I see people mentioning things like "become a vegetarian" or "bike to work", but those are easy and neglible-impact things. Sure, they'd have a huge effect if half of the population suddenly adopted them, but that's not going to happen - so just going vegetarian yourself and calling it a day is not really helping anything.
What I'd love to see is a list of high-impact work one could use their skills to help with. Maybe some research groups would use a better software package? Maybe there's a process that could help and is not yet economically viable, but could be made such?
+ Instead of hunting on the seas we should perform aquaculture. Establish diets that can use sea vegetables. Create methods to harvest on sea. This can reduce CO2 in the oceans and reduces the burden on land.
+ Accelerating research into reducing the CO2 footprint of our food. Lab grown meat and fish needs to be on wafer scales.
+ Create market places that reduces friction between CO2 producers and CO2 reducers. Make it easier to share solar panels or to share roofs. Make it easier to provide clean energy to Indian or Chinese households. Make it easier to find locations for wind mills. All these things can be accelerated through digital communication.
The ocean cleanup project is working to remove plastic: https://www.theoceancleanup.com/ I'm not affiliated so can't speak for due diligence etc. but they have posted regular progress updates whilst they test and develop their solution
You can start an iron fertilization project for around 20k in boat rental fees + legal fees for illegal ocean dumping. Major companies do it for less altruistic reasons all the time.
Do not eat meat, become a vegetarian. Drive less or get an electric car. For your household, get clean energy. Do not use plastic when not needed. Repair your products instead of purchasing new ones. Recycle. Etc.
We're just pawns in the game of life played by the few thousand members of the global ruling class. Nothing you or I do can have any impact whatsoever on anything of importance. Consume as much as you can, because nobody who can do something will do anything until the sky is literally falling.
Reading this struck me: What is the difference between primordial volcanoes and human pollution? During the dinosaur age it was a lot hotter [0] and there were really extraordinary organisms. Further reading seems to go down a rabbit hole [1],etc.
The difference is that during primordial times, we did not have all our infrastructure built out across the globe.
Although global warming is often talked about in "bad for the Earth" terms, really, the Earth will be just fine. It's been through worse.
Global warming is scary because it's bad for human societies. We built our cities and farms and national boundaries in certain places based on the climate we have had. Significant shifts in sea level, precipitation, temps, etc. will cause massive costs and unrest.
As the sun gets older, it becomes more and more luminous [0], so concentrations of CO2 that didn't cause a runaway greenhouse process in the past may do so in the future, because we're getting more sunlight. While this effect is not really noticeable when looking at recent history, once you start going back millions or billions of years it starts to become significant.
> During the dinosaur age it was a lot hotter [0] and there were really extraordinary organisms.
1. there were also no humans, we evolved during a relatively dry and cold period and for the most part that's what we (and our current globe-spanning civilisation) are adapted for. That's also very convenient as heat and humidity are parasite havens.
2. the second issue is rate of change, globe-spanning temperature changes generally happen on geological timescale not generational ones, and in the latter case they usually triggered massive extinctions.
Neither of these is beneficial to us as a species.
I always thought there's way more human pollution than the amounts casued by a couple of volcano activity here and there? A quick search turns up multiple responses like this one:
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)
Granted this is just about CO2, but I wouldn't be suprised if the same principle applies to other pollution.
I wish some billionaire would start a chain of carbon neutral gas stations. I wouldn't mind paying more for gas if I knew it was carbon neutral. There are several ways the gas could be carbon neutral, either through production (solar/wind into fuel creation) or offsets (plant trees or carbon sequestration). Instead of slowly trying to change our transportation infrastructure to EV, which will take decades, this could have immediate impact now.
I think even a startup could do this. Could work with existing stations to promote themselves as being completely eco-friendly. They would add a small cost to each gallon of fuel (as andrewwhartion mentioned it should only be ~3-4%) and that cost would go to offsetting the emissions. The startup could charge another 1% or a lump fee and put the work into making banners / promotional material to advertise their eco-friendliness, and also handle the PR. In an eco-conscious city just the local PR could bump business enough to make it worth it.
I suspect that the population of every country is too price sensitive for this to make a dent. Take for example ethically produced clothing, food, etc. While they are big industries they can barely hold a candle to their less-ethical counterparts.
From what I see, relying on good intentions doesn't quite seem get us to where we need to go.
The cool startup thing here is gas delivery a.k.a. "the Uber of gas stations". It seems like they could add this as a service, since they need something as a reason to exist.
(this is a submarine comment, I don't want Yoshi to go out of business or I'll have to inflate my own tires again)
Even if it would succeed and a significant people would be willing to pay more, without regulation you cannot know that it is really carbon neutral instead of the billionaire owner pocketing the difference. And once you get around to regulations, a carbon tax is a much more sensible proposal.
[+] [-] anotherturn|9 years ago|reply
So in the spirit of the askhn "how would you turn around Twitter" - let's apply the same thinking to this: "how would you fix the oceans "?
There must be some practical steps that one or many of the hn audience can execute?
