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

We are not sustainable

frame.work

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 138 posts

Re: We are not sustainable

#41

Post by chiefalchemist »

icegreentea2 wrote: post #15

The life cycle assessment shows that over a five year life span, production is responsible for 65% of CO2e, and usage about 25% (out of a total estimated 200kg - roughly 86L of gasoline) using "a typical US energy mix". Component wise (during production), the largest CO2e contributor was the display at ~25%, then the mainboard at 20%, and then battery around 15%. Take aways for me are that: from a sustainability stan…

Makes a case for a robust handheld device with the capability to swap screens. For many users a phone could be enough to power a larger screen experience, certainly a tablet.

Put another way, when you own all three forms at any given moment on average two CPUs and two screens are completely unutilized. Talk about wasteful.

Re: We are not sustainable

#42

Post by gochi »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #38
noobermin wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know anti-car attitudes annoy some people, but we really should drive this home(pun not intended but taken advantage of). People keep using "a tank of gas" as a fungible, graspable unit of carbon emissions while not realising reducing that very thing often has an out-sized impact on carbon emission, sometimes more than other things like reusing clothes, internet usage of this or that services or saas, and so on. Tr…

When I've pointed out to people that if they really want to be green then they should stop driving their car, I got a response along the lines of "the top ten producers of CO2 are all private companies. It's not about changing public behaviours, it's about regulating corporate behaviours". I never buy this, because corporate behaviours are driven by the market, which is driven by public behaviours. If we all stopped…

Nobody wants to sacrifice anything, and yet that's exactly what is needed from humanity. Can't even change the small things, as we see through outrage over plastic straws still, nevermind trying to get people to eat less meat.

I will add however that oil companies wouldn't stop processing so much oil right away, they will do what desperate powers do which is cling to remaining power as tightly as they can. This isn't something worth really caring about in the long run, but something to be cognizant of when trying to shift public behaviour as they will undoubtedly be affected by the propaganda such powers will be obsessively pushing out.

See also: tobacco companies spending several decades avoiding regulatory processes in advertising and convincing people they had no idea it was harmful nor that it was their fault for encouraging such consumption. Sounds a little familiar to several other industries.

Re: We are not sustainable

#44

Post by chiefalchemist »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #38
noobermin wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know anti-car attitudes annoy some people, but we really should drive this home(pun not intended but taken advantage of). People keep using "a tank of gas" as a fungible, graspable unit of carbon emissions while not realising reducing that very thing often has an out-sized impact on carbon emission, sometimes more than other things like reusing clothes, internet usage of this or that services or saas, and so on. Tr…

When I've pointed out to people that if they really want to be green then they should stop driving their car, I got a response along the lines of "the top ten producers of CO2 are all private companies. It's not about changing public behaviours, it's about regulating corporate behaviours". I never buy this, because corporate behaviours are driven by the market, which is driven by public behaviours. If we all stopped…

> If we all stopped driving cars, the oil companies are going to stop processing so much oil.

Yes and no. Or at least maybe. If demand from autos drops so does the price of oil. At some point it becomes feasible to be used for things that were previously too expensive. Like what? I'm not sure but these things happen. It's how the market "thinks".

Worst case, the cost of plastic falls even further. Less autos equals more plastic?

Regulation via higher taxes on petroleum-sourced products could work but it continues to be politically unfeasible.

Re: We are not sustainable

#45

Post by marcus_holmes »

tourmalinetaco wrote: post #40
marcus_holmes wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I've pointed out to people that if they really want to be green then they should stop driving their car, I got a response along the lines of "the top ten producers of CO2 are all private companies. It's not about changing public behaviours, it's about regulating corporate behaviours". I never buy this, because corporate behaviours are driven by the market, which is driven by public behaviours. If we all stopped…

And what exactly is the solution there? For most Americans a car is literally their ONLY option for transport. > I never buy this, because corporate behaviours are driven by the market, which is driven by public behaviours. I’ve heard this many times, but it’s simply not true. There was no demand for glued-in batteries, lightbulbs that die prematurely, or SaaS. However, when something is required to maintain your job…

So what do you think the answer is?

