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?

#81

Post by geff82 » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 7:41 PM UTC

gnode wrote: post #75

geff82 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We really have to push for new technologies and be ok with subsidizing them in order to help mass adoption and lower prices. Only a few people really think we should stop doing X or Y (even if they are really vocal). Instead of feeling bad, let us find a better solution that actually makes life even more worthwile. Why not aim for making travelling cheaper and even more available, while at the same time make it envir…

> I would totally LOVE the day when I can do a 500k trip with the family using electric technology This seems to be fairly close. The Pipistrel Panthera looks quite promising, for instance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipistrel_Panthera#Specificati... "Hybrid range is 758 mi or 1,220 km; Electric range is 249 mi or 400 km" > I do not know about you, but to me, a sustainable future simply looks and feels amazing. I…

I did not know about the Pathera, personally I was thinking about that one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bye_Aerospace_Sun_Flyer_4

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

#82

Post by mfatica » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 8:36 PM UTC

eropple wrote: post #80

mfatica wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Everyone? No. There are legitimate economic activities in non-urban places; there's unavoidable resource extraction, there are agricultural activities, that sort of thing. Most people? Sure. It requires re-thinking how we (Americans particularly) structure our cities, and will not be an overnight process, but what is preventing us from doing this generally? Aside from the idea that such re-thinking is impossible, any…

> but what is preventing us from doing this generally

The fact that people don't actually want to do that? People are free to live their lives the way they want. There's no reason to pile most people into cities just "because cars"

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

#83

Post by DesiLurker » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 8:42 PM UTC

redthrow wrote: post #62

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.

these type of arguments are really immature and dishonest. So what if a billionaire or a world leader is flying around in Jet. How is that an argument for us to destroy our habitat for future generations. statistically speaking how much of global warming is cause by private jets vs the rest of it? if the 'influencers' are not gonna talk about it then who else is? and will it matter?

if you take a step back & see you'll notice these type of arguments are designed to evoke an emotional response in a casual observer so they dont feel the need/desire to further engage in the (admittedly) marginally interesting topic.

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

#84

Post by etrautmann » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 8:53 PM UTC

jniedrauer wrote: post #60

etrautmann wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No - stay on trails in high traffic areas and know the basic Leave No Trace principles: https://lnt.org/why/7-principles/

Have you ever hiked the AT? Or certain sections of the PCT? The trail is cut 2-3 feet into the ground in some places. To stake out a tent, you have to drive stakes into fragile alpine soil, which then runs off down the mountain the next time it rains. Leaving no trace is easier said than done.

Yes, of course it's impossible to literally leave zero trace, but with education and the intent to respect nature, it's possible to radically reduce ones impact to the point where no one should feel guilty about enjoying the natural environment.

In many areas (such as delicate alpine areas) that's managed through permitting and restrictions on the numbers of people, though of course it still requires those permitted people to follow best practices and attempt to minimize their impact.

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

#85

Post by redthrow » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 10:12 PM UTC

DesiLurker wrote: post #83

redthrow wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

these type of arguments are really immature and dishonest. So what if a billionaire or a world leader is flying around in Jet. How is that an argument for us to destroy our habitat for future generations. statistically speaking how much of global warming is cause by private jets vs the rest of it? if the 'influencers' are not gonna talk about it then who else is? and will it matter? if you take a step back & see you'…

Sorry, what "argument" did I make?

It's more of an observation about how even people who are vocally pushing for renewables/sustainable energy aren't personally following what they preach (while seemingly not feeling guilty about it).

Is this observation wrong?

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

#86

Post by eropple » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 1:45 AM UTC

mfatica wrote: post #82

eropple wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone? No. There are legitimate economic activities in non-urban places; there's unavoidable resource extraction, there are agricultural activities, that sort of thing. Most people? Sure. It requires re-thinking how we (Americans particularly) structure our cities, and will not be an overnight process, but what is preventing us from doing this generally? Aside from the idea that such re-thinking is impossible, any…

> but what is preventing us from doing this generally The fact that people don't actually want to do that? People are free to live their lives the way they want. There's no reason to pile most people into cities just "because cars"

Are they free to consume more and more limited resources in doing so without fairly compensating the body politic for that consumption?

Or, put more bluntly: why must I and my children pay for them?

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

#87

Post by sokoloff » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 2:01 AM UTC

eropple wrote: post #48

gowld wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying people should avoid living in pleasant environments so conserve resources is nearly identical to saying people should avoid traveling to pleasant environments to convert resources. What point are you trying to make?

I could travel a lot and not get into the carbon footprint of your average 10K+-a-year commuter. So people who think those are desirable places to live should actually pay for what they consume, instead of freeloading--both economically and ecologically--off of those who do.

From what I see, you could do about 18K short-haul or 30K airline passenger miles to match the CO2e emissions of a 10K commuter (assuming you yourself have a carbon-free commute). 30K is you and 2 guests round-trip San Francisco to Paris or you and one guest one round-trip L.A. to Sydney.

I agree you could do a lot of hiking or road trips and fit within that footprint.

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

#88

Post by mfatica » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 2:09 AM UTC

eropple wrote: post #86

mfatica wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but what is preventing us from doing this generally The fact that people don't actually want to do that? People are free to live their lives the way they want. There's no reason to pile most people into cities just "because cars"

Are they free to consume more and more limited resources in doing so without fairly compensating the body politic for that consumption? Or, put more bluntly: why must I and my children pay for them?

If they have proper right to those resources then they certainly can consume them however they want.

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

#89

Post by eropple » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 4:50 AM UTC

mfatica wrote: post #88

eropple wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they free to consume more and more limited resources in doing so without fairly compensating the body politic for that consumption? Or, put more bluntly: why must I and my children pay for them?

If they have proper right to those resources then they certainly can consume them however they want.

Beyond the basic rights afforded by civil society one has remarkably few rights without corresponding responsibilities. Consumption comes with a lot of them. How are you proposing to fairly and equitably address those while leaving a better world for our children?

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

#90

Post by Dkastro92 » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 6:03 AM UTC

fooblitzky wrote: post #68

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, ma…

Im sorry if I didin't understand:

"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."

The equivalent duty meaning same as carbon taxers or less? (asuming non carbon taxers have less duty)