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

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

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 113 posts

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

#11

Post by gridlockd »

"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 travel was removed, how much CO2 is that in savings, percentage-wise?

It's two percent[1]. If you just told people it was two percent, they would immediately proceed to not give a damn. Only the most dogmatic of people would be giving up a major freedom in their life just to save a theoretical two percent on CO2.

[1] https://www.atag.org/facts-figures.html

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

#12

Post by bubblewrap »

geff82 wrote: post #5

The recent argument against traveling is a proxy war. Heating, cooling, electricity and driving are the things that make up 75% of the emissions, plus about 20% for industrial production. All of the points I listed can be replaced by sustainable alternatives TODAY (ok, maybe not all people in one year, but the products are available) without us having to reduce out comfort in a major way. We could travel 5 times more…

Really - what solution is there for heating and cooling? Especially given that insulating houses with plastic seems to cause other problems like mold, or pollution with toxins to prevent mold?

And driving? People could just stay home, I suppose?

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

#13

Post by bubblewrap »

ve55 wrote: post #4

No. Leading a completely utilitarian life based only on the metric of estimating the emissions produced by your actions (and then, only first-order effects) is not only completely infeasible, but is also not a solution to global warming.

We are talking about a comparatively pointless activity with a huge carbon footprint. There are plenty of other ways to enjoy life.

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

#14

Post by bubblewrap »

fastball wrote: post #8
eeZah7Ux wrote: post #6

Yes. Consumerism and conspicuous consumption include travel and other services. You can instead stay home and read a book. Perhaps on a slow, eco-friendly journey every few years.

Who is it I'm saving the world for if not myself or my children?

He didn't say you shouldn't have kids.

My kids read books, too.

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

#15

Post by eropple »

bubblewrap wrote: post #12
geff82 wrote: post #5

The recent argument against traveling is a proxy war. Heating, cooling, electricity and driving are the things that make up 75% of the emissions, plus about 20% for industrial production. All of the points I listed can be replaced by sustainable alternatives TODAY (ok, maybe not all people in one year, but the products are available) without us having to reduce out comfort in a major way. We could travel 5 times more…

Really - what solution is there for heating and cooling? Especially given that insulating houses with plastic seems to cause other problems like mold, or pollution with toxins to prevent mold? And driving? People could just stay home, I suppose?

> And driving? People could just stay home, I suppose?

Walk. Bicycle. Use public transit. In extremity, buy an electric car (but that has issues, too).

If your question is "what should people who live, heavily subsidized, in suburbs and exurbs, do?", then the answer teases itself out pretty elegantly.

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

#16

Post by dv_dt »

ctlby wrote: post #3

If we take climate change activists at their word, the answer is a resounding YES. There is a full-blown crisis brewing, one that can only be resolved with massive social changes ("if everyone does a little, we’ll achieve only a little" [1]). The NYT should be pushing much more draconian measures. [1] https://www.withouthotair.com/c1/page_3.shtml

I think there is a PR war going on to push the responsibility of climate crisis fixes onto personal actions in order to avoid actual widescale industrial changes. We can create fuel from carbon and at least for the air sector it makes reasonable sense - even if that increases the cost of travel. Airlines like other corporations want to avoid specific requirements like that that as a regulation.

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

#17

Post by minikites »

Individual actions can't solve a collective problem. I can go vegetarian, walk everywhere, never take a plane or ship for my entire life and all of that savings would be eaten up by a supertanker burning bunker fuel going a few miles off course or a chemical company vomiting waste into a river. The only way to solve these problems is at the national government and international organization level.

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

#18

Post by gnode »

bubblewrap wrote: post #12
geff82 wrote: post #5

The recent argument against traveling is a proxy war. Heating, cooling, electricity and driving are the things that make up 75% of the emissions, plus about 20% for industrial production. All of the points I listed can be replaced by sustainable alternatives TODAY (ok, maybe not all people in one year, but the products are available) without us having to reduce out comfort in a major way. We could travel 5 times more…

Really - what solution is there for heating and cooling? Especially given that insulating houses with plastic seems to cause other problems like mold, or pollution with toxins to prevent mold? And driving? People could just stay home, I suppose?

> what solution is there for heating and cooling?

Heat pumps, powered by sustainable electricity. (nuclear; renewables)

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

#20

Post by inertiatic »

bubblewrap wrote: post #10

"But actually this summer, we’re going to Greece" He does all the calculations, is more informed than the average person, and still decides to just go for it. This is why the battle against global warming is pointless. Human population explosion (triggered by the invention of agriculture) will simply run its course, and we'll just have to live with whatever world we'll be left with in the end. Yes, he is buying "offs…

Oh wow. This could be satire and I wouldn't be able to tell.

What's so important about experiencing anything? Just watch TV.

Post reply on HN