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

Bill Gates: You’ll never solve climate change by asking people to consume less

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 97 posts

Re: Bill Gates: You’ll never solve climate change by asking people to consume less

#81

Post by t0bia_s »

Gigachad wrote: post #57
prng2021 wrote: post #56

I see many comments here, in various media, and hear in real world conversations blaming corporations and billionaires. They're not faultless but we should be way more critical of ourselves as average citizens. Every year we want bigger and bigger cars, particularly in the West, but it's a global long term trend. If you compare pretty much any 2022 vs 2002 model vehicle, say the Honda Accord, you're going to be shock…

Bill calls for greater innovation, but as soon as we get more efficient things, we just consume more. We have constantly gotten better and better tech, and yet our consumption of resources only goes up. It seems that resource usage has nothing to do with how efficient or advanced our tech is, but simply the maximum amount of human labor we can allocate to resource extracting. So climate change can only really be solv…

"So climate change can only really be solved by a lower population."

It sounds like Nazi slogan.

Re: Bill Gates: You’ll never solve climate change by asking people to consume less

#82

Post by prng2021 »

t0bia_s wrote: post #77
prng2021 wrote: post #56

I see many comments here, in various media, and hear in real world conversations blaming corporations and billionaires. They're not faultless but we should be way more critical of ourselves as average citizens. Every year we want bigger and bigger cars, particularly in the West, but it's a global long term trend. If you compare pretty much any 2022 vs 2002 model vehicle, say the Honda Accord, you're going to be shock…

It is pure consumerism. You can add smartphones, clothes... Many things that we don't actually need to buy every year but yet, companies produce more and more for higher profit. Blaming billionaires and corporations from brand new iPhone on networks made by big-tech sounds ironical indeed.

Consumerism requires consumers. Companies stop or slow down producing things that consumers won't buy. Here are examples specific to phones and big tech:

https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/apple-reportedly-wont-b...

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/09/29/google-to-shut-gaming-se...

Re: Bill Gates: You’ll never solve climate change by asking people to consume less

#83

Post by h0l0cube »

Ekaros wrote: post #68
h0l0cube wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to think of the counterfactual. If 1x emissions are required for, say, government advocacy, that reduces emissions by 100x, you would lose 99x of emissions reductions by avoiding the advocacy. It’s not hypocrisy so much as pragmatism

Can't they just send letter or call on phone? You know minimise the emissions from their own actions. I always wondered why are people flying of all things to these climate conferences, instead of biking or just having them fully remote standing outside in a field...

Telepresence (at least by today's standard) is not the same as being there, and being literally present with decision makers. Overhearing conversations, hallway encounters, inspecting physical infrastructure, having individual agency to move in a space (see things for yourself), being able to 'read the room', and communicating, by your extra commitment, that you are serious not just the decision makers but even the wider public (photo ops), are just the few intangible benefits missing from a zoom call straight off the top of my dome, and that's just scratching the surface. Telepresence is getting better by the day, but let's not pretend it's as effective, particularly in global politics, finance, etc.

Re: Bill Gates: You’ll never solve climate change by asking people to consume less

#84

Post by Ekaros »

h0l0cube wrote: post #83
Ekaros wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't they just send letter or call on phone? You know minimise the emissions from their own actions. I always wondered why are people flying of all things to these climate conferences, instead of biking or just having them fully remote standing outside in a field...

Telepresence (at least by today's standard) is not the same as being there, and being literally present with decision makers. Overhearing conversations, hallway encounters, inspecting physical infrastructure, having individual agency to move in a space (see things for yourself), being able to 'read the room', and communicating, by your extra commitment, that you are serious not just the decision makers but even the w…

So maybe we should permanently lock them in single island and throw some gruel and water at them so they don't starve? They could have all the time with each other they need with minimal emissions.

Re: Bill Gates: You’ll never solve climate change by asking people to consume less

#85

Post by yucky »

abdullahkhalids wrote: post #54
yucky wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The only thing left is to ditch capitalism entirely How exactly does that work?

Listen to the anarcho-syndacalists like Chomsky, which demand that companies be owned by workers in that company. There are many proposals for this, but here is an off the cuff one I just came up with: Every company with more than 100 workers, must have 80% of its ownership by those same workers. The difference between the ownership stake of the top worker and the bottom worker must be no more than a 5x.

How does that affect job mobility? So if I'm a part owner of a company and leave, what happens to my shares? We can't assume all companies have a set number of employees, so number of shareholders fluctuates constantly. If a company lays off or fires a chunk of workforce, do the shares get evenly distributed to the remaining employees? Also, when a hiring spree is needed, are current shareholder shares diluted?

I have so many more questions..

Re: Bill Gates: You’ll never solve climate change by asking people to consume less

#86

Post by yongjik »

Ekaros wrote: post #67
yongjik wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always feel the talks of private jets are missing the point. (Besides, it's always the private jets of Al Gore and Bill Gates that are in question. People never ask about the private jets of BP execs.) To simplify, let's assume that Bill Gates has a Boeing 747, which burns about 38 pounds of fuel per mile [1]. Distance between New York (JFK) and London (LHR) is 3,440 mile. For a round trip, double that, so we have…

I deeply believe in leading by example. Anyone demanding others change should be fully committed to those actions and demonstrate them in all aspects of their life. Anything else is absolutely purely hypocritical and person doesn't deserve to be heard and should be mocked out from any polite and non-polite conversation.

