
No flights, a 4-day week, living off-grid: Climate scientists try to save planet - nadezhda18
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jun/29/no-flights-four-day-week-climate-scientists-home-save-planet
======
oil25
Reading articles like this make me quite sad, not because the described
lifestyle is unappealing to me (I'm a vegan who doesn't drive, avoids plastic,
and is "off-grid" on solar power), but because on an individual level, these
efforts are so pale in comparison to environmental destruction caused by
military, industry and large-scale commerce, I consider bragging or
evangelizing them to be vain and even a bit egoistic.

Don't get me wrong: avoiding animal products, long-haul flights, plastic
shampoo bottles are all worthwhile, but not for the reasons stated. They do
not even begin to address the large systemic problem of climate change and
ecological harm. They make us feel good, like we're "doing something" \- and
perhaps that's by design while the real perpetrators of our own extinction go
unpunished and even unrecognized. It is "bumper sticker" activism while what's
actually needed is a radical shift in collective consciousness. How do we
organize such global action for effect?

~~~
perfunctory
> I consider bragging or evangelizing them to be vain and even a bit
> egoistic... How do we organize such global action for effect?

Well. One suggestion would be to stop feeling bad about evangelising and start
talking about lifestyle choices with friends, family, and co-workers.

~~~
oil25
I haven't had much success with that, probably because it's difficult for me
to disjoin emotion from passionate evangelism. It may even have been counter-
productive. What has your experience been? Can you share any strategies for
such discussions about personal lifestyle politics?

~~~
perfunctory
I think the key is to be friendly and not judge people and not come across as
a fanatic. And be patient - don't expect any immediate results, lifestyle
changes don't happen overnight. It may be important to leave emotions out of
this, though I am not sure about that.

Reflecting on my own experience, I don't remember anyone telling me explicitly
what I should do with my lifestyle, but I did meet several people who were
talking about climate change and their own personal choices. The discussions
were always calm and intelligent. In hindsight I can tell those conversations
were a contributing factor in triggering my own lifestyle changes. But it took
years.

Bringing up the latest climate news piece could be a good entry point for a
conversation. Before I joined my current project team I'm quite sure they
never talked about climate. Now we regularly discuss it during lunch breaks.

------
todd8
_How is a handful of people eschewing flights and 5-day work weeks going to
have any impact on our future temperatures?_

We can work on renewables, but the main source our renewable power today is
hydroelectric and I have read that very little growth in hydroelectric power
can be expected because the vast majority of exploitable topology in the USA
is already in use for hydroelectric.

Its hard to imagine enough wind turbines being built to eliminate oil, coal,
and gas very soon. I've probably made a mistake in my calculations so I
welcome some help here. Maybe someone can correct this if I'm wrong.

    
    
      total_usa_power_MWH = 3,808,000,000
      fraction_non_renewable = 0.78
      replacement_needed_MWH = total_usa_power_MWH * fraction_non_renewable 
    
      // replacement_needed_MWH == 2,970,240,000
      
      turbine_capacity_factor = 0.32
      nameplate_needed_MWH = replacement_needed_MWH / turbine_capacity_factor
    
      // nameplate_needed_MWH = 9,282,000,000
    
      cost_per_nameplate_MWH = 2,000,000
    
      total_cost = nameplate_needed_MWH * cost_per_nameplate_MWH
    
      // total_cost == 1.86e+16
    
      cost_trillions = 18,600
    

The annual GDP of the USA is around 20 trillion dollars while replacing our
non_renewable_power will cost 900 years worth of our total GDP. Is this right?

Even if we pursue this course of action will it affect global temperatures.
Other countries will continue to emit GHGs.

~~~
lightgreen
What is MWH?

If it is megawatts hours, it should be MWh (lower h), and over which period of
time, day, month, year?

If it is megawatts, it should be MW, not MWh.

------
perfunctory
I love 4-day work week. Have been working 4 days or less for many years now,
making my colleagues jealous. It's great. Never going back to 5 days. Never.

------
southern_cross
I'm getting quite annoyed now with the number of people who have little to no
training in matters of climate getting called "climate scientists" by the
press, or representing themselves as such.

~~~
nadezhda18
Which ones from the article didn't you like?

~~~
southern_cross
I did a quick background check of the ones that I could but I don't remember
the details; none appeared to have proper training in climate matters, though,
that I recall. But just listed in the article itself you've got "sustainable
consumption", "marine biology", "carbon management", "cognitive psychologist",
etc. (The other day I ran across someone claiming in an online post to be a
"climatologist", but in fact his other posts said that he was an
oceanographer.) Those fields are at best only tangentially related to matters
of climate, and there's probably not a properly trained climatologist in the
bunch.

It astounds me that the field of climate science is taken so seriously when it
appears to actually mostly just be full of hangers-on, also-rans, and
wannabes. And I can think of a few big names in it who have little to no
scientific training at all.

