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

Being an effective environmentalist can often feel like being a bad one

worksinprogress.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 164 posts

Re: Being an effective environmentalist can often feel like being a bad one

#31

Post by sdenton4 »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #17
dbingham wrote: post #5

This is what happens when you optimize for only a single variable. And the end result won't be what you want it to be. It doesn't do us any good to stop climate change if the ecosystem still collapses out from under us. Creating a sustainable environment is a systems problem and carbon is just one of many variables in that system. Yes, it's a really important one and in many ways it is the most pressing. But biodiver…

By the way, this is exactly what a climate change denier would write, except that that would talk about collapsing the economy if we focused too much on reducing carbon emissions. The truth is reducing CO2 emissions is an emergency, and any other environmental considerations other than doing that is just arguing about deck chairs on the Titanic. At this point, we would have been in a much better position if the Green…

It's really not a single variable problem, though. We're also looking at biodiversity collapse as humans atomize and invade wild spaces, and declines in insect populations which prop up the rest of the biosphere, including human agriculture.

We're making significant progress on cleaning up energy production, as wind and solar are now the most economic ways to produce new energy by a very long shot. The trajectory of the temperature curve is bending in the right direction, and should bend further. At some point we also need to pay attention to the rest of the quality of life on earth.

Re: Being an effective environmentalist can often feel like being a bad one

#32

Post by dbingham »

jeffbee wrote: post #18
dbingham wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you live in the US, your order is wrong. 1. Walk or bike. 1a. If you can't do the above, use public transport. 1b. If you can't do that, consider moving to a city where you can do all of the above (if you can afford it). If you're rural, seek a land trust or farmer to buy your land when you do. 2. Insulate your house. 3. Get solar if you can afford it. 3a. Replace all gas appliances with electric (Heat pump, elect…

Burning 1 gallon of motor gasoline emits the same carbon as producing 1.3lb of finished beef. Flying once from U.S. to Europe has the same GHG impact as producing 80 pounds of beef. For a typical U.S. household, transportation is a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than food.

Source please.

There's currently a propaganda war between multiple powerful lobbies - the animal rights lobby, the meat producers, conventional ag producers, and more - which means there is a ton of misinformation flying around about the actual environmental impacts of eating meat. Really, of all things dietary.

Meanwhile there are a bunch of people exploring alternate agriculture systems through agroecological approaches that show a lot of promise, but haven't been studied enough to really make claims about either way.

Further, you cannot just say "x amount of finished beef produces y emissions" because there are so many factors that go into it. Feedlot vs traditional range vs intensive rotational vs silvopasture are all different with completely different environmental impacts - of which carbon is only one.

Re: Being an effective environmentalist can often feel like being a bad one

#33

Post by jrajav »

dbingham wrote: post #26
jshen wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dramatically reducing meat consumption is the single best thing the average westerner could do to limit their environmental impact. Why did you remove it?

a) Because that's not true. The numbers don't actually work out that way. Transportation and heating are most American's biggest carbon contribution. Agriculture is down a ways. b) Because there is evidence that meat production done right IE intensive rotation grazing or silvopasture where the meat is grazed on a small section of land at a time and most of the land is left fallow most of the time can actually drastic…

I'm a meat eater and also very invested in reducing my environmental impact despite that, and I'm very interested in learning more about this. Can you point me to your original sources?

Re: Being an effective environmentalist can often feel like being a bad one

#34

Post by aradox66 »

dbingham wrote: post #26
jshen wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dramatically reducing meat consumption is the single best thing the average westerner could do to limit their environmental impact. Why did you remove it?

a) Because that's not true. The numbers don't actually work out that way. Transportation and heating are most American's biggest carbon contribution. Agriculture is down a ways. b) Because there is evidence that meat production done right IE intensive rotation grazing or silvopasture where the meat is grazed on a small section of land at a time and most of the land is left fallow most of the time can actually drastic…

The vast majority of monocultured grains are used to feed livestock. Plant based diet, even if you ate soy and wheat and corn and nothing else, has an order of magnitude smaller impact than eating meat.

Re: Being an effective environmentalist can often feel like being a bad one

#35

Post by dqv »

dbingham wrote: post #26
jshen wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dramatically reducing meat consumption is the single best thing the average westerner could do to limit their environmental impact. Why did you remove it?

a) Because that's not true. The numbers don't actually work out that way. Transportation and heating are most American's biggest carbon contribution. Agriculture is down a ways. b) Because there is evidence that meat production done right IE intensive rotation grazing or silvopasture where the meat is grazed on a small section of land at a time and most of the land is left fallow most of the time can actually drastic…

>Because there is evidence that meat production done right IE intensive rotation grazing or silvopasture where the meat is grazed on a small section of land at a time and most of the land is left fallow most of the time can actually drastically increase ecosystem services. It allows the land to function as native prairie or savanna.

