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

61–70 of 164 posts

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

#61

Post by timlod »

I find this questionable. Sure, the type of food is more important than where it comes from - IF you eat meat. This argument effectively states that you can stop making environmentalist choices once you have avoided the biggest offenders.

Now, if you really care about moving towards a more environmentally friendly world, you'll not stop there. You'll first want to change your diet to be plant-based, but then also want to make sure that those plant-based foods you buy are best-in-class (environmentally speaking), i.e. lead to healthier soil and less microplastics.

Beyond the environmental aspect, I'd also suggest looking at what impact your choices have along social and economical axes.

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

#62

Post by dbingham »

dqv wrote: post #35
dbingham wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 heav…

Yea, I do agree that we need to reduce meat consumption and focus on sustainably grazed operations for the meat that is consumed.

But that's not the same as putting it on top of the list. Ever since Cowspiracy came out (which has been roundly debunked) there's been this segment of the environmental movement that wants to put beef on the top of the list of carbon problems. It just doesn't belong there and there are so many issues with putting it there - not least of which is the individual responsibility trap.

Climate cannot be solved by individual action alone. Individual action is necessary, but not sufficient. And since people have limited capacity to make lifestyle changes, we need them to focus that capacity where it will do the most good. Meat just isn't it - transporation, housing, energy - those are where it belongs. We should be encouraging people to eat less meat, yes, and to eat sustainably pastured an grazed meat. But we shouldn't be telling people to go vegan as their primary lifestyle change.

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

#63

Post by onerandompotato »

jeffbee wrote: post #38
dbingham wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I mean, the paper uses data from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association™, which is a beef lobbying group. The third author of the paper is also from the NBCA, and the paper was funded by the Beef Checkoff™, which a beef marketing program. I have my reservations about the accuracy of this paper.

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

#64

Post by leereeves »

liminvorous wrote: post #48
leereeves wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have 5 reusable bags that I've used for a few years. That means I've used them maybe 100 times. Now they're starting to fall apart, and soon I'll need new ones. I wonder, since they're much heavier and clearly use a lot more plastic, whether I would have used less plastic with the disposable ones.

The breakeven point seems to be around 50-100 uses depending on the exact kind of reusable bag, so you’re probably winning: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/grocery-bag-environmental...

I never would have imagined the environmental impact of cotton bags was that high. It would take me several lifetimes to get 7000 uses.

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

#65

Post by copirate »

_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 linked chart about grocery bags[1] is not only about GHG footprint:

> Environmental impact is measured over a full life-cycle analysis (LCA) across the following metrics: greenhouse gas emissions, ozone depletion, human toxicity (cancer effects), human toxicity (non-cancer effects), photochemical ozone formation, ionizing radiation, particulate matter, terrestrial acidification, terrestrial eutrophication, marine eutrophication, ecosystem toxicity, resource depletion (fossil), resource depletion (abiotic), and water resource depletion.

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/grocery-bag-environmental...

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

#66

Post by b3morales »

gruez wrote: post #39
_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.

Could you elaborate on what proper disposal looks like?

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

#67

Post by dbingham »

gruez wrote: post #37
dbingham wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes, agreed, reduction of meat consumption does need to happen. But saying "we should reduce meat consumption and ensure the meat produced is produced through these systems" is very different from putting it at the top of the list and drawing almost all focus to it.

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

#68

Post by dr_dshiv »

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…

What do you anticipate the effect of GPT3 will be in the reviewing process?

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

#69

Post by wizofaus »

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…

> reducing CO2 emissions is an emergency, and any other environmental considerations other than doing that is just arguing about deck chairs on the Titanic

I don't think that latter sentence follows from the first at all - it's very much a slow emergency that will play out over decades and indeed centuries, and furthermore with a global population of 8+ billion, clearly it's not feasible for all of us to drop everything just to focus on any one single environmental issue. There are inevitably going to some actions that need to be taken to ensure long term ecological health that aren't related to mitigating against climate change, but are just as important, esp. wrt release of toxins/agricultural runoff into the environment, or drawing down water tables or monitoring invasive species (a problem already, but often exacerbated by warming temperatures). Thankfully we can walk and chew gum at the same time. (FWIW I agree re the anti- nuclear stance of environment groups - and would do so regardless of the need for low-emission power: nuclear energy production generally has a much lower environmental footprint than fossil fuel generation)

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

#70

Post by jeffbee »

matkoniecz wrote: post #58
jeffbee wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The problem comes when anti-development groups impose policies to prevent any building from casting a shadow on anything OK. But how it makes > rooftop solar and urban gardening (or "farming" if you must). Both are ecological catastrophe claim true?

Just going from my local experience. The build-nothing approach to housing in Berkeley, championed by zucchini-hugging (google it) hippie morons, combined with the solar access ordinance that prevents development even along major transit corridors. This has caused an explosion of car-dependent exurban sprawl in former wilderness, wetlands, and farms.
Post reply on HN