[+] [-] TeMPOraL|9 years ago|reply
What I'd love to see is a list of high-impact work one could use their skills to help with. Maybe some research groups would use a better software package? Maybe there's a process that could help and is not yet economically viable, but could be made such?
Let's try and list things like that.
[+] [-] NumberCruncher|9 years ago|reply
Use your bike whenever it is possible instead of your car. By the way it is also good for your health not only for the environment.
Buy products that are produced in your neighbourhood and are not shipped twice around the world.
[+] [-] andrei_says_|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MrQuincle|9 years ago|reply
+ Instead of hunting on the seas we should perform aquaculture. Establish diets that can use sea vegetables. Create methods to harvest on sea. This can reduce CO2 in the oceans and reduces the burden on land.
+ Accelerating research into reducing the CO2 footprint of our food. Lab grown meat and fish needs to be on wafer scales.
+ Create market places that reduces friction between CO2 producers and CO2 reducers. Make it easier to share solar panels or to share roofs. Make it easier to provide clean energy to Indian or Chinese households. Make it easier to find locations for wind mills. All these things can be accelerated through digital communication.
[+] [-] greglindahl|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bamie9l|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] qplex|9 years ago|reply
Try to get other people to do the same.
I find it's hard to do most of these things, and I don't really have much hope that people will change their habits.
Most people don't even realise that they live in an illusion of reality where "everything is possible, you just have try hard enough".
[+] [-] qbaqbaqba|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wolfram74|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] im3w1l|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] staticelf|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Asooka|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] agumonkey|9 years ago|reply
- society
- forest
- health
- education
- thermal insulation
- homeless
The web make you feel connected .. but to all the wrong projects. I'm going to redirect the efforts toward "physical" change from now on.
[+] [-] programmernews3|9 years ago|reply
It has naturally happened in Japan and most of the West. China is now under control as well.
We now need to limit the artificial growth of Africa by stopping food programs and allowing balance to be reached.
[+] [-] weq|9 years ago|reply
Kill 2 birds with 1 stone.
[+] [-] rbosinger|9 years ago|reply
I'm talking about things like VR and new programming languages... Obviously tech that saved the oceans would be a different story...
[+] [-] danvdragos|9 years ago|reply
[0]http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2014/07/11/what-geology-has-to-... [1]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/apr/21/ice...
[+] [-] snowwrestler|9 years ago|reply
Although global warming is often talked about in "bad for the Earth" terms, really, the Earth will be just fine. It's been through worse.
Global warming is scary because it's bad for human societies. We built our cities and farms and national boundaries in certain places based on the climate we have had. Significant shifts in sea level, precipitation, temps, etc. will cause massive costs and unrest.
[+] [-] Thiez|9 years ago|reply
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_evolution_%28Englis...
[+] [-] masklinn|9 years ago|reply
1. there were also no humans, we evolved during a relatively dry and cold period and for the most part that's what we (and our current globe-spanning civilisation) are adapted for. That's also very convenient as heat and humidity are parasite havens.
2. the second issue is rate of change, globe-spanning temperature changes generally happen on geological timescale not generational ones, and in the latter case they usually triggered massive extinctions.
Neither of these is beneficial to us as a species.
[+] [-] stinos|9 years ago|reply
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)
Granted this is just about CO2, but I wouldn't be suprised if the same principle applies to other pollution.
[+] [-] peteretep|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cpprototypes|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andrewwhartion|9 years ago|reply
Toyota Camry [0] Dual VVT-i engine gets 7.9L/100km and 183gm/km emissions. That roughly works out as 2.3kg CO2 per 1L petrol.
Therefore, a tonne of CO2 is produced for every ~430L petrol. Petrol is around AUD $1.40/L, so about AUD $600 of petrol.
Carbon credits [1] are worth about $14 euros per tonne of CO2, which is say AUD $19.
Therefore 'carbon neutral' petrol adds about AUD$20 to AUD$600 worth of fuel, or about 3-4%.
Sound about right? I could stomach that, considering the fuels price goes up and down all the time anyway...
[0] http://www.toyota.com.au/camry/features/economy-and-environm...
[1] http://www.goldstandard.org/blog-item/carbon-pricing-what-ca...
EDIT: formatting...
[+] [-] TimJRobinson|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zachcb|9 years ago|reply
Most people don't want to spend any extra money on things that they won't directly benefit from.
[+] [-] anotherturn|9 years ago|reply
From what I see, relying on good intentions doesn't quite seem get us to where we need to go.
[+] [-] astrange|9 years ago|reply
(this is a submarine comment, I don't want Yoshi to go out of business or I'll have to inflate my own tires again)
Or, well, you could buy carbon credits…
[+] [-] pilsetnieks|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nickbauman|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] calibraxis|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] randycupertino|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mirimir|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] astrodust|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] refurb|9 years ago|reply
A bit of an exaggeration, no? There have been several mass extinction events in the past and yet the world exists today.
[+] [-] pelasaco|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]