
Ask HN: How do we fight the existential threat of climate change? - edgefield0
With the recent news on carbon dioxide and methane levels, various feedback loops, and record setting temperatures, it seems clear that climate change is accelerating and represents an existential risk to humanity. The HN community is well resourced, well educated, and well connected.  What can we do to fight the existential risk of climate change?
======
badrabbit
For HN crowd I think the best thing we can do is develop platforms and
technology that facilitate and encourage unbiased and clearly presented news
and information discovery by the masses.

Unltimately, even the best idea is useless without buy-in by the masses and
policy makers. Right now most people simply don't understand or accept the
situation either due to lack of factual and audience-appropriate information
or due to lack of information sources _they_ trust that present the facts to
them. Like it or not,tech is how information spreads and technologists have a
lot of say in the outcome of this.

Tech aside,like many other factual information, climate change is presented as
a fact people have to accept along with other scientific beliefs. What I mean
is, people who are not confident in their own ability to objectively assess
the facts rely on the trustworthiness of the people presenting the facts.
Climate change should not be presented as an "Us vs Them" issue (obviously)
and it needs to be presented in a way that does not challenge any other
commonly held beliefs people might have. You can't challenge someone's sacred
beliefs (whatever that might be) and also present factual information they're
not able to independently verify and expect them to accept the latter and
reject the former,it just doesn't work that way. This is mostly why I
suggested neutral platforms that instill a strong level of confidence for
every audience are needed.

Unfortunately, all I see is climate change being presented like any other
scientific fact and on platforms that don't have the confidence of the
majority of audiences. You need everyone from the cowboy rancher in texas to
the lumberjack in brazil working on cutting down trees in the amazon to buy
in.

Solutions like mass reforestation by essentially bombing the planet with seed
planting pods seem promising and countries are increasingly switching to
renewable energy sources. It all just needs mass buy-in so the solutions can
take effect before it's too late.

~~~
shishy
The problem I see is people seem to be cherry-picking the blogs/websites that
tell them what they want to hear, rather than actually search for the Truth.
So even if you make a source that presents news in an unbiased way, it might
never get discovered because it'll get lost in the sea of "information" out
there.

And if you have the most unbiased source out there, someone else with an
agenda can push it as an us vs. them narrative and cause the potential
audience to simply avoid your site (or view it in their lens).

~~~
AnthonyMouse
I miss Jon Stewart.

What you need is someone who can present real news as entertainment instead of
presenting entertainment as real news, which is what he did in a way that none
of his acolytes have faithfully replicated (not even when they were on the
same show in the same episode). Because you have to be willing to make fun of
anyone for being wrong instead of just making fun of The Other Team for being
The Other Team.

But in general it feels like there is an answer in that format. Because people
want to be entertained. If they're not being entertained then you've lost
them. But you can entertain them and inform them at the same time, if you
actually take that as a goal and consciously work toward it. A good professor
doesn't bore the students yet they still learn the material.

But there is a difference between that and just making partisan propaganda
humorous enough to get people to watch it.

------
hypefi
On an individual level : \- plant trees \- consume only the necessary \- limit
car, planes, trains transportation \- Reconnect to the cycles of the earth

On a collective level : \- policies against gas emissions \- Laws: Same as
speed limitation for cars, limit energy consumption per habitant \- true
information/news/education \- Bans of polluting products ( plastics, heavy
metals, ...etc ) \- Change obsolete, unnecessary, inefficient and polluting
tech

------
mlthoughts2018
My opinion might be unpopular, but I think there’s very little worthwhile
activity a lone individual can do. Making progress to mitigate climate change
will require long-term coordination of governments, elites, executives and
militaries that just hasn’t been supported by the evidence of human
sociopolitical history. Meanwhile, climate change is a topic receiving untold
attention all the time and hundreds of billions in funding annually.

There’s a sincere opportunity cost if you don’t put your attention towards
other causes that may be of equal importance in terms of preventable
suffering, yet may have much more straightforward solutions due to lessened
need for sociopolitical coordination or expensive consumer behavioral changes
(such as focusing on simple ways to prevent diseases w/ Against Malaria or
Deworm the World or others, or animal welfare charities like The Humane
League).

However, taking it for granted that one should still focus on climate change,
the main things I have come to conclude are:

\- advocating use of reusable materials for cups, bottles, bags, etc., is a
total waste of time & will amount to virtually no positive impact, while
risking alienating people away from the cause.

\- personally conserving in any extreme way is likewise useless and you’ll
just be living a worse life for nothing, while also risking alienating people.

\- most municipal recycling is a total scam, and frankly we’re not in any
danger of running out of landfill space. It’s just a feel-good distraction
akin to “Showing that you care” by Hanson regarding medical spending.

\- Finally, it seems that one of the simplest things humans can do to
sequester carbon at a global scale is reforestation. While probably it will
require governments to do this at the necessary scale, possibly the only
useful action an individual can take is to find the most cost-efficient way to
donate money to a charity or organization that plants and protects trees at a
very large scale.

