Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 59 posts

Re: To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution

#41

Post by joshmarinacci »

I appreciate the sentiment but this article is riddled with factual errors.

1) digitization (which includes tracking objects in the real world with IoT tech) increases efficiency, which results in moving fewer real objects around in the world, thus reducing total energy consumption. Think of Netflix vs manufacturing and shipping DVDs to stores then driving to the store to buy them.

2) data centers are far from the biggest carbon creators. Transportation and construction are, by far, #1

3) data centers can run off green energy. Combustion engine cars cannot.

4) data centers can be built in far away places that provide the most efficient and greenest energy

Re: To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution

#42

Post by huntie »

gshubert17 wrote: post #36
huntie wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public transit is not viable in most of the US.

> Public transit is not viable in most of the US. Since many US cities had public transit a century ago (and don't today), I wonder if you mean technically viable, economically viable, or politically attainable. I'm guessing the latter, and it's sad.

No I mean it is not viable in any way if you leave the bubble of US cities which account for a small percentage of the total area. Rural US is struggling just to make school buses work. The distances are too great and the people too few to ever support public transit. Any tax on fuel/cars screws rural areas who have no other choice.

Re: To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution

#43

Post by gus_massa »

What about a proposal to make journalist write their articles with a typewriter?

EDIT: Following the general rquest of writing substantive comments, let's extend this.

The problem is that the authors see the cost of computers in other applications, but he doesn't see the benefits. For example using machine learning to detect face has a cost, but it can be applied to many things. From trivial applications like decorate your face in the phone to security applications like face recognition of justice fugitives, to more realistic faces in movies to deep fakes. You may like some of them and dislike other, but for some people the new technology provides benefits that hopefully are most than the cost.

For a journalist, probably the most important use of a computer is to write an article. Perhaps also to keep the small parts of info that must put in the article. Make some research by internet instead of traveling to a library. And modern cellphones are quite a powerful computer. You can perhaps replace the cellphone by a line phone, use a lot of cards for contacts and store information. But I think that the journalist will see immediately the benefits of using a computer to write the articles instead of a typewriter.

Re: To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution

#44

Post by skitout »

joshmarinacci wrote: post #41

I appreciate the sentiment but this article is riddled with factual errors. 1) digitization (which includes tracking objects in the real world with IoT tech) increases efficiency, which results in moving fewer real objects around in the world, thus reducing total energy consumption. Think of Netflix vs manufacturing and shipping DVDs to stores then driving to the store to buy them. 2) data centers are far from the bi…

1) Increase efficiency sometime/often lead to rebound effect in our current system... When it comes to Netflix, current consumption replace both a) old renting a film system, and b)TV. You seems to overestimate the energy/pollution cost of a) (which can run on green energy too) and ignored b)

2)Sure, but data center consumption are added to transportation, construction...

3)Electric car can run on green energy too... does not change point 2)

4) You still try to compensate 2). And even data center running on green energy needs ressources and have effect.

The idea is not to not to get ride of digitization, but to keep in mind its consequences and don't see it as a magic thing that will solve all our problem and have no bad consequences

Re: To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution

#45

Post by rwz »

kgwxd wrote: post #21
aiCeivi9 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hoped huge popularity of adblock would do the same, without the need for regulation. No need for clickbait title when visitors are only a cost.

If Mobile Safari and Chrome for Android supported extensions, it probably would already be ubiquitous.

Mobile safari does support adblocks. https://1blocker.com/ seems to be the one most people recommend (I personally haven't tried it)

Re: To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution

#46

Post by noobermin »

helen___keller wrote: post #11
erentz wrote: post #5

It’s interesting to see this article for me because it is similar to the “Bitcoin is bad because CO2” articles and arguments that arise from time to time. To which I’ve unsuccessfully attempted to argue you can’t really say Bitcoin is bad and shouldn’t be allowed to exist for that reason without also agreeing that other stupid things we do with computers should suffer the same fate. Which surprisingly attracts a fair…

The pluses about a carbon tax is that it also affects the more invisible ways that we are killing the environment - hating on big tech is cool, hating on the car you use to get to work isn't as cool. Both should be taxed relative to their emissions.