Re: We are not sustainable

#46

Post by marcus_holmes »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #44
marcus_holmes wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I've pointed out to people that if they really want to be green then they should stop driving their car, I got a response along the lines of "the top ten producers of CO2 are all private companies. It's not about changing public behaviours, it's about regulating corporate behaviours". I never buy this, because corporate behaviours are driven by the market, which is driven by public behaviours. If we all stopped…

> If we all stopped driving cars, the oil companies are going to stop processing so much oil. Yes and no. Or at least maybe. If demand from autos drops so does the price of oil. At some point it becomes feasible to be used for things that were previously too expensive. Like what? I'm not sure but these things happen. It's how the market "thinks". Worst case, the cost of plastic falls even further. Less autos equals m…

I agree with you on the supply/demand thing. Which is unfortunate because we need to stop using so much oil.

Re: We are not sustainable

#47

Post by ewzimm »

sharkjacobs wrote: post #24
ewzimm wrote: post #16

If the whole tech industry generated 50 million metric tons per year, that’s about 6 kilograms per person on the planet per year, about a watermelon, and if you consider that even half of those are served by it, it’s a manageable amount of waste. The fact that it’s consolidated is a responsibility but also an opportunity to make big changes with every gain. I wish the tone here focused more on that opportunity.

> and if you consider that even half of those are served by it Are they?

Philosophically, it’s up for debate, but whether they’re served well isn’t as important as if they’re using the products at all. Lowering the average consumer’s waste by just a few grams a year adds up fast.

Re: We are not sustainable

#48

Post by marcus_holmes »

gochi wrote: post #42
marcus_holmes wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I've pointed out to people that if they really want to be green then they should stop driving their car, I got a response along the lines of "the top ten producers of CO2 are all private companies. It's not about changing public behaviours, it's about regulating corporate behaviours". I never buy this, because corporate behaviours are driven by the market, which is driven by public behaviours. If we all stopped…

Nobody wants to sacrifice anything, and yet that's exactly what is needed from humanity. Can't even change the small things, as we see through outrage over plastic straws still, nevermind trying to get people to eat less meat. I will add however that oil companies wouldn't stop processing so much oil right away, they will do what desperate powers do which is cling to remaining power as tightly as they can. This isn't…

"the best time to regulate oil was 50 years ago. The second best time is now"

I agree it'll take time to adapt, and there will be lots of clinging to old behaviours. But if we don't start soon, it'll just take longer.

Re: We are not sustainable

#49

Post by gochi »

tourmalinetaco wrote: post #40
marcus_holmes wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I've pointed out to people that if they really want to be green then they should stop driving their car, I got a response along the lines of "the top ten producers of CO2 are all private companies. It's not about changing public behaviours, it's about regulating corporate behaviours". I never buy this, because corporate behaviours are driven by the market, which is driven by public behaviours. If we all stopped…

And what exactly is the solution there? For most Americans a car is literally their ONLY option for transport. > I never buy this, because corporate behaviours are driven by the market, which is driven by public behaviours. I’ve heard this many times, but it’s simply not true. There was no demand for glued-in batteries, lightbulbs that die prematurely, or SaaS. However, when something is required to maintain your job…

>And what exactly is the solution there? For most Americans a car is literally their ONLY option for transport.

The administration has already earmarked substantial amounts for various transit programs across the country thankfully. You can find out more https://www.transit.dot.gov/TOD

These programs also include zero-emission transit as a primary focus where possible, such as school buses.

So the solution already exists and is in action. It just takes time!

Re: We are not sustainable

#50

Post by gochi »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #48
gochi wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody wants to sacrifice anything, and yet that's exactly what is needed from humanity. Can't even change the small things, as we see through outrage over plastic straws still, nevermind trying to get people to eat less meat. I will add however that oil companies wouldn't stop processing so much oil right away, they will do what desperate powers do which is cling to remaining power as tightly as they can. This isn't…

"the best time to regulate oil was 50 years ago. The second best time is now" I agree it'll take time to adapt, and there will be lots of clinging to old behaviours. But if we don't start soon, it'll just take longer.

Definitely in agreement, also a big proponent of gradually increasing taxes to incentivize certain spending to speed up that process. They're not popular but very effective.

The good news is a lot of the positive change is already in progress. Bad news is the national goals for many countries are all still minimum 25 years away with people desperately clinging onto the hope that some magical technological breakthrough will happen that ensures we don't have to sacrifice anything currently.

Post reply on HN