I have to disagree. Proposing social change and living the change is better than just proposing social change, but (in many cases) the latter is still better than not proposing the change or actively working against it.

When you use "leading by example" as an absolute stick, what happens is that you end up being more lenient to the more corrupt and greedy. These people propose that everybody should just take whatever they can buy with their money, consequences be damned, and they live the exact same life - no hypocrisy at all! (It's just a coincidence that they have so much money and power that they can fuck over the less fortunate, while others can't.)

I have seen it play out many times in my country (Korea), which is hardly unique in that regard. Once in a while a politician would propose, say, an election reform to cut down illegal funding, and others would attack him "Look at the hypocrite! He says he's against illegal funding of elections, but he used more than one tenth of the illegal funding we did!" True story.

Re: Bill Gates: You’ll never solve climate change by asking people to consume less

#87

Post by yucky »

h0l0cube wrote: post #83
Ekaros wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't they just send letter or call on phone? You know minimise the emissions from their own actions. I always wondered why are people flying of all things to these climate conferences, instead of biking or just having them fully remote standing outside in a field...

Telepresence (at least by today's standard) is not the same as being there, and being literally present with decision makers. Overhearing conversations, hallway encounters, inspecting physical infrastructure, having individual agency to move in a space (see things for yourself), being able to 'read the room', and communicating, by your extra commitment, that you are serious not just the decision makers but even the w…

That also explains why they always seem to own 3+ homes averaging 15,000 sq. feet each?

Re: Bill Gates: You’ll never solve climate change by asking people to consume less

#88

Post by abdullahkhalids »

yucky wrote: post #85
abdullahkhalids wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Listen to the anarcho-syndacalists like Chomsky, which demand that companies be owned by workers in that company. There are many proposals for this, but here is an off the cuff one I just came up with: Every company with more than 100 workers, must have 80% of its ownership by those same workers. The difference between the ownership stake of the top worker and the bottom worker must be no more than a 5x.

How does that affect job mobility? So if I'm a part owner of a company and leave, what happens to my shares? We can't assume all companies have a set number of employees, so number of shareholders fluctuates constantly. If a company lays off or fires a chunk of workforce, do the shares get evenly distributed to the remaining employees? Also, when a hiring spree is needed, are current shareholder shares diluted? I hav…

I am not an economist, and I haven't read more on this than Chomsky's books.

> Also, when a hiring spree is needed, are current shareholder shares diluted?

Yes. But I imagine, that it would useful to have a vesting period for new employees, of, say a, year before they get their share of the company. And particularly companies will have to think about whether hiring a new person will increase profits more than their salary.

> If a company lays off or fires a chunk of workforce, do the shares get evenly distributed to the remaining employees?

Ultimately yes. Firing might or might not work the same as hiring, because the fruits of your labor continue to bear profits for a little time after you leave at some jobs at least.

Please note that the answers to your question make much more sense once you understand the philosophy a lot more. Practical answers might not make sense if you continue to interpret them within the philosophical underpinnings and your inbuilt intuitions of the current capitalist system.

Re: Bill Gates: You’ll never solve climate change by asking people to consume less

#89

Post by polski-g »

seper8 wrote: post #6
ryeights wrote: post #3

Implement a carbon tax, and it will happen. The insistence from some that we can just innovate our way out of the climate crisis, when the Industrial Revolution and pursuit of technological expansion for the sake of profit at all costs is what got us into this situation in the first place, is what I find truly “quixotic.” There is no incentive for corporations to improve the climate situation in a meaningful way.

Agree 100%. Tax generation of CO2 at the energy level and all else should follow. Then allow companies to get a tax reduction if they offset their output in some well researched and supported method. Tadaa...

If you tax generate of CO2 and "all else follows", what "would follow" is that the party that instituted said tax would be voted out and it would be repealed.

Re: Bill Gates: You’ll never solve climate change by asking people to consume less

#90

Post by yucky »

abdullahkhalids wrote: post #88
yucky wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that affect job mobility? So if I'm a part owner of a company and leave, what happens to my shares? We can't assume all companies have a set number of employees, so number of shareholders fluctuates constantly. If a company lays off or fires a chunk of workforce, do the shares get evenly distributed to the remaining employees? Also, when a hiring spree is needed, are current shareholder shares diluted? I hav…

I am not an economist, and I haven't read more on this than Chomsky's books. > Also, when a hiring spree is needed, are current shareholder shares diluted? Yes. But I imagine, that it would useful to have a vesting period for new employees, of, say a, year before they get their share of the company. And particularly companies will have to think about whether hiring a new person will increase profits more than their s…

Do all employees have the same ownership (i.e. 1 share each or 100 shares each or whatever) regardless of position? Or do those with more specialized knowledge or skills have a larger share of ownership?

If it's not equal ownership, how does it get decided how ownership is doled out? Is it democratic? If so, how do you account for those with the most specialized skillsets likely having a minority voice in the voting? Also, how do you account for unequal distributions if you do have unequal ownership levels? Doesn't this create a "special class" of privileged who end up with more control?

If it is equal ownership, then how do you incentivize people to acquire the specializations needed to manage the more complex tasks? Just spit balling here, not a huge fan of the current system but these are pretty big questions to leave unanswered.

Post reply on HN