------
scotchmi_st
I doubt there are many climate scientists on here, and I am certainly not one,
but the problem as I see it is that the public and industry generally are
resistant to subtractive solutions: driving less, going on fewer flights,
carbon taxes and so on. Therefore the best solutions are additive: planting
billions of trees and investing in industries that reduce carbon emission.
Planting trees in particular is something that is- a) simple b) fairly cheap
c) has a range of other benefits such as helping to improve air quality and
reduce water runoff, preventing floods. d) helps wildlife more generally

I know it's more complicated than that, but that's a good place to start.
Perhaps even pay people to grow trees on disused land.

~~~
zw123456
I think you are on the right track. I think there was a post here on HN the
other day about needing a trillion trees to counter CO2 from human activity
(or something like that).

So what if online retailers like Amazon had some sort of opt in where you
could donate $1 extra with your order to get a tree planted (or it would go to
that). It probably would not be enough to get you to a trillion trees but if a
lot of online retailers offered that at least it would give people something
they could do easily.

------
iron0013
Work to get politicians who will fight climate change elected. Individual
lifestyle changes will do very little (though they still should be done!), but
mobilizing the resources of the government can make a real difference. I feel
like this is obvious, but it seems like many don’t seem to understand it

~~~
leesalminen
If they’ll do very little then why should they still be done?

------
tim333
Carbon pricing at about $50-100 per ton of CO2. And something for methane.
This could help with a switch from fossil fuel to renewables and provide money
for things like reforestation. As an individual you can campaign for policies
like that that are economically efficient providing the best climate outcome
per dollar cost.

With solar and batteries already falling below fossil prices plus a tax on
fossil fuel I'm optimistic a big change could be made without that much
lifestyle cost.

------
perfunctory
Similar recent thread
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20353814](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20353814)

------
sidcool
A recent news article suggested that planting 1 trillion trees would address
the issue. It's not trivial though.

------
estebarb
I'm wondering: how much energy we could save if magically all our Python,
Ruby, PHP websites appear rewritten in Rust or Go. Datacenters use a lot of
energy: improving performance of interpreter to match efficiency of compiled
ones would be worthy?

------
smitty1e
If we "fight the existential risk of climate change" are we seeking ways to
eliminate weather and render all climate constant?

This is not a troll or snark.

This is a sincere query to understand the requirement ahead of supporting the
effort.

------
edgefield0
Why was this post flagged?

------
artur_makly
sIMplE.. we spend more time, talent, and $ to send missions to other dead
planets.

Bill Majer said it better:
[https://youtu.be/CWarpTWk_jg](https://youtu.be/CWarpTWk_jg)

this cartoon says it too:
[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B5-lDJWCUAAwfya.jpg](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B5-lDJWCUAAwfya.jpg)

------
titojankowski
Hack direct air capture hardware.

Establish a growth curve for air capture like Moore's Law.

Do mashups. AI + climate, Biotech + climate, VR + climate.

Be curious.

------
bassman9000
Nuclear. Lots of it. Hundreds of them.

~~~
QuickToBan
Nuclear fission doesn't work because it requires a reliable flow of cool
water. As such, it warms the planet too. Rivers are often too warm to cool
nuclear plants, and so the plants have to pause operations. It's neither safe
nor reliable.

~~~
JamesBarney
Mind linking to this, I've talked to several nuclear engineers who are
spending their careers trying to solve problems related to nuclear energy
adoption and none of them have mentioned this issue.

~~~
QuickToBan
If you read any non-HN news at all, you would've seen it over the years:

[https://www.apnews.com/2fef5c6a978b4fd5a79596020f0bac8a](https://www.apnews.com/2fef5c6a978b4fd5a79596020f0bac8a)

[https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/sep/07/weatherwatch-
nu...](https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/sep/07/weatherwatch-nuclear-
power-plants-feel-the-heat)

[https://energynews.us/2016/09/09/midwest/nuclear-plants-
feel...](https://energynews.us/2016/09/09/midwest/nuclear-plants-feel-the-
heat-of-warming-water/)

[https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/health/20iht-
nuke.1.57884...](https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/health/20iht-
nuke.1.5788480.html)

It has happened in the US too. This aside, the Fukushima nuclear disaster is a
reminder that nuclear fission is not desirable.

~~~
JamesBarney
Interesting reads. Thanks

------
temsa1
Doing little things as an individual is not impactful enough, maybe except
eating less to no more meat ( in all its forms )

The only thing for this kind of issue that has proved efficient historically
is massive non violent protesting ( that is what Extinction Rebellion, aka XR,
does ), with people landing in prison...

As for trying to provide policies, we should, like any problem, have a look at
the stats to prioritize, and aim at better rather than worse, we're already at
risk of hitting up to +26°C in 2026 if unlucky and not doing something, hard.

Fossil fuel out phasing is not simple to address, so we should limit it as
much as possible while scaling alternatives. It also means that anything
producing fossil fuels or ( CO2 ) should not be able to give any kind of money
or service to any kind of politicians, to avoid conflicts of interests.
Scaling alternatives (e.g. solar, wind, energy storage) means a lot of new
buildings, and building something using portland concrete does create a lot of
CO2.

