If Seeing the World Helps Ruin It, Should We Stay Home? • Hacker News Board

Re: If Seeing the World Helps Ruin It, Should We Stay Home?

#61

Post by manjana » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 6:16 PM UTC

avalys wrote: post #19

Rather than endlessly agonize about individual industries, pursuits, and interests, let’s just tax carbon emissions until they’re reduced to an acceptable level, and let the market sort the rest out. If travel is valuable to you, pay for it.

Even if we could force a stop there's no telling if it wouldn't be counterproductive in the sense that to some degree it is difficult to predict how interfering with complex systems tends to pans out. People use vacations as a means to blow off steam and it only requires a fair bit of imagination to see what could possibly go wrong when people suddenly aint allowed to handle their stress the way they know of anymore.

Re: If Seeing the World Helps Ruin It, Should We Stay Home?

#62

Post by redthrow » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 6:18 PM UTC

eafkuor wrote: post #9

And now I have to feel guilty about this too. What a life :/

If it makes you feel better, Elon Musk flies around in his private jet while tweeting "why not go renewable now?" rather than taking a more nuanced stance.

Re: If Seeing the World Helps Ruin It, Should We Stay Home?

#63

Post by estebank » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 6:26 PM UTC

PyroLagus wrote: post #36

estebank wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem I see though is that "drive an electric car" is interpreted all too often as "buy an electric car, and now that you're 'green', do not worry yourself about the fact that you change cars every two years and the footprint of your gas consumption is dwarfed by the footprint of actually making the cars pat self in back ".

I don't think electric cars break down after two years. Maybe the battery may give problems after a while, but that should be replaceable.

I'm not implying they break down. I'm saying that people like to drive cars with "new car smell". I'm against unnecessary green-washed conspicuous consumption.

Re: If Seeing the World Helps Ruin It, Should We Stay Home?

#64

Post by estebank » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 6:27 PM UTC

PopeDotNinja wrote: post #47

estebank wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem I see though is that "drive an electric car" is interpreted all too often as "buy an electric car, and now that you're 'green', do not worry yourself about the fact that you change cars every two years and the footprint of your gas consumption is dwarfed by the footprint of actually making the cars pat self in back ".

Here's a video I liked on the carbon costs associated w/ gas & electric cars. Check out video's sources for further reading. https://youtu.be/6RhtiPefVzM -- "Are Electric Cars Worse For The Environment? Myth Busted" -- Engineering Explained

Electric cars aren't worse for the environment. Consumerism is.

Re: If Seeing the World Helps Ruin It, Should We Stay Home?

#65

Post by pjc50 » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 6:28 PM UTC

tbirrell wrote: post #32

Pursuant to the arguments that ships are "even worse" than planes, it is worth noting that a lot of ships (especially cargo) are built specifically to burn bunker fuel (residual oil left over after gasoline, diesel and other light hydrocarbons are extracted from crude oil). This is partly because the thought is that _someone_ will burn it, so you might as well use it in the middle of the ocean, away from all the poll…

Bunker fuel is "crackable". It can be made into lighter fuels and the sulphur removed, it's just expensive to do so.

Re: If Seeing the World Helps Ruin It, Should We Stay Home?

#66

Post by buboard » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 6:40 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #34

buboard wrote: post #22

I feel like some of the biggest offenders are scientists attending conferences. Is there an estimate of the research budget % spent on travel expenses?

Unless you think that 3 out of every 5 days of a climate scientist's job is flying around the world, attending conferences, their travel budget is much lower then what is spent on putting food on their tables, and roofs over their heads.

Yeah its just not practical to take their food. Plus i m not talking only about climate scientists

Re: If Seeing the World Helps Ruin It, Should We Stay Home?

#67

Post by bubblewrap » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 6:45 PM UTC

beat wrote: post #49

bubblewrap wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He didn't say you shouldn't have kids. My kids read books, too.

Sadly, a lot of people say we shouldn't have kids because it's bad for the Earth. Which ties to poor arguments about "overpopulation".

What are poor arguments about overpopulation? Clearly overpopulation is part of the problem.

Re: If Seeing the World Helps Ruin It, Should We Stay Home?

#68

Post by fooblitzky » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 6:47 PM UTC

Dkastro92 wrote: post #35

The only way to fight climate change is to tax carbon at a global scale, and that is nearly imposible considering the current world politics

One way I've heard is to have an import duty on carbon at the border. You have your internal tax on carbon at the source, nationally. If another country has a similar tax, their goods can be imported without extra duties. If they don't, you assess the goods imported and charge the equivalent duty. If the carbon tax rate is different you can pro-rate.

That way, local producers aren't competing against cheap, dirty, manufacturing overseas, and other countries are encouraged to assess their own carbon tax to avoid the import duties.

It's a very fair system that allows countries to onboard one at a time, instead of all together. Unfortunately it would probably be considered illegal under the WTO.

Re: If Seeing the World Helps Ruin It, Should We Stay Home?

#69

Post by mfatica » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 6:47 PM UTC

fowkswe wrote: post #46

happytoexplain wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why the dismissive attitude about where people live?

If you are consciously making decisions to not live a carbon heavy life, you'd naturally choose to not live in a ex/suburb.

So we should all pile into cities? Do you realize how ridiculous that is? We can't concentrate everyone in a walkable / bikeable area, it's just not feasible.

Re: If Seeing the World Helps Ruin It, Should We Stay Home?

#70

Post by gridlockd » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 6:48 PM UTC

bpfrh wrote: post #56

gridlockd wrote: post #11

"Each additional metric ton of carbon dioxide or its equivalent — your share of the emissions on a cross-country flight one-way from New York to Los Angeles — shrinks the summer sea ice cover by 3 square meters, or 32 square feet, the authors, Dirk Notz and Julienne Stroeve, found." Those picture-like analogies may be very effective, but I immediately call bullshit. I want to know a percentage. Let's say 100% of air…

That figure is misleading. In the uk the domnestic aviation accounts for 22% of the transportation sector. Airtravel is a luxtury and unfortunately in a crises that should be the first to go. At least domnestic flights should be banned immediately. Will it solve our Problem? No. Will it help solve our Problem? Yes, because it is one of the things we can get easily ride of. Nobody says you can't travel anymore, just t…

Your 22% figure is misleading. It makes it sound significant, but it's not. In reality, anything that people in the UK can do regarding domestic CO2 is insignificant to world CO2 emissions. They could be 100% carbon neutral and it wouldn't make a dent.

Instead of giving up on liberties and wasting money on tiny gains on CO2 savings, the UK should be using it towards developing technologies for the rest of the world to thrive on - without emitting so much CO2.

That's not what people want to hear though. They want to feel significant. They want to feel good about themselves because they're eating vegan or riding a bike to work, even though that contribution is utterly negligible.