The ironic bit is personal cars account for 20% of the US emissions already. Transportation is the largest category, at near 30%. Electricity is a close second, but pretending data centers use more than say the air conditioners across the US is probably false. Sure, per individual, data centers might use more, but something like better insulating houses would probably do more on net for emissions than just dismantling one data center, and ditching your car and riding public transit will probably do more than that.

Re: To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution

#47

Post by noobermin »

xvedejas wrote: post #19
maximente wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

carbon taxes are regressive insofar as the poor spend a larger % of their income on fuels than the rich and this is often not negotiable - people can't choose to e.g. not commute half an hour to work when they don't have much disposable income to start with, whereas the rich can generally pay for whatever quantity they want to consume already. so the point of the tax (reduce consumption) unfairly hits the poor.

A Carbon tax would also disproportionately help the poor, especially the global poor, so it's not fair to call it regressive without finding a way to put some numbers on both the costs and benefits. Besides, the money gained from a carbon tax isn't lost, it can be reinvested in things like public transit infrastructure.

Let's be honest, everyone huffs and puffs around this but don't have a handle on the facts. Look here[0]. The US is by far the one of the largest GHG producer per capita, and this is not a pinko anti-American bit, it's solely the US, not Europe when taking to account total emissions and emissions per capita. The US is second on the total scale of emissions per year, and not shown here (can't find the link) but first in terms of cumulative positions over the years, but it's a good thing to remember that China expends a lot of their emissions to produce things we consume.

A carbon tax would be regressive for the American middle class. On the other hand, it would in fact be beneficial for the global south/poor. That is one of the difficult things about this, because a carbon tax would hit the middle class (note I didn't say working class) in the US which has quite a bit of power globally through their ability to elect the US president, so implementing any sort of carbon tax without giving them some deal will be moot politically. It would hit the working poor in the US pretty hard as well, although a good fraction of them don't own a car[1], so they wouldn't face a tax on the largest source of GHG's in the US.

[0] https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/sc...

[1] About 19% of people who earn less than 25K per year (yes! very poor) don't own a personal vehicle. https://www.bts.gov/sites/bts.dot.gov/files/legacy/publicati...

Re: To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution

#48

Post by noobermin »

huntie wrote: post #42
gshubert17 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Public transit is not viable in most of the US. Since many US cities had public transit a century ago (and don't today), I wonder if you mean technically viable, economically viable, or politically attainable. I'm guessing the latter, and it's sad.

No I mean it is not viable in any way if you leave the bubble of US cities which account for a small percentage of the total area. Rural US is struggling just to make school buses work. The distances are too great and the people too few to ever support public transit. Any tax on fuel/cars screws rural areas who have no other choice.

That's fine, you can roll out electrical vehicles in the rural US. The majority of the US population live in cities or suburbs of cities. That is who needs to see development and infrastructure that enables the use of public transportation.

Re: To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution

#49

Post by IfOnlyYouKnew »

noobermin wrote: post #46
helen___keller wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pluses about a carbon tax is that it also affects the more invisible ways that we are killing the environment - hating on big tech is cool, hating on the car you use to get to work isn't as cool. Both should be taxed relative to their emissions.

The ironic bit is personal cars account for 20% of the US emissions already. Transportation is the largest category, at near 30%. Electricity is a close second, but pretending data centers use more than say the air conditioners across the US is probably false. Sure, per individual, data centers might use more, but something like better insulating houses would probably do more on net for emissions than just dismantlin…

There's always some other industry/technology/nation/group that uses times the energy: "China emits far more CO_2" (total), "The US emits far more CO_2" (per capita), "Industry emits far more than households", etc.

Re: To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution

#50

Post by noobermin »

Someone wrote: post #39
xvedejas wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A Carbon tax would also disproportionately help the poor, especially the global poor, so it's not fair to call it regressive without finding a way to put some numbers on both the costs and benefits. Besides, the money gained from a carbon tax isn't lost, it can be reinvested in things like public transit infrastructure.

You could even use it for a universal basic income. It wouldn’t be enough to live from, but could nudge people to, for example, spend a weekend in “nice city a 100 km train ride away”, rather than “nice city a 2,000 km airplane flight away”.

You'd have to have trains for people to ride. The US systematically dismantled trains and made highways in their place.
Post reply on HN