>Meanwhile monocultured grain, beans, and veggies - especially conventional with heavy fertilizer use - are devastating to ecosystems.

You're suggesting, in a very roundabout way, that we drastically reduce meat consumption. None of these things you describe can be done sustainably without a drastic reduction of livestock.

Re: Being an effective environmentalist can often feel like being a bad one

#36

Post by CatWChainsaw »

jeffbee wrote: post #28
CatWChainsaw wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the problem with urban gardening? On a rooftop, greenery would help with the heat, and I find it difficult to believe that greenery in a space which otherwise has none would be an "ecological catastrophe".

There isn't anything wrong with urban gardening itself. The problem comes when anti-development groups impose policies to prevent any building from casting a shadow on anything. Greenery and open space are both good and important, and gardening is a fine hobby. But urban gardens don't feed anyone and if there is a choice between housing people in an existing city, or protecting an existing garden from shadows, we sho…

That makes sense, thank you for clarifying.

Re: Being an effective environmentalist can often feel like being a bad one

#37

Post by gruez »

dbingham wrote: post #26
jshen wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dramatically reducing meat consumption is the single best thing the average westerner could do to limit their environmental impact. Why did you remove it?

a) Because that's not true. The numbers don't actually work out that way. Transportation and heating are most American's biggest carbon contribution. Agriculture is down a ways. b) Because there is evidence that meat production done right IE intensive rotation grazing or silvopasture where the meat is grazed on a small section of land at a time and most of the land is left fallow most of the time can actually drastic…

>> Dramatically reducing meat consumption is the single best thing the average westerner could do to limit their environmental impact[...]

> b) Because there is evidence that meat production done right IE intensive rotation grazing or silvopasture where the meat is grazed on a small section of land at a time and most of the land is left fallow most of the time can actually drastically increase ecosystem services. It allows the land to function as native prairie or savanna.

There's no way the method of meat production that you described can produce meat to sastisfy current US demand, let alone increasing demand from the developing world. Therefore practically speaking, reduction of meat consumption will still be needed.

Re: Being an effective environmentalist can often feel like being a bad one

#38

Post by jeffbee »

dbingham wrote: post #32
jeffbee wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Burning 1 gallon of motor gasoline emits the same carbon as producing 1.3lb of finished beef. Flying once from U.S. to Europe has the same GHG impact as producing 80 pounds of beef. For a typical U.S. household, transportation is a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than food.

Source please. There's currently a propaganda war between multiple powerful lobbies - the animal rights lobby, the meat producers, conventional ag producers, and more - which means there is a ton of misinformation flying around about the actual environmental impacts of eating meat. Really, of all things dietary. Meanwhile there are a bunch of people exploring alternate agriculture systems through agroecological appro…

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X1...

Re: Being an effective environmentalist can often feel like being a bad one

#39

Post by gruez »

_petronius wrote: post #2

Although "environmentally friendly" is not strictly equal to "minimum possible GHG footprint". The plastic bag may have a lower carbon footprint, but it isn't going to biodegrade as quickly, and may end up turning into microplastics that persist for a long time.

>The plastic bag may have a lower carbon footprint, but it isn't going to biodegrade as quickly, and may end up turning into microplastics that persist for a long time.

What you described is a non-issue if the bag is disposed of properly. Presumably you, as a environmentalist can be relied upon to do that.

Re: Being an effective environmentalist can often feel like being a bad one

#40

Post by throwaway894345 »

seasox wrote: post #4

Don‘t think about microwave vs. stove. Instead, do the following: 1. stop buying meat 2. stop eating meat 3. stop buying dairy-based products 4. stop eating dairy-based products 5. stop eating eggs, honey, fish 6. use public transport, if possible 7. don‘t fly, if possible Congrats, you now are an environmentalist.

Honestly a “fuck carbon emissions” t-shirt is probably an easier and more direct way of communicating your membership to the “environmentalism” tribe while still doing fuck-all to reduce emissions. If you actually care about the environment, then you’re doing everything in your power to promote carbon pricing or other policies that have an outsized impact beyond shallow lifestyle choices. Personal responsibility stuff plays right into fossil fuel industry’s hand—it’s all premature micro optimization. To copy another commenter, it’s arranging deck chairs on the titanic.
Post reply on HN