-serving drivel that all of us should have
come to expect from people who can't think beyond their own experience to save
their life. The majority of climate change comes from _corporations_. This
list doesn't address our most grating problem, which is what we've
collectively allowed some other people to screw everything up for the rest of
us.

------
martincollignon
I think the article misses the point of what people can do politically and
what we can as a tech community do using our skills.

For politics, I encourage everyone to look at Climate Citizens' Lobby [1]

For tech, there are now a few communities creating projects like
climatechoice.co [2]: [3][4][5]

[1][https://citizensclimatelobby.org/](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/)

[2][https://climatechoice.co/](https://climatechoice.co/)

[3][https://climateaction.tech/](https://climateaction.tech/)

[4][https://techimpactmakers.com/](https://techimpactmakers.com/)

[5][https://www.tmrow.com](https://www.tmrow.com)

------
qnsi
This is missing the most important action one can take - voting and telling
people to vote (Greens in Europe and progressive Democrats in USA)

~~~
sendilkumarn
Thats political :)

------
sendilkumarn
Between thanks to everybody that I really get more and more information :) You
are all the best.