Portland concrete is already the second more polluting stuff yearly on the
planet after fossil fuels. Scalable and carbon negative ( actuaally removing
CO2 from air) alternatives do exist to Portland concrete:

\- MgO based concrete is carbon dioxide producing at first, but even more
carbon dioxide absorbing during the 6 first months. It can be even be made
from sea water, and was used by Romans and Egyptians in stuff still standing
today. It can be 700 times stronger than usual concrete, dry even in wet
climate, and doesn't need metal structure to be mechanically good, you can
just use wood or plant fibers instead.

\- wood is of course one of the best alternative should it come from actually
sustainable and renewable source, and if well integrated with nature, which is
a challenge and where there is already a ton of abuse.

So as a politician, the first and best measure that is needed is to phase out
Portland concrete as quick as possible ( e.g. in about 2 years ). Carbon Tax (
with NO exception to it) and subvention should help, probably a lot of control
is also needed to avoid harming ( too much? ) nature because every massive and
quick change we do is likely to harm and destroy nature.

Regarding energy, nothing is simple, yet we have to find solutions to phase
out oil/ gas/coal based as quickly as possible

\- oil/gas/coal should be forbidden to search for more, as using already what
we have access to is more than enough to kill us all.

\- ( small ? ) nuclear is one of the best short term option despite all the
cons everyone knows about it ( including needing a lot of water to cool down,
which is unlikely sustainable. But we need to build a bunch of them, and it is
dangerous.

\- solar means a lot of concrete, land use and planet albedo change ( except
offshore ), plus the solar panels themselves are essentially China based, and
using rare earth elements, which is not good for scaling. It also needs to
deploy very fast, we should probably deploy 1 every day for dozen of years, or
maybe more to be faster and avoid risks. It also means we have to efficiently
store the energy to be able to use it during the night.

\- offshore wind is not bad, though like solar, it means energy storage.
Onshore actually kills birds, which is not good ( plus it uses quite some land
)

\- Energy storage is also quite a problem:

* Li-ion batteries are not really sustainable, are not really recycled yet, and rely on rare earth element, plus they aren't really safe either.

* Blue solution's (aka Bollore) ones are a lot better, as they provide more cycles and don't use ( much?) rare earth elements, though they are only good to store energy for at most a day

* Nawa ones would also be quite good, as they can be charged and discharged a lot faster than li-ion or BS ones, plus have a lifetime of millions of cycles, plus they are carbon based, which is really great (and they designed that to be great regarding CO2), though can hardly store energy for more than a day. As cells, they should be on the market in a few months, but there is no utility offers around it yet AFAIK.

* multi lake/Dam energy storage ( with an upper and lower lake, and a pump in between) is not that good, as it indirectly produces a lot of Methane and should be improved to avoid that, or phased out.

Ideally to build what is needed regarding energy we should only use carbon
negative technologies, and replace phased out plants with something locally
integrated, probably something like a Permaculture inspired forest would be
good.

Regarding transports:

\- we should not allow airports to grow, and only allow flights short term to
cross oceans. It also means building new infrastructures everywhere to
compensate.

\- Train should probably be only electric, and subsidized somehow. Research
should go into making it more efficient and faster.

\- Electric cars are also a must, though the battery technology has to change,
quickly.

\- A new generation of Ekranoplans should also be a good solution to replace
planes to cross oceans and seas, while using less energy ( and maybe be
electric? ), but can't probably be achieved quickly.

Cotton and synthetic fabrics, plus leathet based products should probably be
phased out, and you should have a multi year warranty on clothes you buy, or
you should 'rent' them to get a good incentive for durability instead of the
current fast fashion harming nature, using a lot of water, and producing CO2

All the public research we do worldwide should be focused on the sole problem
of climate crisis and survival, or get no funding ( I know it is tough, and
maybe reducing but I see no better option )

We should also give people help and incentives to move to more suitable
locations regarding climate crisis and new transportation constraints.

We should test and see if the policies are able to provide decorrelation
between economic growth and CO2e growth, and if not, look hard at a
sustainable way to un-grow economically to save ourselves.

As all of this must be made at an global scale, the biggest economic powers
should show the example as fast as possible, and be ready for war with
countries not following.

Nothing easy in there, though I see no escape from it

------
jacquesm
Sorry, we're too busy changing the world to be concerned with climate change.

~~~
shishy
What's the point if it becomes unsustainable for us to live on it

~~~
jacquesm
Absolutely. It's incredible how we're slowly marching towards this like lambs
to the slaughter. I think the problem is of such a magnitude that most people
would rather look away and find some deckchairs to rearrange thinking that it
isn't their problem.

The USA pulling out of climate accords also does not help, it gives 100's of
millions of people entirely the wrong signals.

------
QuickToBan
An underlying problem is oligarchs that strongly influence the bribed
politicians and government officials to continue taxpayer support for fossil
fuels.

